Cheerleader must compensate school that told her to clap ‘rapist‘

A teenage girl who was dropped from her high school’s cheerleading squad after refusing to chant the name of a basketball player who had sexually assaulted her must pay compensation of $45,000 (£27,300) after losing a legal challenge against the decision.

 

The United States Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear a review of the case brought by the woman, who is known only as HS. Lower courts had ruled that she was speaking for the school, rather than for herself, when serving on a cheerleading squad – meaning that she had no right to stay silent when coaches told her to applaud.

She was 16 when she said she had been raped at a house party attended by dozens of fellow students from Silsbee High School, in south-east Texas. One of her alleged assailants, a student athlete called Rakheem Bolton, was arrested, with two other young men.

In court, Bolton pleaded guilty to the misdemeanour assault of HS. He received two years of probation, community service, a fine and was required to take anger-management classes. The charge of rape was dropped, leaving him free to return to school and take up his place on the basketball team.

 

He did the wrong thing, as a youth, and got a slap on his wrist (boys will be boys, especially when in gangs), and back to life.  She did the RIGHT thing, as a young woman, and got slapped with a $45,000 fine by sticking to her right to refuse to applaud, and failing to realize that civil rights only apply if you are in a certain Venue, and don’t in others.   A hard concept to understand if you are 16 and have been raised on the mythology that the Bill of Rights means you, too, or (your daughter, too).

 

Although the Declaration of Independence talks about “UNALIENABLE” rights, it seems to me there is no end of circumstances in which these rights ARE alienated, or become unenforceable.

 

 

This is a far lesser price to pay than several Canadian women did — however in that case, the country did the right thing, and convicted:

Guilty: Muslim Family in Canada Convicted in Honor Killings

by Phyllis Chesler
PJ Media
February 2, 2012

http://www.phyllis-chesler.com/1068/canada-honor-killings-muslim-family-guilty

On Sunday, January 29, 2012, two years and seven months after the bodies of four Canadian women all from the same family were found murdered, after a ten week trial, and after fifteen hours of deliberations, a jury voted “guilty” to first degree murder for three other members of the Shafia family.

Although I myself initially hailed this as possibly a turning point in Canada in terms of the nation’s failed multicultural policy, I now wonder why the life sentence, which in Canada means 25 years without parole, was not 25 years without parole for each life coldly snuffed out.

 . . .The three Shafias were tried under Canadian law for premeditated murder and for conspiracy to commit murder; no special “honor killing” related law was needed. This is as it should be and yet, if such a special law did exist, there might have been an “enhanced penalty” which might have maximized the sentences. However, Canadian law in general is lenient. They have no death penalty and there has been no capital punishment in Canada since 1962.

 . . .Nevertheless, the case was vigorously pursued by the Canadian authorities on behalf of justice for four freedom-loving Muslim girls and women.The Shafias are a prosperous family of polygamous Afghan immigrants who fled Afghanistan in 1992, took up residence in various Arab states and in South Africa, and then came to Canada in 2007.Clearly, this was an honor killing and one that a biological mother, biological father, and biological older brother perpetrated. By definition, according to my own studies in Middle East Quarterly, the classic honor killing is that of a young daughter by her family of origin. This is not at all like Western domestic violence or even Western domestically violent femicide. Judeo-Christian families of origin in the West do not conspire to kill their young daughters because they are behaving in modern, western ways, i.e., are dressing in Western clothing, mingling with infidels, planning on higher educations, going on dates, attending parties, expecting to marry someone of their own choosing, etc.

These are all considered crimes of honor, which “dishonor” their families — and if intimidation, beatings, isolation, and stalking (all of which applied in the Shafia household) fail, daughters may then be honor killed.

Khatera Siddiqui (2006) in Kingston, Aqsa Parvez (2007) in Toronto, Amina Said and Sarah Said in Dallas (2008), Nour al-Maliki in Arizona (2009 ), and the three Shafia girls and one Shafia woman (2009) all committed such “crimes,” including refusing to wear hijab and refusing to marry a first cousin. All were murdered by their fathers or by their fathers and brothers. In two instances, their mothers lured them home

It’s almost impossible to add much more than, this is a must read, and a wake-up call.  I notice that Canada did the right thing, at least close to it — and convicted.   Here are a few more paragraphs, showing handling of this case, and similar matters, in the US:

**From Fassana Harzan article:   “Let this be a lesson to all who wish to impose patriarchal values on their daughters, sisters, and other female relatives: Canada will not tolerate such horrendous violence in the name of patriarchy, honour, or religion. “

Another word for “patriarch” is father.  Compare, “Fatherhood.gov,” “National Fatherhood Initiative,” etc.  This has become a national obsession perhaps secondary only to sports, which the young rape victim above’s wish to say “No” fell victim to — that, plus finances.  LOOK at the graphics on the NFI link (website update is fairly recent), it’s simply advertising.  “Recent initiatives” include “Join the Club”

  

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 — just a fraction.  “Connections” helps get men in prison back with their kids, which may include pro bono help in custody cases, help not available to mothers in custody cases.  “What’s your Legacy” targets African-American men and encourages them to get married (which has to be the height of hypocrisy, as formerly the same “masters” were breaking up families, as well as starting new ones with African American women, including by rape); Iron Dads -is directed to the religious community and implies that men can coach men become better fathers, which is far better than having to learn it from and with the opposite sex who helped them become fathers to start with).  If there is ANY group which does not need more patriarchal talk, it’s religion.  Then, borrowing a word from “Waiting for Superman,” a film critical of the public school education system, fathers are encouraged to get more involved in their children’s educations, too.

One look and clearly this is ALL sale — marketing  — establishing relationships and pushing brochures, conferences, toolkits, all kinds of things.

But at whose expense?  From the Department of Health and Human Services, which men and women both pay into (via taxes):

Amazingly, this comes from only two grants series.  Also amazing is that somehow, someone at HHS managed to spell the word “fatherhood” and “initiative” both correctly, which neither grant title does.  that’s what happens when you assemble a few “prominent thinkers” in one place?  Perhaps they do indeed need to sit in on their granddaughters’ spelling class: (not the first time I’ve pointed this out, but once entered, always entered, I guess).

FY	Award Number	Award Title	Budget Year of Support	Award Code	Agency	Action Issue Date	DUNS Number	Amount This Action
2006	90FB0001	NATIONAL FATERHOOD CAPACITY BUILDING INITIATIVE	1	0	ACF	09-25-2006	879885986	$ 999,534
Fiscal Year 2006 Total:								$ 999,534

FY	Award Number	Award Title	Budget Year of Support	Award Code	Agency	Action Issue Date	DUNS Number	Amount This Action
2001	90XP0023	THE RESPONSIBILE FATHERHOOD PUABLIC EDUCATION PROGRAM	1	0	ACF	04-09-2001	879885986	$ 500,000
Fiscal Year 2001 Total:								$ 500,000

And — while this amount may see quite small, only $5 million total, the influence is pervasive.  Besides, these savvy investors (of HHS funds) are training others.  I should also mention that the group got started early with a grant which does not show on this database — the first one was not in 2001, as it shows.  Nor is it only support from HHS or support from Grants that the Federal Government is distributing to this group.  I took the DUNS# above and looked at USASpending.gov (closest thing to a free look-up I know, presently):

CONTRACTS with HHS totalling $11 million by my count puts HHS sponsorship of the group at over $12 million and growing — substantially.  (I also note — which is typical — that USASpending does not record as much in grants as TAGGS — usually it’s off by around $1 million or more, as is true this time also.  You can check yourself — so which is right and which is wrong?  Is TAGGS over-reporting or Spending under-reporting?).

• Total Dollars:$11,574,644
• Transactions:1 – 9 of 9

$2+ million in 2010 for “Data Collection.”  Oh yes – taken from TANF (welfare)  And isn’t that quaint, filed under a “disused code.”:

 Transaction Number # 1

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

NFI in DOJ — Juvenile Justice Program — this is Grant #1 of 1, starting in 2008.  After all, the same tactic that worked early on, starting up NFI, can be replicated, right?  So this $626K should be noted — see purpose and scope, look carefully at PURPOSE:

Transaction Number # 1

Recipient: NATIONAL FATHERHOOD INITIATIVE 101 Lake Forest Blvd. Suite 360 , Gaithersburg, MARYLAND Reason for Modification: Program Source: 15-0405:Juvenile Justice Programs Agency: Department of Justice : Office of Justice Programs CFDA Program : 16.541 : Part E – Developing, Testing and Demonstrating Promising New Programs Description: National Fatherhood Initiative’s Project to Educate, Train, and Equip Organizations …  (View More)

Date Signed: September 17 , 2008  Obligation Amount:  $626,044

Here’s an OIG audit of some of this grant series.  While I have to emphasize this is NOT an “NFI” grant it is definitely a grant that is reaching out to fatherless teens, and has a few minor grant administration problems:

Audit Report GR-40-09-002
June 2009
Office of the Inspector General

---

TEAM FOCUS, INC. OF ALABAMA . . .. exists:

Entity ID	Entity Name	City	Type	Status
556 – 552	Team Focus, Inc.	MOBILE, AL	Domestic Non-Profit Corporation	Exists

It was incorporated in 2002 as “Camp Focus, Inc.” changing name in 2006.  Purpose of this nonprofit is “PROVIDE YOUNG MEN W/LEADERSHIP SKILLS/GUIDANCE”   Corporationwiki shows some real interesting combo of businesses with Silverstein and Crump (etc.) (click) from one street address.

