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

Identify the Entities, Find the Funding, Talk Sense!

Good Cop, Bad Cop (not to mention Camouflage) in the Federally-Funded Gender War, Classic Examples (Inset, Callout or Footnote to my other 6/24/2017 post)

with one comment

Re: Good Cop, Bad Cop (not to mention Camouflage) in the Federally-Funded Gender War, Classic Examples (Inset, Callout or Footnote to my other 6/24/2017 post) (case-sensitive short-link ends “-74c”).

In a newsletter or journal, or textbook layout, there are times a call-out or inset, supplementary detail is appropriate.  Here, maybe consider it an inset, or a footnote.  Either way, the box below in teal (green-blue) borders and print near the bottom of the post below, and its lead-in paragraph didn’t stand fully on its own in summarizing the “scenario,” and was interrupting the flow of a post already detailed in summarizing something similar, but not identical.  That post: ….1. The War on Women(‘s Rights) in an All-Gender World? 2. Organization Names and Name Changes Distract from their Coordinated Agenda, but Operations and Strategy Reveal Agenda (So, LOOK at the Books, and KEEP Looking). (case-sensitive, shortlink ending “-73P”)

So I moved it here.

I then added the “House Divided Against Itself” section, quoting from (basically) three different times and sources in hopes this may also better explain what I am seeing and concerned about currently.

First, the phrase was taken from the Bible/the Gospels, so that link is also provided; see light-blue background section.  This light-blue section would have been just a link, or three links to Bible occurrences, had I not in searching for a simple, more general reference (rather than going all “Biblical” on the reader by going directly to the quotes), found an article, under the famous phrase, or rather as you can see, a fragment of the phrase plus add-on (“A House Divided Bible Verse Meaning and Study“), an article: ignoring the immediate context, citing to a wrong verse and possibly showing for the rest of us another classic illustration of less “A House Divided Against Itself Cannot Stand,” but more, “if the blind lead the blind, then both shall fall into the ditch.” Or, at least how an argument divided against itself won’t stand either — the point Jesus seems to have been making, from what I can tell.  I mean, he was talking about kingdoms, and that was central to his presence on earth in the first place, per the Gospels.

Note, Patheos (© 2008-2017) seems to be the web platform, and “Christian Crier” a blog by “Telling Ministries” some “Member Content.”  So if I refer to a “patheos” author below, it’s in that context (next two images):

Click either image to view if needed.

Not one to miss the opportunity, I talked about it.  The well-known quotes in the gospels showcase Jesus’ agility, using questions, at dismissing the illogical, citing similar situations to disprove the hypothesis, and leaving the logical in place to make his point.  The short article having missed the main point, quoted the wrong verse, and used personal terminology for things the Bible has its own words for in my opinion shows disrespect for the source, while typically the same leaders will have to affirm repeatedly that they believe the source is God-inspired and inerrant.  If it is, then why not, out of respect, quote more of it, more often, and in context, rather than of seeking opportunity to expound (carelessly) on the interpretation of individual verses?

(Why indeed….)

By contrast (with the pastor/author, not Jesus Christ), for its attention to context and and noticing others playing off State/Territorial jurisdictions (well before the US had its present coast-to-coast & Alaska & Hawaii etc. format), I referenced Abraham Lincoln’s 1858 acceptance speech at the Republican convention in Springfield, Illinois as their candidate for Senate, running against Stephen Douglas, “A House Divided” speech (tan background quotes and a large annotated image below it), and here, the pro/con divide is, as I’m sure most readers know, the position on slavery.  However, please read it — because I am using it here for an analogy to contemporary situation — with attention to how he makes his point, and what points he makes!

On June 16, 1858 more than 1,000 delegates met in the Springfield, Illinois, statehouse for the Republican State Convention. At 5:00 p.m. they chose Abraham Lincoln as their candidate for the U.S. Senate, running against Democrat Stephen A. Douglas. At 8:00 p.m. Lincoln delivered this address to his Republican colleagues in the Hall of Representatives. The title reflects part of the speech’s introduction, “A house divided against itself cannot stand,” a concept familiar to Lincoln’s audience as a statement by Jesus recorded in all three synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke).

and, referring to this same concept, another is relatively current (but pre-inauguration 2017) post regarding the political divide,  by what sounds like a very distressed/angry Democrat (light-pink background), “A House Divided Against Itself Cannot Stand.” This one I included to show a common application of the phrase — political party.  But, political party is NOT my point in this post (or blog).