Appears to be organized online for the USA with an Alabama Chapter (of about 16):

. What is Team Focus?
Team Focus is a faith based non profit organization the mentors young men, ages 10-18, who are without a father figure in their lives.

2. What are the requirements for these young men?
These young men must have no male figure living in their household, show leadership qualities and must be between the ages of 10 through 18.

3. How can I get involved?
You can serve as a volunteer or mentor to work with the young men, and you can help the organization with your financial support.

4. Where are your camps located?
We are currently located in Alabama (3), Ohio (2), Tennessee, Texas (2), Michigan, Mississippi, South Carolina, California, Neveda, Kentucky, Florida, and the District of Columbia.

5. How much does it cost the young men?
There is no cost to the young men.

Your query: ( Organization Name: team focus , State: None Chosen , Zip: None Chosen , EIN: None Chosen , Fiscal Year: None Chosen )
3 documents matched. 3 documents displayed.

ORGANIZATION NAME	STATE	YEAR	TOTAL ASSETS	FORM	PAGES	EIN
Team Focus Inc.	AL	2007	$552,136	990	25	27-0015821
Team Focus Inc.	AL	2006	$279,555	990	21	27-0015821
Team Focus Inc.	AL	2005	$439,616	990	19	27-0015821

I clicked on the 2006 return (last showing here) — which shows directors paid:  $24K, $38K, $55K and $64.7K respectively (but showing 55 hour weeks).  The sole purpose reads “run a camp for young men” — cost, $920, 808 (gov’t grant that year were $366K)

The problem with attracting faith-based operations to get fatherhood grants is sometimes their organization and simply inadequate accountability once they’re up and running.  I’m not sure what category this one comes under.   . . . .

MORE on the FUNDRAISER for “TEAM FOCUS, INC.” — meaning a team of young men, only, getting godly values in annual camps:

The 2008 Fatherhood Awards™ GalaTuesday, April 29, 2008
Grand Hyatt Washington
1000 H Street, NW
Washington, DCThe firm is a contributing sponsor at the 2008 Fatherhood Awards Gala. The National Fatherhood Initiative advocates for responsible fatherhood programs nationwide. The gala will honor Senators Bayh and Shelby who have championed these efforts.For more information, visit theFatherhood Awards Galaweb site.  (NOW at http://www.fatherhood.org/military-fatherhood-award/2008/ceremony)

NFI began with a gleam in the eye of an HHS appointee, and has since been spreading its wild oats throughout the land, fathering many more organizations.

However, it looks like there have been some immaculate conceptions, as groups that pre-dated NFI found themselves having bought into the vision, and presented as handmaids for the NFI”s service, a good part of which includes reducing child support (let’s remember that the bright idea of 1996 welfare reform also included the creation of the OCSE, of a Child Support Enforcement Component.  This then so irritated the fathers, however, moving swiftly, one proponent tacked “Access Visitation” programming on as (ostensibly) a way to help reduce welfare by reuniting fathers with “their” children (removing biological moms if necessary), and hence creating a better world.

MADONNA PLACE  in Connecticut (Remember Connecticut?  The state where Fairfield University priest continued collecting funds for The Haiti Fund,  even after the young man RUNNING its target project, “Project Pierre-Toussaint,” had been arrested for systematically molesting the young boys/men he was mentoring and saving?)  was around since 1987, it says:

The links to the left include, naturally:

• Child Support Arrearage Adjustment Program, and
• Family Court Support

An Australian organization called ChildFriendly.org

recently put out a children’s rights video titled “Children See.” It depicts parents at their worst — abusive, violent, careless, angry — as well as their children following their lead. It’s disconcerting, disturbing, startling, but it’s also an excellent reminder for even the most thoughtful parent that our children are watching us, every minute of every day.

Funding for this ‘Promoting Responsible Fatherhood’ program was provided by the U.S. Department of Health & Human Service, Administration for Children &Families, GRANT #: 90FR0031, as administered by the CT Department of Social Services.  The Department of Social Services’ programs are available to all applicants and recipients without regard to race, color, creed, sex, sexual orientation, age disabilities, learning disabilities, and national origin, ancestry or language barriers

Here’s their 2010-2011 Annual Report, showing that whatever Madonna Place WAS, what is is NOW is supported as shown in the pie charts (DSS, below, and the CT “Children’s Trust Fund” (common in many states), and distributing to various programs as shown also in pie charts, including a large part to “Fatherhood Initiative.”

In 2010-2011, according to this nice pdf, 118 fathers out of 178 came to them wanting to spend more time with their kids, I.E., ‘HELP ME WITH MY FAMILY LAW CASE (and/or dependency hearings), which I’m sure this place obliged.  In fact it helped just about, or just over 1 out of every 2 father succeed in this manner:

Face it — our society DOES value fathers more than mothers, and men more than women, the theme is universal and governmentally endorsed.  I’m reading it to you.  As such, children, who do soak up things from their elders, are subject to the same myth that fathers are actually indispensable, and mothers are not — they are taken for granted, except when they get out of line.  And while you can see the “without respect of gender” disclaimer here — what MOTHER is going to approach a FATHERHOOD group and ask them to help get contact with her children, once a fatherhood initiative of some sort has successfully removed them from her — or ordered joint custody, but Dad won’t share?  Women who have attempted to maintain even an equality sometimes end up dead, or their kids (Samaan/Fay; DeKraii/Fournier), sometimes with company.    Yet I DO know mothers who have approached access visitation centers with the word “father” in their title and asked them for help, getting none.  I also know mothers who went to battered women’s shelters, but no help once the predictable next step occurs — Dad sues for custody.  I have been a mother seeking pro bono help to either enforce child support or at least retain custody during a challenge (the father having been a serious batterer) — and it’s just not there!

All our Texas cheerleader (see top of post & title) wanted to do was NOT CHEER HER RAPIST — and she was soundly scolded, dumped from the team, and when she protested that, legally, fined $45,000.  Welcome to our world. . . . . This is how they do it in America, no matter what you were taught about the US in school.  Would she have been better off in an entirely different educational system, perhaps?  Where when it came to choosing between a sports success and a young woman’s safety and sense of fairness, the sports success was more important.  . . . . .

This is perhaps why some of us have come to understand that this is WHAT “fatherhood” programs are truly about.

Please review this one– the sustaining partners are all governmental except United Way, there are a ton of contributors (including plenty of religious ones) and yet what, really, are they doing?  Running class after class and intervening in court cases, whether dependency or family courts?

Government Grants reads close to $1 million, and foundation/corporate, about 1/10th of this.  Essentially — this IS a government program, just called a nonprofit and with some other partners.  Here are their tax returns:

“DEDICATED TO SERVICES THAT STRENGTHEN FAMILIES, PROMOTE HEALTH AND REDUCE CHILD ABUSE AND NEGLECT.”

. . . . and everyone (by now) knows that the best way to subtract abuse and neglect is to add a father . . . . . .

ORGANIZATION NAME	STATE	YEAR	TOTAL ASSETS	FORM	PAGES	EIN
Madonna House	CT	2010	$501,429	990	28	06-1205879
Madonna House	CT	2009	$485,299	990	21	06-1205879
Madonna Place	CT	2008	$477,732	990	19	06-1205879
Madonna Place Inc.	CT	2007	$558,880	990	21	06-1205879
Madonna Place Inc.	CT	2006	$482,786	990	17	06-1205879
Madonna Place Inc.	CT	2005	$519,356	990	14	06-1205879
Madonna Place Inc.	CT	2004	$451,413	990	23	06-1205879
Madonna Place Inc.	CT	2003	$429,525	990	13	06-1205879

Search Again

A dozen or so directors put in one or two hours a week, earning nothing.  Amazing, it must be kinda self-sustaining, then.

Apparntly (looking at 2009 return) they also ran a supervised (“family”) visitation center, which was closed due to lack of funding.  Item #2 on “What We Did”:

061205879

THE FATHERHOOD PROGRAM SERVED 530 INDIVIDUALS, INCLUDING 182 FATHERS AND CHILDERN.  FATHERS PARTICIPATED IN BOTH GROUP AND CASE MANAGEMENT SERVICES, ON SIGHT (“site”) AND IN THE COMMUNITY. 100% OF THE FATHERS WHO SOUGHT HELP WITH ESTABLISHING

PATERNITY ESTABLISHED IT LEGALLY WITH OUR PROGRAM’S ALMOST HALF OF THE FATHERS  HEL-P-.WHO ASKED OUR HELP IN INCREASING THE TIME THEY SPENT WITH THEIR CHILDREN WERE SUCCESSFUL. OF THE DADS WHO WORKED PART-TIME INCREASED THEIR HOURS WITH PROGRAM ASSISTANCE.

What about the mothers in these cases?  Did they go up unaware and unassisted against the government-funded legal assistance with your custody case program?  Or was some kind of deal cut with the child support agency and the court, somewhere along the line — how did this happen?  Who checks the receipts against the claims?

NOT FOR ThIS POST — but CHILDREN’s TRUSTS are in state after states, and seem to be part of the federal CAPTA — “Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act.”

 and . . . .

Organizations supporting it are REAL big on “Fatherhood” – but that must be a coincidence:

Specific Organizations Supporting S.3817

• National Network to End Domestic Violence
• Family Violence Prevention Fund  (by the end of 2010, as I recall, FVPF had a name change….)
• Association of University Centers on Disabilities
• Stop Abusive and Violent Environments  (“SAVE”) * * *
• Casa de Esperanza
• Women in Transition
• Ohio Domestic Violence Nerwo

From “SAVE” site* * *

Falsely Accused

Stop Abusive and Violent Environments
P.O. Box 1221
Rockville, MD 20849

SAVE is a 501(c)3 organization. Contributions are tax deductible.

(this group was incorporated by an Edward Bartlett in 2008):

RADAR is a name associated with groups that feel violence is a 50/50 thing, and that saying men are more violent is a real exaggeration.  A different group puts it like this:

They proclaim far and wide that women are the aggressors and the link underneath the chart leads to a psychiatry article on ‘Borderline Personality Disorder.”   Somehow, this still reminds me of Dr. Chesler’s earlier book “Women and Madness.”   Astonishingly, about 75% if the people with this BPD are women:

My question is, what pushed these people “to the edge” of their personalities, and somehow, is it possible to ever acknowledge that it might just have been violence or molestation while growing up, or within a family line?    Who diagnoses?  what’s the norm?  . . . . .     A close look at some of the symptoms shows almost immediately they parallel many with survivors of abuse, if not shell-shock, PTSD, and other situations.   What would happen if we EVER acknowledged how much violence happens with in this family unit that has been so glorified and which so much public funding goes into “strengthening,” despite the prevalence of social institutions that break it up anyhow?

ANYHOW (context being, who is behind “CAPTA” Federal act to prevent child abuse by strengthening families and engaging fathers, etc. . . .. ):

Despite the name change to SAVE, this is still the Maryland group’s pre-occupation (See April 2011 pdf)  “Unequal Justice in the Criminal Justice System”  report:

(RE:  The grant behind MADONNA PLACE fatherhood initiative, above):

Results 1 to 7 of 7 matches.
Page 1 of 1	1

Fiscal Year

Program Office

Grantee Name

Grantee Address

Award Title

Budget Year

Action Issue Date

Award Class

Award Activity Type

Award Action Type

Principal Investigator

CD

Sum of Actions

2010

OFA

CT ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES

25 SIGOURNEY STREET

PROMOTING RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD

5

09/24/2010

DISCRETIONARY

DEMONSTRATION

NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION

ANTHONY JUDKINS

1

$ 1,000,000

2009

OFA

CT ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES

25 SIGOURNEY STREET

PROMOTING RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD

3

03/26/2009

DISCRETIONARY

DEMONSTRATION

EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS

ANTHONY J JUDKINS

1

$ 0

2009

OFA

CT ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES

25 SIGOURNEY STREET

PROMOTING RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD

4

09/18/2009

DISCRETIONARY

DEMONSTRATION

NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION

ANTHONY J JUDKINS

1

$ 1,000,000

2008

ACF

CT ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES

25 SIGOURNEY STREET

PROMOTING RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD

2

07/31/2008

DISCRETIONARY

DEMONSTRATION

EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS

ANTHONY J JUDKINS

1

$ 0

2008

ACF

CT ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES

25 SIGOURNEY STREET

PROMOTING RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD

3

09/14/2008

DISCRETIONARY

DEMONSTRATION

NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION

ANTHONY J JUDKINS

1

$ 1,000,000

2007

ACF

CT ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES

25 SIGOURNEY STREET

PROMOTING RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD

2

09/10/2007

DISCRETIONARY

DEMONSTRATION

NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION

ANTHONY J JUDKINS

1

$ 1,000,000

2006

OFA

CT ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES

25 SIGOURNEY STREET

PROMOTING RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD

1

09/22/2006

DISCRETIONARY

DEMONSTRATION

NEW

ANTHONY J JUDKINS

1

$ 1,000,000

IN LOOKING UP WHO IS ANTHONY J. JUDKINS, I SEE HIS NAME IS ON A BRIEF? FROM CFFPP (search my blog, it’s a Wisconsin-based fatherhood group, although logo has changed acronym to highlight “Families” rather than “Fathers.”  Same difference, in policy):   They have made the bright observation that sexual trauma in childhood, of boys, can lead to them becoming abusers as adults.  Rather than then setting a separation policy to protect THEIR children from the same thing, it is recommended to help them process their childhood trauma within the context of fatherhood programs, and screen for it.Yet the policy is still going to be Reunification practically not matter what (or what expense), unless it’s a mother who objects to reunification, in which case punishment can be called down for the crime of “alienation.”  That’s the WESTERN way . . . . . .   Therapy . . at public expense: Here’s the excerpt, a joint study with YALE, date, July 2011 (i.e., recent) The study found that men who reported having traumatic sexual experiences in their own childhoods were 10 times more likely to be involved with child protective services as an adult and nearly 6 times more likely to have court-ordered restrictions on contact with their children. Given these results, the authors make several recommendations: 􏰀 “Observations from this study call for fatherhood programs to explore with men how their past sexually traumatic experience impacts their ability to parent and coparent.” 􏰀 “It may be in the best interest of fatherhood programs and/or clinicians to help men process their traumatic experiences, and increase their active coping strategies.” 􏰀 “…programs may consider engaging men and fathers in proven psychoeducational trainings to help them mitigate the effects of their past trauma.” {{ALL roads tend to lead to psychoeducational trainings for the poor.  It seems to be where the money is….  This should help them adjust better to being poor, and most definitely will help those producing the programs, including on their resumes.}} 􏰀 “Our findings lend additional support for Alaggia and Millington’s (2008) recommendation that sexual victimization be a part of a regular assessment used by clinicians and caseworkers who serve these men.” For more information or to obtain a copy of “Promoting Responsible Fatherhood Programming…”, access the Journal of Poverty at the link below, or contact the authors directly by email: Mission Statement The mission of the CENTER FOR FAMILY POLICY AND PRACTICE (CFFPP) is to strengthen society through the expansion of opportunities for low-income parents – mothers and fathers – to protect and support their children. CFFPP operates as a policy think tank to remove the unique barriers and negative public perceptions that affect low-income men of color. Through technical assistance, policy research and analysis, and public education and outreach, CFFPP works to support low-income families and develop public awareness of their needs. Contact Us: If you would like to share comments, questions, ideas for future briefing topics, or to sign up for our email list, please contact Nino Rodriguez, Program and Policy Specialist, at nrodriguez@cffpp.org, or visit the CFFPP website at: http://www.cffpp.org/emailupdates.php This policy briefing is made possible in part by the generous support of the Ford Foundation and Community Shares of Wisconsin. Any opinions, errors or conclusions expressed herein do not necessarily represent the views or positions of CFFPP’s funder

Mr. Judkins manages or managed DSS Strategic Planning, too.  He is the CSBG (Community Service Block Grant?) Official on ACF website

Fair’s fair — you scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours, can we sell our stuff together?

I finally found at least one project supported by this grant SERIES (JLFX-0073), run by Minnesota Teen Challenge, and aimed at reducing drug use; with this Board of Directors (including 3 Revs) but it is not religious.  The program also is for both boys and girls; however, labeled as we see, “to reach fathers effectively and promote father involvement.”

Know The Truth Prevention Program

Know the Truth is a non-religious substance abuse prevention program developed to educate high school and middle school students on addictions and the consequences of their choices and help them tackle their everyday struggles.

Every year our presenters conduct more than 900 presentations in more than 120 high schools and middle schools, and speak to more than 38,000 students.

In 2008 and 2009, 78% of teens surveyed made a commitment to not use drugs in the future after hearing our presentation.

I find this so interesting (see the year) because by this year in MY life, and thanks in good part to previous effective fatherhood interventions, the father of MY children had obtained control over them, successfully STOPPED child support current obligations, and was about to start skipping out on his drastically compromised and whittled down monthly payments (to less than 1/4 of original, which had never exceeded the minimum set for welfare to start with), and abandoned his children!   This combination of factors, applied consistently over time, helped drive me — although against my will, which I cannot say on his part — out of the workforce.  it was the season that my offspring became, through court assistance, BOTH fatherless and motherless, which is one reason I sometimes say — whatever it says on the label, understand it means EXACTLY the opposite when applied, or in practice and no jokes intended:  “Child SUpport Enforcement” means “Abating Child Support Arrears and/or terminating it for the kids.” and so forth. . . . .

This money, this $626,000, probably helped set up (I’m speculating, but is it unreasonable?) their training college:

not this one — which was already around:

Recipient Name	City	State	ZIP Code	County	DUNS Number	Sum of Awards
INST FOR RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD & FAM. REVITALIZATION	WASHINGTON	DC	20019	DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA		$ 2,549,350

(Note:  there are direct- action 482 grants (each could be one year, or multiple years) — so far — with the word “responsible fatherhood” (spelled correctly, that is) in them, per HHS, as of today.  Easy to search.

The DOJ grant would be in addition to the HHS capacity-building grant, which had awardees from 2006 through 2010 and posts for 2011 also.  What is any good cult without a Certification College, anyhow?

Through a competitive bidding process, top applicants will receive funds for the specific purpose of increasing capacity to develop their fatherhood programming, and to improve their financial sustainability by becoming more familiar with—and better qualified to receive—federal or private philanthropic support.

Some examples of fatherhood programs could include, but are not limited to, the following:

1. Parenting education programs for new and expecting fathers, teen fathers, fathers in need of general parenting skills, or fathers with special needs children
2. Programs providing marriage counseling, relationship counseling and/or divorce counseling
3. Support groups for stay-at-home and/or single fathers
4. Programs for incarcerated fathers
5. Programs providing court-mandated fathering skills training   [{BATTERERS INTERVENTION, ANYONE?  OR NOT?}}
6. Job skills training and/or job placement programs that include a fatherhood component

Awardees must agree by signing a Memorandum of Agreement to use their funds to send two staff members to participate in an intensive, weeklong “Certification College,” to be held in St. Louis, MO, or another centrally located US city, November 8-12, 2010 and led by fatherhood experts from NFI and private consultants who have past government experience. Awardees will also receive follow-up technical assistance from NFI, including phone consultations, e-mail follow-up, occasional web-based seminars and other resources. Finally, selected organizations will participate in a two-day mini-conference,to be held in St. Louis, MO, May 10-11, 2011, including assessment and evaluation that measures their improvement.