Obviously, my rhetoric is no match for Abraham Lincoln’s at any stage of his political career. He conveys some points I want to make, so I quoted it in hopes that by comparison, some of today’s situations I wish to document, may be better understood for the campaigns they are and that by applying some of the same attention to detail on the pieces of the puzzle, may better see the purpose.

One main point is (regardless the cause) maintain ongoing awareness of the entities — and that context, it was the “proliferation of private associations” such as I blogged recently (June 16, 2017.  It’s challenging to discuss to readers evidently following* but not commenting much. (*See top right sidebar — just passed 3,000 visitors.  I’m aware many these are “bots” (spiders, web crawlers search out specific terms), but others come from government entities and well-known universities.  The other day, one (per statcounter) was the U.S. FINRA (Financial Regulatory Authority As a nonprofit (?) it regulates investment broker-dealers (What we Do)). Perhaps because this blog talks often about investments held and reported by nonprofits, but I do not know.)

These followers are not talking back much, so I do not hear either echoed or debated, a general awareness among readers of the primary points of the entire blog — pay attention to the nonprofit sector, how it’s funded, and where it stands in respect to public institutions (macro).

Another concept, once one has become aware of those entities AND nonprofits which promote seemingly opposing sides of the protecting women / promoting fatherhood argument, which I’ll present within the teal-bordered, teal-font inset (near the bottom of this post), is that both are feeding out of the same troughs (faucets, tables — whatever you wish to call sources of revenues), I mean financially.  So, if they are to be taken at face value in their purpose they are, in effect “a house divided.”

People invested for or against one side of (the Gender Wars; DV vs FR, with “Protective Parents” heading at least in name, towards the “DV” side of that mix) who never even recognize the networked entities on their own side, let alone those on the opposing side are hardly likely to recognize which faucets, troughs, or revenue sources ANYONE is feeding off.  To do that typically requires either looking up grantees, looking at tax returns, or reading financial statements. Or, as I do at least in California, plodding through documents uploaded to the Registry of Charitable Trusts, in which an annually required for called the ‘RRF” requires the entity state, IF it’s getting government funds, from which ones — and provided name, address, and contact information.

Failing to do that, these same people also of course fail to distinguish among the many elements of the network (which come in different descriptions — not all are separate non-profit corporations, or business entities” or distinct government entities either) big (in fact, huge) from small, originator versus later spinoff, or central or peripheral in the networking, or where one is serving as a front (web page or project/program name) to discourage looking up who they are fronting FOR, i.e., who owns and funds the website, and has sponsored the program or project.

So then what happens?  On-line arguments develop, and are incited (“all PR is good PR,” right?) and soak up the time, attention and efforts of on-lookers and participants alike, on peripheral organizations, concealing the elephant-sized situation stomping on civil and legal rights all along.  In these situations, the audience has been “played.”  I’ve seen it, and tried at times (with some others) to contribute something other than the “pro/con” argumentation.  This is a losing strategy; one is dealing at times with virtual cults and their followers.

I’ve also seen that often, entities tend to dodge telling all on those forms, and/or where the one-page form may read “See Statement Attached” but there is nothing attached (meaning:  the OAG might have gotten it, but not uploaded, or the OAG might have not gotten it, and not yet gotten around to sending an “incomplete form notice” and uploading that for our viewing information…).

For example, an interesting habit showed up (reviewing it recently) regarding primary player in the VAWA focused side, Futures without Violence, which first, filed a revealing RRF with specifics, then amended it (as signed by its well-known principal, Esta Soler at the time) to reduce the information to simply “U.S. Department of Justice” and “U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.”   I would like to post on this organization again soon, so will save the comments and image uploads for later.

When it comes to a timely topic for the week beginning Sunday June 18, 2017, a.k.a. “Fathers’ Day” in the USA, by applying the same awareness to the topic of the gender wars through an awareness of ALL propagating entities and mouthpieces by organizational type, original incorporators and funders, and ongoing source of revenues and how they handle those revenues, it becomes obvious (once you become aware that the types of entities exist) there is networking and there are campaigns.

First, Consider the “House Divided” Argument.

In the Bible, in the Gospels, Jesus is quoted as saying, in the process of “cleaning house,” so to speak (after a miracle involving throwing out some demons, thus healing an individual, thereafter being accused of doing it “by Beezlebubl”) “a house divided against itself cannot stand.” (Just the phrase from phrases.uk.org). An oversimplified discussion from “Patheos.com” gives a bit more context (not much!) and refers to Israel having been divided also.  Here’s the quote, and some of the explanation, in essence, kingdoms work in a certain way.  As I recall, the response was to the illogic in the accusation.

From patheos.com blogs, under “Christian Crier” article 11/16/2015 by Jack Wellman. Click image for the article.

Just after Jesus had healed a man the scribes accused Jesus of casting out demons by the power of Satan (Beelzebul) (Mark 3:22)** and so Jesus replied “How can Satan cast out Satan? If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. And if a house is divided against itself, that house will not be able to stand. And if Satan has risen up against himself and is divided, he cannot stand, but is coming to an end” (Mark 3:23-26). His point is that it could not have been by demonic power that Jesus cast out a demon because that is contrary to the way kingdoms operate, particularly Satan’s. If kingdoms did divide against themselves then they wouldn’t be around for very long and so why would Satan work against his own interests? The answer is he would not….

OK, I need to talk back some.  That section, this background-color.  Below it, the next quote on “A House Divided…”

[Typical theological article — more interested in a fast-track interpretation than in quotation to show the context and support the interpretation.  In fact, ** “Just after Jesus healed a man…” (for a Christian, a religious leader, why not bother to quote that part?). (Having asked this myself, I went looking it up).

In fact, in at least Mark 3, it doesn’t say that anywhere, but it wasn’t a man, singular, and it wasn’t “immediately after.” (See for yourself here’s all of Mark3).  Time had passed and more than one incident of healing and (case in point) casting out devils, which the pastor above omitted. Maybe it relates to the denomination he’s with, I DNK.  In another occurrence, it was not after “healing a man” but described as “casting out a devil that was mute” after which the man spoke (Luke 11 all, see ca. v. 14).  Or, in Matthew 12:22ff, after earlier healing a man with a withered hand on the sabbath, in a synagogue, later, a man that was both blind and mute. But the pastor/writer in “Patheos.com” (see above quote) didn’t reference Luke, only Mark).

Maybe someone else is blind.  Wrong reference, wrong timespan, and wrong main verb (in the gospels, “healing” and “casting out devils” are not identical, as shown elsewhere by Jesus’ commands to his own disciples in Matthew 10:8 Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse the lepers, cast out demons,” but that comes as part of “preaching the kingdom of heaven is at hand.”  Pick a version, that’s basically how they all read (source biblehub Parallel Chapters):

I realize this is argumentative, but I get tired of pastors completely ad-libbing the meaning of scripture, while accustoming readers /followers through modeling to not even bother quoting it in context, or accurately. (CLICK to read). In the associated example, citing Mark 3, the “Christian Crier” (Patheos.com) pastor: used the wrong reference, got time (not “immediately”) and number of individuals giving rise to the famous quote (as to the gospel he quoted) wrong and casually conflated “healing” with “casting out demons” [=why I added this annotated image for Matthew 10:5-8] while interpreting the meaning of the famous parable on “a house divided” which is commonly known/obviously to deal with a situation of casting out devils (vs. “healing,” his word choice) when the IMMEDIATE context was the former. Note: this sloppy reading,”take my interpretation on faith” mindset is likely to and does to carry over when it comes to marriage counseling, setting up nonprofits to run out of religious-IRS-exempt from filing entities (like churches) calling them “ministries,”and (in my experience) recognizing that while religious-exempt (from filing returns with the IRS) entities are legal, their members or attendees assaulting or abandoning their spouses or children are not, and that there is at some point a moral duty, while moralizing about ethical behavior, to know the law protecting one’s own members, or when to refer to someone who does — or ought to be!

 Guess that’s what I get for quoting a secondary source in the first place trying to fast-track the quote!… To clean up the mess:Here’s an ESV link showing all three gospels (from which I just got the other two references above) with the famous phrase across the top, it shows he was speaking in parables, and the significance of Jesus’ act in “overcoming the strongman of the house” in the context, not of healing, but of casting out devils, with “by the Spirit of God.”  The miracle, freeing someone from bondage due to the strong man in his particular “house,” announced, by logical deduction, the presence of a stronger power from a different kingdom, which in Jesus’ case was exactly the point and mission — preaching, that is, announcing, the kingdom of God.

…And if Satan casts out Satan, he is divided against himself. How then will his kingdom stand? 27 And if I cast out demons by Beelzebul, bby whom do cyour sons cast them out? Therefore they will be your judges. But if it isdby the Spirit of God that I cast out demons, then ethe kingdom of God has come upon you. 29 Or fhow can someone enter a strong man’s house and plunder his goods, unless he first binds the strong man? Then indeed ghe may plunder his house.