Past Capacity-Building Awardees

Overall, recipients of the Capacity-Building Initiative Award represent community-based, faith-based and other grassroots organizations-including Head Start organizations-that either have existing fatherhood programs, or are beginning new fatherhood initiatives, in their local communities. These groups are located in cities and neighborhoods across the country. Click on the links below to view a list of past awardees.

• 2010 Awardees
• 2009 Awardees
• 2008 Awardees
• 2007 Awardees

A review of the list shows how many ways one can work the word “father” (or family, parent, resource, baby, child, etc.) into something which might net a grant.  Also that abstinence-promoting groups are also welcome.   (I’d rather see a sermon on abstinence than hear one any day, and many Congressmen & not a few US President/ial candidates (I trust/hope except President Obama!), not to mention not all celibate priests, don’t seem too great at it either …)

I looked up the inestimable Ron Haskins again (he’s all over the internet), who by reputation devised the Access/Visitation earmark to welfare reform, of which he is so proud.  Being a guy perhaps / / / ??? He figures that the best way to work with people is by force — punishments and rewards, THAT’s what they need — with a round dose of being lectured at as well.  This is why we have programs where men are rewarded for sitting through psychoeducational classes on what it means to be a father with, perhaps, reduction in their child support arrears and more access to their children, whether or not it is a veritable nightmare for the mother of the children in this situation, or not.   Mothers, their problem is not staying married and too much fertility, so let’s drive them into the workforce (the theory goes, that women are poor because they just aren’t working hard enough — which many of us know to be false even when married, as well as when single parents).   They need to be separated from their kids, and the Dads need to be re-united with them.  Everyone pays for education, everyone pays for early childhood education (if not home visitations to prevent child abuse and neglect) and everyone also should pay for diversion from welfare which are intended to push marriage and abstinence.

They don’t have the program quite right yet (which is why they keep testing and refining and evaluation — which I’ll show in a moment, on a tax return) — BUT give them another decade or so, and they promise they will.

I remember being SHOCKED when I got solid information that my own government (who’d just failed to stop a child-stealing, stalking, to serve a seek-work order on my very much in arrears husband (which I spent hours attempting to get an honest explanation for — and never did), how public law enforcement opted not to enforce what I considered a good enough law (called a court order // custody), and so on.

I specifically remember recognizing that my government was trying a system of CARROTS and STICKS which I wouldn’t try on kids, and I’ve been a teacher.  They are not dogs.   Yet apparently adult human beings are.   Trust a GUY to think that one up and even be proud of it (I was very insulted.  No one carrotted and sticked me to be a decent mother, to seek and maintain employment, and I sure as hell didn’t need to be bribed into not hitting my children — it’s not on the map to do that.  Or to loving and caring about their welfare.    what an insult!  I know exactly what it feels like to be treated like this — and it was part of the abuse within my marriage, which I resisted, and with any one else who wishes no restraints on THEIR behavior, but a specialized and peculiar system of punishments and rewards on what is to be a human relationship! !!!    I can see within an employment relationship — you don’t show up, you don’t perform, you don’t retain the job.   But within human relationships    ? ? ? ?

LISTEN TO RON HASKINS TALKING ABOUT HOW WELFARE REFORM WAS SUCH A SUCCESS:

IN THE SAME PUBLICATION, A WOMAN AUTHOR BEGS TO DIFFER, and TALKS ABOUT JUSTICE & POLITICAL ACCESS, NOT MANIPULATIONS

<> <> <> <> <> <> <>

Speaking of work, what’s Mr. Haskins’ line of work, besides writing, and sitting on boards of large, government-funded nonprofits for this, and that dreaming up who to manage next, and getting paid for it?

Ron Haskins
Senior Fellow, Economic Studies
Co-Director, Center on Children and Families
Brookings Institution

This was found at “MDRC” which is a major government contractor, although corporately it’s a multi-million$$ Delaware Nonprofit.  (search this blog, I’ve posted on it).   Mr. Haskins, one of its directors, is paid $2,500/year (in 2007) to attend a board meeting and/or meeting of its committees, along with other writers on the same “fatherhood” topics, such as Isabel Sawhill, Rebecca Blank, and several more, plus (as a Director) from what the (2007) tax returns says reasonable reimbursement for expenses.

BROOKINGS is a Think Tank (see my post on Alec, bottom section on conservative Think Tanks) which prides itself on driving national and international policy, and seeks to.  It is also a nonprofit:

The Brookings Institution is a nonprofit public policy organization based in Washington, DC. Our mission is to conduct high-quality, independent research and, based on that research, to provide innovative, practical recommendations that advance three broad goals:

• Strengthen American democracy;
• Foster the economic and social welfare, security and opportunity of all Americans and
• Secure a more open, safe, prosperous and cooperative international system.

Brookings is proud to be consistently ranked as the most influential, most quoted and most trusted think tank.

Brookings has a vision for the world, and is going about establishing it, while functioning as a nonprofit.  This change-the world purpose is why it is tax-exempt, presumably.   It “humbly” expects to be heard because it houses the experts, including experts like this one that believe a “carrots and sticks” approach is needed for mothers on welfare, not to mention the fathers, too.  Surely if the (moralizing, rationalizing the breakdown of individual civil rights for its collective vision of the US) formula is adjusted, some day, it will work.:

      http://www.brookings.edu/about/reputation.aspx

Perhaps all of us should look closer at this long-standing institution which started shortly around the time certain “prominent thinkers” (see NFI) came up with and sold the concept of the Federal Reserve Board (see managed Boom/Bust cycle, etc.) and the Income Tax.  Obviously this would be collecting funds which then could be used to advantage to shape policy.   Fast-forward to 1990s, in Brookings Own Words:

Yes they did.   And let’s make it ABSOLUTELY CLEAR, as parents continue to discover and report the devastating influence of being forced (extorted) into sitting through pedagogical classes on THEIR responsibilities, watch the dismantling of the Federal/State differences through nationalized control of their lives, not to mention the breakdown of separation of powers between Legislative, Executive and Judicial branches in favor of “out-come-based theory,” as I continue to research, with others, the disgraceful track record of HHS marriage/fatherhood grantees, as we watch (I blog) how HHS appointees with Bush-era philosophies skip from state to state, re-organize the HHS departments (whatever the local name for it; for example, in Kansas it was SRS, in Washington State, something different) to favor their policies (and experts), and/or form religious enclaves in Governor’s Offices, then fly in lecturers at state expense to tell women to MARRY their way out of poverty, etc. ,etc. etc. — and before this post is out I’m going to excerpt the white house’s proposed 2012 budget for “Promoting Fatherhood” —  — —

Let me make it clear how very much of this can be tied to this (white male, Below the Bible-belt?-based) academic who loves to talk about women, poor people, immigrants and urban ethnic groups with a perspective of WHAT TO DO WITH & TO THEM, and HOW TO THINK ABOUT THEM, and HOW TO TEST VARIOUS POLICIES ON THEM;  how to prod them into wanting to work through carrots and sticks — taken from probably their low-wages in the form of income tax, which will not even pay national debt, which these policies are exacerbating.

This cannot start early enough for the practitioners.  In 2005, HHS Secretary Tommy Thompson (see Wisconsin) announces his Head Start Experts Panel, including Ron Haskins (found by googling):

ACF Messenger Archive: HHS ANNOUNCES HEAD START ADVISORY PANEL APPOINTMENTS

Question

ACF Messenger
Tuesday, January 25, 2005

HHS ANNOUNCES HEAD START ADVISORY PANEL APPOINTMENTS
Members to review national Head Start reporting system

HHS Secretary Tommy G. Thompson today announced the appointment of 10 members to an independent panel of experts on child development to assess the progress in developing and implementing the Head Start National Reporting System (NRS).

“These experts on child development will offer their guidance and perspective so we may improve early learning for our nation’s children,” Secretary Thompson said. “Their contributions will move us toward President Bush’s goal of leaving no child behind.”

In conjunction with an existing technical work group that helped develop the NRS, the panel will find ways to integrate the NRS into a broader assessment of early childhood learning found in the Family and Child Evaluation Survey, the National Impact Study, Head Start’s Performance Based Outcome System as well as the on-going evaluation of the Early Head Start program.

“Early childhood education is important to President Bush because it helps children reach their potential,” said Dr. Wade F. Horn, HHS’ assistant secretary for children and families. “This panel will help ensure that the goals of the Head Start program are being met and children are better prepared to learn when they enter school.”

_ _ _ _    _ _ _ _   _ _ _ _   _ _ _ _ _  PLEASE REVIEW THE FIELDS THE EXPERTS ARE IN; AND HOW MANY OF THESE ARE ACTUAL PARENTS?

The members appointed today to the panel are:

• Susan H. Landry (who will serve as chairman). Dr. Landry is a developmental psychologist and a professor in the department of pediatrics at the University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston.
• Donald B. Bailey. Dr. Landry is the principal investigator of the Carolina Fragile X Project, director of the Frank Porter Graham Child Development Institute and on the faculty at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill.
• Thomas D. Cook. Dr. Cook is a professor of sociology, psychology, education and social policy at Northwestern University.
• Victoria R. Fu. D. Fu is a professor of human development at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University and serves as a pedagogical consultant at the Child Development Laboratory School.
• Vera Guitierrez Clellen. Dr. Clellen is a professor and coordinator of the bilingual certificate program in the School of Speech, Language and Hearing Sciences at San Diego State University.
• Ronald T. Haskins. Dr. Haskins is a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and a senior consultant at the Annie E. Casey Foundation.
• Christopher J. Lonigan. Dr. Lonigan is an associate professor of psychology and the director of the Center for Reading Research at Florida State University.
• Donald A. Rock. Dr. Rock is a senior associate in the research and development division at Educational Testing Service in Princ[e]ton.
• Prentice Starkey. Dr. Starkey is an associate professor at the University of California at Berkeley’s graduate school of education.
• Dorothy Strickland. Dr. Strickland is a professor of reading at Rutgers University’s graduate school of education.

ALSO NOTE, Haskins was formerly at HHS, right?   Let’s also note the participation of Wade Horn, above (one of original founders of National Fatherhood Initiative, see this blog, or almost anywhere else. ).  Annie E. Casey’s funding of similar programs (fatherhood, marriage, etc.) probably cannot be plumbed — its influence is almost everywhere.   I’m sure it’s helpful to be a senior consultant on Annie E. Casey, a hotshot at Brookings, and someone with significant (not run by the voters prior to passage) portion of welfare reform, in getting on this panel.

Having helped write welfare law, Haskins now gets press and presumably paid, to evaluate it, with another of his co-directors on MDRC, here (link is from an HHS/ACF site):

2001:

Blank, Rebecca, and Lucie Schmidt. 2001. “Work, Wages and Welfare.” In The New World of Welfare, edited by Rebecca Blank and Ronald Haskins (70–102). Washington DC: Brookings Institution Press.

Ron Haskins is an expert on education, social policy, and poverty. He currently co-directs the Center on Children and Families at the Brookings Institution. He was previously the staff director of the House Ways and Means Subcommittee on Human Resources where he was instrumental in crafting the 1996 welfare reform legislation, and he served as the senior advisor for welfare policy to President George W. Bush.

David Ellwood is a labor economist who specializes in family change, low pay and unemployment. He is currently the Scott M. Black Professor of Political Economy, and Dean of the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard. He was previously the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) where he served as co-chair of President Clinton’s Working Group on Welfare Reform, Family Support and Independence.

The “Center for Children and Families” (codirected by Haskins & Sawhill) was launched in September 2005, it says:

The Brookings Institution today launched its new Center on Children and Families to conduct research and outreach that will improve understanding of the reasons for poverty, especially among working families, as well as the potential of various policies to improve the life chances of poor children. The center is directed by Isabel Sawhill, Brookings’ vice president and director of the Economic Studies Program, and Ron Haskins, a senior fellow at Brookings.

“Because of the rising importance of child and family policy issues at Brookings, the time seemed right to elevate the child and family portfolio to the status of a Brookings center,” said Strobe Talbott, president of the Brookings Institution. “The fourth year in a row of rising child poverty rates and the tragedy of Hurricane Katrina remind us that the working poor face continuing challenges. Belle and Ron are two of the great thinkers on these issues, and we are lucky to have the benefit of their expertise.”

“Too many American children and their families live in poverty,” Sawhill said. “With this center, we intend to address what types of policies might improve their lives and their children’s futures.”

The new Center replaces the Welfare Reform & Beyond initiative at Brookings, which began in 2001. Haskins, who was a key player in crafting the 1996 federal welfare legislation, said, “As we build on the progress of welfare reform, other issues that affect poor and low-income working families have become increasingly important—including early education, the Earned Income Tax Credit and other forms of income supplements, transportation, asset accumulation, and job advancement and social mobility.

AS one of the key crafters or welfare reform policy, Mr. Haskins will naturally be (and historically has been) less then open to the concept that it was a poor idea, and it is now one of the CAUSES of increasing child poverty — I’ll vouch for MY family– through what one of its KEY provisions has done to dismantle justice and individual rights to due process, habeas corpus, and to not be subject to extortion based on unwritten psychological norms in the custody venue.  We have identified consistently fraud, overbilling double-billing and at times kickbacks (to my understanding of the johnnypumphandle.com assessment of supervised visitation situation) within this realm, which any reasonable parent is going to fight.  We have identified that the family “reunification” policy based on family social science theory dating from a world we no longer exist in, has resulted in family wipeouts, i.e., poor people and wealthy alike (the family law venue affects ALL custody casees with a dispute (as I understand it), NOT just poor families) are literally being murdered over this issue, which is a KEY indicator it’s tied to a personal religion held by some in power.  Religion often gets people killed, and is not remorseful about it when they are, either.

It should be self-evident — but isn’t — that a person cannot be a neutral evaluator of his own work; that no poor person could POSSIBLY keep up with all the demonstrations and evaluations being inflicted on them, for discussion in ivory tower locations (and publications — read on).     It should also be evident, but naturally isn’t, that poor people are NOT on this earth to prop up the professions of experts like this, and very well may have a better idea how to reduce or eradicate their poverty than their “masters” and overseers — which these groups have, literally become.

Read just a little more, from the same source (before I close out my about 15,000 word post, here!):

 ***WHICH public?  Public being run the gauntlet of the programs?  I have been through some of these systems, I pay attention to detail, and I have never seen Brookings Institution advertised in any family court material, not to mention, neither did any expose of the AFCC show up.  I had to ferret out the history of family court and who some of these players were on my own time, not being paid for this . . . as did almost anyone who has valid information on “what happened”?   What happened is some of these individuals, and sorry — I DO point the finger at former President Bush’s regime (2001-2008), and prior Republican pushes, such as Contract with America, not to mention their dubious alliances with the Heritage foundation, Weyrich, Coors, etc. …

**I have two suggestions for this:  A congress and house of Reps that actually represent the gender balance in the US, which they currently bear ZERO resemblance to.  This would produce better ideas, as at some level, women DO think differently.   When we become less of “second class citizens” throughout society, I suspect that this would reduce the need of women who have obtained situations of power to continue to sell out their “sisters” in many matters.   Roughly, translated, this would mean passing the ERA.

I suspect that with women at least HALF in charge of this country, other women would have someone they felt they could talk to about power imbalances in local politics, economics, and governance (including in the courts).    Moreover, face it — we probably would start fewer wars, which just might help at least fewer military children grow up in single-parent households.  Another thing is stop idolizing marriage — look to your own, and keep your eyes, ears, and fingers out of ours!   Except when there has been crime — which brings me to recommendation # (?) — at this point, “domestic violence” terminology has been made useless through the VAWA, NCADV, FVPF etc. sellouts — drop the term, and include assault and battery and find terms for similar oppression of women within marriage — for example, financial pimping, refusing to support, and threatening on daily basis (this would have to go two ways).   Then more women –including women like myself — might have actually stayed married.  

Most women I know that left violent, abusive, and nightmare marriages (or relationships) would have stayed, absence the violence and abuse.  Some that did leave such marriages, were later murdered for doing so; others paid long, drawn-out penalties in life, the equivalent of torture, or end up immediately (or later) homeless, and having lost contact with the children they formerly invested their lives in — only to learn, belatedly, that our US has determined (thanks to guys like Haskins and friends) that it’s best for the US to “invest” in coaching men to emotionally invest in their own offspring, whether or not they showed inclination to do this formerly when they weren’t in control.    Handle the assault, battery, stealing the fruits of our labor (including childbirth, but not limited to it) and exploitation of women, overall — and more of us might be inclined to stay with our mates.

Also, remove tax perks for ALL religious organizations — they have abused privileges for too long, and at least one religion bears no true allegiance to the US Constitution, despite having some Supreme Court Justices, some Governors, some state attorney generals, and some former legislators (i.e., Santorum) who subscribe to them.  Roman Catholics who are serious about their religion and are in high-ranking positions may –and many are — be wonderful and ethical individuals — but they WILL be pressured by their church, whose head is in Rome, Italy, not Washington, D.C. (and not embodied in the US Constitution) — to conform and push for policies it approves of.   (see “Opus Dei in the United States” (date, 1995).

FROM:

The specific purpose of this corporation is to provide moral, intellectual, and cultural formation consistent with traditional Judeo-Christian principles and in cooperation-with the -Prelatlure of the Holy Cross and Opus Dei, an institution of the Catholic Church.

III

The name and address in the State of California of this corporation’s initial agent for service of process is:

Michael A. Coan 765 14th Avenue San Francisco, CA 94118

This becomes interesting (I note from a tax return that money comes from a “donor advised fund.)  A “Michael A. Coan” is Executive Director (per site) of “The Woodlawn Foundation, Inc.” in Chicago, which FAQs say:

The Woodlawn Foundation, Inc. is a nonprofit corporation that receives donations and makes grants to other nonprofit organizations that receive pastoral care from Opus Dei.

At the present time, Woodlawn provides grants to approximately 40 to 50 nonprofit corporations each year.

The first center of Opus Dei in the United States, opened in Chicago in 1949, was called “Woodlawn Residence.” Woodlawn Foundation takes its name and its inspiration from the pioneering apostolic spirit of that first center.

Tax-exempt.  Filed originally in 1979, name change in 1991. Tried to register as a private foundation, but the IRS informed it No, you’re a 501(c)3.

WOODLAWN FOUNDATION, INC. 524 NORTH AVENUE, STE. 203 NEW ROCHELLE, NEW YORK, 10801
Registered Agent
NONE

Total Assets: $31,650,748
Total Giving: $13,573,277
EIN  133055729

(in other words, it’s filing, looks like).

FROM “OPUS DEI AWARENESS NETWORK, Inc.” — it targets minors, particularly boys, and instructs them not to tell their parents:

After the oblation {{one of the series of increasing commitments recruits can make}}, numeraries are eligible to attend

the “center of studies,” [LIKE TILDEN in L.A.??]  an intense two years

devoted to studying Opus Dei life, Latin, church history, Spanish, and the history of the Founder,

Josemaria Escriva. In the United States, there are two Opus Dei “centers of study”; Riverside, for

male numeraries, located in New York City, and Brimfield, for female numeraries, located in

Newton, Massachusetts, a suburb of Boston. In addition to their studies, women numeraries learn

how to meticulously do laundry, dress, clean houses, and other domestic duties. Students at the

center of studies generally are full-time students or work full-time; the schedule can be quite

demanding. I entered the Brimfield center of studies in August 1989 while attending my last year at

Boston College.

Opus Dei allows children as young as 14 years old to make an initial commitment to Opus Dei. At

14-112, a child can become a “candidate” and begins to live according to ”the spirit of Opus Dei.” At

16-112, the minor can “whistle,” committing his or her life to Opus Dei. By 18 years old, the

numerary makes “the oblation,” and at 23 years old, ”the fidelity.” When a minor joins in this

fashion, Opus Dei spokespersons often state that the minor is not a member until age 23, when he or

she makes “the fidelity.”

AND, this lists (apparently as of about 10 years ago) foundations throughout the US and internationally that support the group, stating how it targets prestigious universities.  I was amazed to see how many are in California, including the Tilden Center, above:

It’d be an interesting task to check out all the nonprofits, and how many are paying taxes.

It does indeed appear that there are some serious connections between US Government (including Opus Dei affiliated), and the Bush Regime.  This article, which mentions The Woodlawn Foundation (that I just found today), says that the same organization holds many shares in “AES” possibly the worlds largest energy provider (see article).  I’d like to confirm (validate/invalidate) that, as it’s clear that the millions showing on The Woodlawn’s tax returns do not look like “major player” funding — yet it’s true, they are targeting the young and impressionable at the nation’s elite universities, appear to have a connection with some of the U.S. Supreme Court (who are answerable to WHOM?), and this article shows (doesn’t just say), The Pentagon.  I ask us to consider:

OPUS DEI: THE VATICAN-PENTAGON CONNECTION

by Frank Morales, The Shadow  (frame of this website is titled “World War4,” for a flavor….) (article seems to be dated 2009)

. . . . .Political Involvements are Authoritarian and bloody, and frequently involve the word “coup”:

It was in 1928 Spain that Catholic priest José María Escriva de Balaguer founded the Opus Dei organization. As spiritual advisor to General Francisco Franco, Balaguer chose and trained the elite members of the dictatorship the general established after the Spanish Civil War in 1939, placing him and his Opus Dei at the center of authoritarian power.

Later, Balaguer was sent to the Vatican, and from there he worked to spread the influence of Opus Dei—especially to Latin America, where it sought to carry out its ongoing campaign to tame those Liberation Theology priests, condemned for appreciating Marxist analyses and opposing right-wing military dictatorships.

Balaguer, who was fast-tracked into sainthood in 2002, concocted a series of axioms for a radically right-wing, anti-women lay movement {{there seems to be no debate over that issue; it’s true!}}  which has over the years aligned itself with some of the most brutal dictatorships in modern times, including that of Augusto Pinochet’s Chile in the 1970s. Most recently, it supported the 2002 aborted coup in Venezuela. While exceedingly sophisticated in its political and business practice, Opus Dei is profoundly anti-modern in its ideology. Half of Franco’s cabinet, back in the dark ages of World War II, were members of Opus Dei.

These were also formative years for Josef Ratzinger—the future Pope Benedict.

“

In 1982, the Opus Dei organization became a personal prelature of the Vatican—that is, a separate church entity beholden only to the Pope. From that moment on, Opus Dei members escaped the authority of the bishops in the territories in which they reside. Consequently, they function as a sort of instrument of Vatican social control—bringing to mind another Vatican body that ruled with religious terror in the Spain of the 16th Century before imposing and exporting its fanaticism to the universal Church: the Inquisition.

Although Opus Dei is a part of the church’s structure, it’s not like traditional dioceses, which are defined geographically, but instead by its “worldwide purpose”— to dominate the church and selected governments while promoting extremist policies. With roughly 88,000 members worldwide, including about 2,000 priests, the organization spans some 61 countries, including roughly 3,000 members in the United States.

Estimated to hold assets of about $3 billion, the free-floating personal prelature, which purports to do “the work of God” (“Opus Dei” translated), is beholden to no one but the Pope, whose personal spokesman, Cardinal Joaquin Navarro-Valls, is also an Opus Dei member. Appointing its own priests and bishops to rule over the lay membership, it runs 15 universities, seven hospitals, 11 business schools and a great number of primary, secondary and technical schools, functioning as an underground force for political reaction within the Catholic church.

The organization’s membership includes elite elements who wield influence at the highest levels of government, the Vatican, and the Vatican Bank. The individuals that Opus Dei chooses to recruit for membership are the cream of American, European and Latin American society. They include owners of big multinational companies, the press and finance institutions, as well as figures at the highest levels of the world’s most powerful governments. US Supreme Court justices Antonin Scalia and Samuel A. Scalia have rumored links to Opus Dei, as do Sen. Sam Brownback and former Rep. Rick Santorum.

{{DO I HAVE YOUR ATTENTION YET???}}

One current Opus Dei member worth noting is Joseph E Schmitz. A former Pentagon inspector general, he became chief of operations for Blackwater Worldwide, the private security firm, back in 2005. While at the Pentagon, he’d been tasked with the job of overseeing all war contracts in Iraq and Afghanistan.

“

This article concludes, after confirming it’s targeting the cream of American students . . . .

To target our own nation’s brightest students, Opus Dei runs off-campus housing and centers around Harvard University in Cambridge, Mass.; Brown University in Providence, RI; Princeton University in New Jersey; and numerous other elite universities and business schools. Situated out front of these institutions, along with military recruiters, they troll for the young and impressionable.

In conclusion, the cozy relationship between the Woodlawn Foundation, financiers of Opus Dei, and the AES Corp/Carlyle Group signal a tangible connection between the machinations of the Vatican and the Pentagon, and US intelligence intrigues such as the coup attempt in Venezuela. This marriage, surely made in hell, is not surprising when we consider the ideological requirements of a so-called “war on terror” which trumpets an Islamic “axis of evil”—a throwback to the days of the bloody Crusades. Exposing these connections helps to undermine the deeply reactionary basis for the war-making.

Let me compare the statement about a “personal prelature” (not geographical) answerable to the pope.    There seems to be no neutral ground re: this group — either you quote from  devotee, or you quote from a person extremely disturbed by its existence.  This is from the former:

The idea of the juridical structure known as the personal prelature was introduced by the Second Vatican Council. The Council decree Presbyterorum Ordinis (7 December 1965) stated that, among other institutions, “special dioceses or personal prelatures” could be established “to carry out special pastoral tasks in different regions or among any race in any part of the world”

From “OpusDei.org” (note:  The Woodlawn Foundation, Inc.” linked to this site)

November 25, 2007

A personal prelature is made up of a particular group of faithful and is structured in a hierarchical manner, with a prelate who is its head and source of unity and with priests and deacons who assist him. Hence it is a part of the Catholic Church. The specific function of personal prelatures is to foster Christian life and the Church’s evangelizing mission in a way that complements the dioceses, to which the faithful who form part of a personal prelature continue to belong.

Some of the Protestant churches or “meta-churches” have copied this idea; they utilize the web, etc.

Trolling for more members, it seems the Pope in 2009 offers the Anglicans (See King Henry the VIII, break with Rome, formation of anglican church, etc., etc. — in other words, see the history of England) a “personal prelature” welcome home — similar to Opus Dei — if they want back in.  Come back to Papa. . . .

The Pope is preparing to offer the Traditonal Anglican Communion, a group of half a million dissident Anglicans, its own personal prelature by Rome, according to reports this morning.

“History may be in the making”, reports The Record. “It appears Rome is on the brink of welcoming close to half a million members of the Traditional Anglican Communion into membership of the Roman Catholic Church. Such a move would be the most historic development in Anglican-Catholic relations in the last 500 years. But it may also be a prelude to a much greater influx of Anglicans waiting on the sidelines, pushed too far by the controversy surrounding the consecration of practising homosexual bishops, women clergy and a host of other issues.”

Note, that women clergy is one issue that pushes them over the edge.  Homsexuality and equal treatment of women are so often linked together by — it seems, everyone.  I see them as two different issues, however, any women wishing some real help, should probably approach groups promoting gay rights and/or atheists — which is a better place to find it, particularly after a generation or two of clergy or clergy-endorsed abuse based on their gender. ….

In the piece Mr. Thompson quotes, women priests is ranked of higher priority (problem) than homosexual priests, as follows:

The Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has decided to recommend the Traditional Anglican Communion be accorded a personal prelature akin to Opus Dei, if talks between the TAC and the Vatican aimed at unity succeed, it is understood.

The TAC is a growing global community of approximately 400,000 members that took the historic step in 2007 of seeking full corporate and sacramental communion with the Catholic Church – a move that, if fulfilled, will be the biggest development in Catholic-Anglican relations since the English Reformation under King Henry VIII.

TAC members split from the Canterbury-based Anglican Communion headed by Archbishop Rowan Williams over issues such as its ordination of women priests and episcopal consecrations of women and practising homosexuals.

The Bible is much clearer on the matter of homosexuality than it is  — contrary to PR — on women teaching, preaching, or even functioning as an apostle.   See Galatians 3:28, I don’t think it could be MUCH clearer, do you?  Also, we see there was a woman judge, Deborah.   “Deborah (Hebrew: דְבוֹרָה, Modern Dvora Tiberian Dəḇôrā ; “Bee“, Arabic: دیبا Diba‎) was a prophetess of the God of the Israelites, the fourth Judge of pre-monarchic Israel, counselor, warrior, and the wife of Lapidothaccording to the Book of Judges chapters 4 and 5.The only female judge mentioned in the Bible, Deborah led a successful counterattack against the forces ofJabin king of Canaan and his military commander Sisera, the narrative is recounted in chapter 4.

The fact that the sky must be falling if women are walking in their “callings” is a beast of a different color than we see even in The Book. ….  This “beast” as I continue to see it is an amalgam of church and state based on divvying up the power between them (or, an uneasy balance) and seeking a kingdom IN this world, and all its riches  — pretty much the thing that the gospels declare Jesus was tempted in the wilderness with, and resisted, before he was allowed to start his ministry.   “Thou shalt not covet” pretty much sums it up . . . ..

Back to the situation of the returning TAC to the bosom of their father, like the Prodigal Son, the commentary on Opus Dei being the first such “prelature” in history is revealing:

Opus Dei was the first organisation in the Catholic Church to be recognised as a personal prelature, a new juridical form in the life of the Church. A personal prelature is something like a global diocese without boundaries, headed by its own bishop and with its own membership and clergy.

Because no such juridical form of life in the Church had existed before, the development and recognition of a personal prelature took Opus Dei and Church officials decades to achieve.

Same Opus Dei of the Franco regime.  Its patience has been rewarded, obviously.

From Talk2Action:

If we are to understand what is at the heart of the Catholic Right’s agenda, then we must understand Carlism, one of the preeminent political philosophy in Spain from the 1830s through the reign of Franco’s regime.What is Carlism?

Carlism is a political philosophy originally developed to help reestablish the Bourbon monarchy in Spain. First emerging as political force in the 1830s, it was primarily a reaction to the increasingly progressive rules of Charles III (1759-1788) and Charles IV (1788-1808), notably the latter’s pressure on the Church to sell its property for government revenue. Similar events continued to created tension between the monarchy and the Church.As Spain became less theocratic forces such as the Carlists, among others, engaged sometime violent struggles to impose a Bourbon monarchy that would bind the church and state as one. Between the 1830s and the Spanish Civil, five separate Carlists made claims to the Spanish throne (the Carlist label is derived from followers of Don Carlos, son of Carlos IV who initially challenged the non-salic ascendancy of Isabella II to the Spanish throne in 1833). Its efforts cumulated in the fascist-instigated Civil War lasting from 1936 through 1939.While there are variations of this political philosophy two of its common hallmarks should stand out to those who are concerned about theocratic trends in the world. First, it sees ultra-orthodox Catholicism as the cornerstone of the state. Secondly, sovereignty is vested not with the people, but with a monarch, who in turn is answerable only to the Catholic Church.  Whether it be full-blown Carlists or those whose political vision is only influenced by it, these are the two commonly held themes that appear in their various pronouncements.

Obviously, this poses a problem.  Being NOT a historian, I didn’t know what “non-salic” meant.  Looking the term up, it basically meant NOT insisting that  no inheritance can pass to females.  Starting to sound familiar?   It’s impossible to underestimate the influence on history, but seems to have been a medieval creation to prevent the English from taking over the French.   Forgive my ignorance, but here’s a less than ignorant link relating this to the time of Shakespeare and King Henry VIII:

The Salic Law

With respect to the legal aspects, the major obstacle to Henry’s accession— the Salic Law — is shown to have been misunderstood. The Salic Law prohibits any accession to the throne of France through the female. Like his ancestor, Edward III, Henry bases his claim to the French crown on descent through the female. The Archbishop proves that the law barring Henry’s access to the throne does not apply, as it initially did not refer to France but to a county in Germany called Meissen. The line of arguments is tiresome to follow and is taken over almost verbatim from Holinshed.

The Salic Law was, indeed, an invention of the early 14^th century designed to block the accession of the English to the throne, though in the 16^th century French jurists considered it to be coeval with the French monarchy. That it was but a mere medieval concoction was set forth in Robber Dallington’s The View of France, a work written before Shakespeare’s play yet published later in 1604 . At the time the play was performed, Shakespeare’s audience might have been quite familiar with the objections to the law but they were just as aware of the difficulties around the succession through the female.

Canterbury is quoting the Bible to authorize his position on the right of the daughter to accede to the throne:

For in the Book of Numbers is it writ,

When the man dies, let the inheritance

Descend unto the daughter (1.2.98-100)

Shakespeare’s audience, however, knew that this position had been highly controversial. Henry VIII had called the law of primogeniture in question by supplementing it with a will, in which he disqualified his daughters, Mary and Elizabeth, and had laid down that his son should succeed him and then his sister’s children, the line of Mary Queen of Scots. His was changed by Parliament, thereby questioning and weakening the validity of the law of succession once again.

{**sounds like the King kind of cooked his own goose in that matter…}

The Salic Law became an issue of public concern in the 1570s when Elizabeth dallied with the thought of marrying the Duke of d’Alencon. D’Alencon’s position was similar to Henry V’s: his future French relatives would be perfectly entitled to claim the throne of England, if succession through the female line was accepted. At the same time Elizabeth’s children, if she bore any, would not be allowed to inherit the throne of France because of the Salic Law

(endquote).

It’s about wars between countries and monarchs;  women, as it happens (and men) are the collateral between such things.

SO – – however, prejudice runs VERY deep, with religion, and NOW (in THIS century), the TAC (Traditional Anglican Communion) cant stand the progressive heat and wants to beat a hasty retreat to Rome without moving there; hence, a ‘prelature” would be really handy. How do the TAC feel about shari’a law?  Is it acceptable within the realm?  Because if not, then their rationale for joining back to Rome, it seems, falls apart.  Shari’a is just exceptionally worse — far worse (at least now) — than anti-feminist, fear-based, woman-hating extreme right religion, into which women, including wives and mothers etc., can definitely be indoctrinated, to keep silence on the abuse by clergy or fathers, sons, brothers (or aunts & sisters & cousins) of their own.  Basically, it’s about collective silence based on collective intimidating authority.

The Salic Law: 6th – 20th century AD

The laws of the Salii, the dominant tribe among the Franks, are written down for Clovis in the early 6th century. They include a law stating that daughters cannot inherit land. This law would have been long ago forgotten by all except experts in Frankish or legal history, if it had not been treated as a precedent by French jurists on a quite different issue – whether women may succeed to the throne. This becomes topical in France, twice in rapid succession, in the early 14th century.  . . .

This law was pulled out for a specific power-related purpose, like many pull the Bible out for the same purpose, including verses out of context, and which they otherwise would have no dealing with (see PERSONHOOD Ohio).

COMPARISON OF CREATING THE PRELATURE TO CREATING THE FAITH-BASED OFFICES AND NEW GOVERNMENT STRUCTURES // BUSH:

6/14/2008 CNA (Catholic News Agency, founded 2004) On Bush/Pope dialogues:   “English paper reports that President George Bush may be considering Catholicism”  — written from the Vatican, where our former present was at this time.

True, but I suspect that what Bush loved about Catholicism is its incredible worldwide power . . . . . and positioning itself above national laws….

Which indicates concern about the Oath of Office he took, a concern one doesn’t seem to see GWB exhibiting much of — the first two Executive Orders signed established a religious office in the White House, to say the least (2001).

Here we go again — this time from 2004, and election politics:

 When George W Bush’s plane touched down in Pennsylvania early in the election campaign, a Catholic priest was there to greet him and share a silent prayer on the tarmac. For all Bush’s religiosity, the reason was a very earthly one. Pennsylvania has 12 million Catholics, more than any other US state. And in each of the past eight presidential elections, the winner of the Catholic vote has also won the popular vote. Moreover, John Kerry is the first practising Catholic to run for president since 1960, when Jack Kennedy won 80 per cent of the Catholic vote.

…

YEP — we can see from their tax returns who those groups are helping, in reality . . . . . .

A libertarian on “Ron Paul’s Potential Catholic Problem”  (speaking of, who is the next leader of the nation that is the leader of the free world (not including its debt and overseas terroristic campaigns, and abominable record on protecting even its own female citizens — except the “pre-born” apparently are on the map for future protection . . . . . “

Ron Paul’s Potential Catholic Problem (published on “lewrockwell.com,” by Christopher Manion, 11/2/2011):

Libertarians are going to support Ron Paul, he’s there man.  Funny, no mention of Santorum’s extreme-right proximity to Opus Dei here . . . .

Back to this Opus Dei Thing:   Bishop Finn of Kansas City — 2004:

More here shows his allegiance to the (sect) – though as we explained above, the whole deal with Opus Dei is one can be a member of this, while still functioning in one’s diocese.  Obviously, for priests, this can be tricky, so here’s how he worked it out:

(BEGIN QUOTE)

Bishop Finn said he began attending monthly “days of recollection” that Opus Dei was conducting for archdiocesan priests in St. Louis, and began receiving spiritual direction from an Opus Dei priest not long after that.

He decided to become a “cooperator” with Opus Dei, then applied to be an “associate,” or member of the Priestly Society of the Holy Cross in January 2004.

“I had made a decision at our January retreat that I was going to apply as an associate,” Bishop Finn said. “On March 1, I got a call from the nuncio (Archbishop Gabriel Montalvo) appointing me as bishop of Kansas City-St. Joseph.

“When I went on retreat before my consecration (as bishop), I revisited my decision to apply as an associate with my spiritual director,” he said. “I asked him that if I moved to Kansas City and there wasn’t an Opus Dei house here, will it work? He asked me, ‘Do you want to continue?’

“I said that I needed spiritual direction now more than ever, so in April, I decided I would apply,” Bishop Finn said.

Twice a month on Tuesdays, Bishop Finn travels to Columbia to meet with Father Alvarez, or another spiritual director if Father Alvarez is not available.

~ ~ ~ ~ So does he flog himself and wait the thigh-spikes?  Probably:

Bishop Finn also said he practices acts of corporal mortification, though far from the bloody, self-inflicted spectacles that Brown wrote of in “The Da Vinci Code.”

“And it is only done under the careful guidance of a spiritual director,” Bishop Finn said.

He said the mortification that Opus Dei members practice is similar to the fasting practices all Catholics are called to do during Lent.

“Corporal mortification has long been a part of church ascetical practice,” he said.

By contrast, Colossians 2 (attributed to the Apostle Paul, whose life overlapped with that of the disciples and predates the destruction of Jerusalem, although he supposedly died in a Roman prison).  towards the end of this passage, it talks, basically, about this “mortification,” saying, why are you subject to these, and calls them a “show” (like, pretense) of wisdom . . . . . ?  But that’s hardly news, where practice conflicts with scripture, or New Testament, I should say . . .. Another one being “forbidding to marry” . . . . .

8Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. 9For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. 10And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power: 11In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: 12Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with himthrough the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead. 13And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses; 14Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;15And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it. 16Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:17Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ. 18Let no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humility and worshipping of angels, intruding into those things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind,19And not holding the Head, from which all the body by joints and bands having nourishment ministered, and knit together, increaseth with the increase of God. 20Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances, 21(Touch not; taste not; handle not; 22Which all are to perish with the using;) after the commandments and doctrines of men? 23Which things have indeed a shew of wisdom in will worship, and humility, and neglecting of the body; not in any honour to the satisfying of the flesh.

Just throwing that in today’s recipe, when it comes to the fascist takeover of our country by extremely reactionary forces that hate women . . . . and seek to punish just about everyone.   Back to this Bishop Finn, who now is going to need his weekly confessions, and a little more help, for covering up abuse — what else is new — except that he was indicted for it! . . . . .

Posted October 14, 2011 — in “Gothamist.com”  This is the entire, short, article, which says to me clearly — let these guys MARRY! for Pete’s sake!

(ENDquote) It was a computer technician that reported this.  Apparently THEY are awake.  Given who Opus Dei IS, I see it as an oxymoron to expect anyone affiliated it to be competent to distinguish between abuse and non-abuse, and report it:

http://catholickey.org/2011/06/01/diocese-faulted-for-handling-of-accused-priest/

National Catholic Reporter compares him to a boy who hasn’t grown up, and, having pledged allegiance, found no help from the “skybox hierarchy”

Yeah, he was totally passive (i.e., not really responsible) the whole time from boyhood on . . . . .

APPARENTLY IT TOOK A WOMAN TO ACTUALLY SAY — YOU SHOULDN’T BE BISHOP HERE ANY MORE, HOW CAN THE DISOCESE POSSIBLY HEAL TIL THIS IS ADDRESSED?

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ (That’s pretty bold, even so.  Did we hear of a man saying it?)

JOE PATERNO & BISHOP FINN (by Jack Cashill, The American Thinker, Nov. 2011)  — note written while Paterno was a live; he has since died.  But this juxtaposes the responses, and a religious versus secular setting, a fast summary of the reporting timeline.  I note that the first person he cites as reporting (in Penn State) was a mother.

In both cases, the outraged callers and bloggers wonder how authorities like these could have turned a blind eye to such horrors.  They assure themselves that they would have done the right thing, even the heroic thing, and done it pronto.  This same impulse has convinced many of us that we would have been the one German to resist Hitler or the one Virginian to challenge slavery.

Bull.  Having investigated any number of controversial cases, and gotten to know personally several high-level whistle-blowers, I can assure the Monday morning quarterbacks that at least 95 percent of them are wrong.  When faced with an unanticipated quandary, the average citizen will revert to what is culturally comfortable and institutionally appropriate.  It is only the heroic few who will make the right call.

Of the two cases, the Penn State case is easily the more egregious.{{IS it???}}  In 1998, a concerned mother called the local police to report that veteran Penn State linebacker coach Jerry Sandusky was showering naked with her son.  The authorities met with Sandusky.  He promised not to do it again.  Case closed.

In 1999, Sandusky retired from Penn State after 32 years with full honors and continued access to the sports facilities.  These he would use for himself and for the troubled kids in a nonprofit he founded called “The Second Mile.”  In 2000, a janitor saw him commit a sex act on a boy at Penn State, told his supervisor, and there the case apparently died.

In 2002, 28-year-old graduate assistant Mike McQueary saw Sandusky having sex with a boy in the shower.  Let us call this the “McQueary moment.”  Talk show callers are sure that they would have directly intervened or at least called the police.  McQueary did neither.  He called his father, who told him to leave the building. 

The senior McQueary informed Paterno the next day in person.  Paterno promptly told his athletic director and a senior vice president.  They would tell the grand jury that they were under the impression that Sandusky and the boy were merely “horsing around.”  They have been indicted for perjury.  In its collective wisdom, the university banned Sandusky from using the facilities.  That was it.

In 2005 and 2006 new allegations came in from parents of Second Mile kids.  This prompted the convening of the grand jury.  In 2007, the coach of a high school wrestling team with which Sandusky volunteered found him and a 15-year-old boy in a clothed but compromising position and did not report him.  {{{BUT!!}} When the boy’s mother learned of the relationship, she called the principal, who called the police.  Apparently, Sandusky and the boy had been involved for more than two years.  Sandusky had called him 118 times over that period.

MORAL;  Generally Speaking, Someone Else is NOT likely to follow up,

so next time — why don’t you?

(it took me 7 years after first began reporting

to get a batterer evicted from the household

meaning, this is what our children grew up watching.

I had no real exit, sustainable, during this time.

everyone assumed someone else was on the job

while I kept asking ALL of them. . . .

however, once I knew my LEGAL rights,

and there was a way out,

as a MOTHER and WOMAN — I got out.

Then (my family of origin, and. . . . ) the Courts, wiht their landmines

forced me back in.  This is a common scenario.

caused by the delusion that SOMEONE ELSE will handle

society’s worst issues, namely

sexual abuse of minors and beating up /killing others based on their gender

and child-stealing through public institutions

and “because I can”

THIS POST most likely has drowned any readers, a deluge of information — however, I cannot fail to report the Opus Dei/Pentagon Connection.

From where we began — the secular and religious ways to tell young — and older — women, they do not REALLY have any rights in this country — we can see where some of the cultural dilution comes from.   One family is saddled with debt — but the young woman is a live — and the other(s), they are not.

LOOK AT YOUR SYSTEMS, and whether it’s tolerating shari’a practices, under freedom of religion, or terrorist extreme-right Catholic (or other evangelical) practices locally — or in government policies — it’s unacceptable, and it IS happening.

I think we have to come to an understanding that religion IS not neutral, it’s not benign, it is a form of allegiance to a nongovernmental structure that has become such a fixture of the landscape that perks are granted.   The granting of perks is in the form of standing in a hierarchy on the TAX system.

Too often, the agenda of church and state DO coincide with that of government (The Woodlawn Foundation, Inc. has HOW many shares of the world’s largest, or almost largest, energy producer AES ????), and if this is going to change, millions of people will have to make a conscious decision to change their life’s work, lifestyles, and worldviews — they are going to be radically altered soon enough, anyhow.

I have been all my adult life a Christian, and earnest about it.  It has been used against me more than not, whether by my own husband (and pastors), who, shall we say, did not report him, and sometimes exacerbated abuse — and in courts, and as an excuse for further economic, legal, psychological and relational assaults from people I share DNA with, or DNA & in-law status, shall we say?   I am as seriously considering what my faith is in at this point as at any other point in time, which includes what do I do with the remainder of my life, including for what purpose.

In this decision, whether or not there is a resurrection (and whether or not potential proof that there is — it’s harder to prove there is NOT, due to lack of witnesses!) — really does matter.  I am still in awe of how the Bible speaks to so many aspects of life, history and politics we all must deal with.

Is it “eat, drink, and be merry for tomorrow we die” (I Corinthians 15) — or is it, there is a principle of justice in the universe, which WILL have its way, and what I do really does matter (to me, personally) beyond the “now.”  Quite the questions, eh?

But whichever the answer is, never do I expect to regain any respect for either a church institution or the public education system.  Or the legal system.   They are institutions and that’s all — and my take on fatherhood is that, by and large, adult men  – ESPECIALLY middle-aged men — need something else to be doing with their time than having access to little children in groups without parents present, or (in the case of Ron Haskins et. al) pontificating on what to do with them.

I mean no offense to normal people — but whoever thought up the situation where the following children would be exposed to control of ONE male teacher (or, for that matter, female) wasn’t thinking straight.  See what follows (found earlier than all the middle part of this post).   Notice that Pacific Justice Institute (hypocrites!) now wants to take up the banner on this case in Los Angeles, too:

(Linked also from the Independent.UK. on-line, above)

It was just another school day for the boys and girls of Miramonte Elementary when their teacher, Mark Berndt, announced that class was to be adjourned for what he called a special “tasting game”.