V. 27, Jesus is challenging the logic of the assumption by calling to mind other parallel (under that hypothesis) situations — what about your sons?– and having tossed out that illogical supposition, the remaining logical conclusion on how (not “that” which wasn’t under contention, but how) Jesus did the deed, is expressed in another analogy: the strong man in the house.  You want to get in and take the goods? How can this be done without first binding the strong man?

True, a house divided against itself cannot stand, BUT also (when it comes to throwing phrases around), (Ecclesiastes 3) to every thing, there is a season, and a time for every purpose under the heaven... (the whole chapter) And there are times, at times, to separate.  I’ve also seen the “house divided” argument used religiously to justify keeping a marriage together (as that “house”) when the abuse was intolerable, and people were being injured.  There are times to stay together, and times to separate.

The entire Marriage/Fatherhood policy in the US is leaning towards there is NEVER a time to separate from violence, AND this is being enforced practically.  People have died from this, children (and adults) been murdered, children been kidnapped, and the public bearing that cost too.  What kind of sense does it make to on one hand, say “you can separate from domestic violence” and then, next step on the manufacturing line, I guess, of the ideal family composition, to say, well, you canNOT?”

My point is, pay better attention to who’s building what in “the house” pay attention to context.  When I see both those situations in place simultaneously, I realize there is an attempt to shift the power base in this “earthly” kingdom (here, referring to government, USA) away from its foundation in laws under jurisdictions and by informed consent of the people, there is actually another power base being established from within.

While pushing the innate conflict of cause (purpose), continuously (“Hegelian dialectic?”) the obvious result is to call in the “mediators,” experts, facilitators and so forth, moving the power to make decisions about families partially into their hands, and under immunity (apparently) as quasi-judicial players.  Plus, diverting funds from the individual households where children are living and need it most.

Get it? I did — in January 2011, “What Rhetoric are you?”  Go take a look!  

A House Divided Against Itself — Two More Quotes:

There’s plenty of talk about this theme in the news these days (see Trump Presidency, political divides, etc.) but I am referring to how the same source — sometimes even the same federal agency, which — can we admit? — represents the government of the United States of America, Executive Branch — funds BOTH SIDES of a supposed rights’ battle, but over time names or re-names each side differently so as not to really seem like a gender war (in my opinion, it still is, but staged to accomplish other agenda as well, which is why I call it “Good Cop, Bad Cop.”)

Example, here’s Kos Media, LLC (“Dailykos.com”), under the same title and with large photos of Lincoln, and Donald Trump, and its call to action:

December 12, 2016, Daily Kos, A House Divided Against Itself Cannot Stand. by Mage11an. (18 comments, 1 “like,” obviously this is from my search result on the famous phrase//LGH). (It has large images of Lincoln and Trump, not shown).

Well, my friends, we are once again a house divided — substitute Red vs Blue for half slave and half free.  [A]nd this time we actually are about to fall (if we haven’t de facto fallen already).  Simply put, Red is clearly putting Red above country — above the Union.  And its not just politicians, it is the zeitgeist of the whole Red movement.  ….

There has always been a conservative vs liberal tension — but it grew exceedingly ugly and brutal starting with Newt Gingrich and then it grew into outright sedition (in my mind) with McConnell’s plan to obstruct everything that President Obama would propose.  Things got uglier and we entered a post-truth era and now are just a month away from having a narcissistic gas-lighting psychopath as president.

And now, though suspected all along, we have a clear statement from the CIA that Russia meddled in our election.  Russia.  Meddled.  In.  Our.  Election.  For the party that was once — and still claims to be — the guardian of American exceptionalism this should be a call to war.  And yet there is very little outrage about this act per se. …

We need to force this issue with every Republican in Congress.  Don’t even  bring Red vs Blue into it.  Simply call and ask do they believe the CIA report.  If not why not.  Call their patriotism and belief in exceptionalism into question if they just let this go.  If we all do let this go, Lincoln’s vision may finally be thwarted.  If we do let this go — if Trump becomes president — then not only do we have a narcissistic gas-lighting psychopath as president, but we have a country that would let this happen when it is clear that it will usher in the fall of our house  [[emphases added]]


Next, here’s a quote (from a conservative organization’s website; it looks familiar): Abraham Lincoln’s 1958 Acceptance speech for becoming Illinois Senator.  I’m quoting because at points, he expresses my sentiment better, although I cannot pretend to be historically up to date on all the cases or people cited in it.  The topic is slave/free, but look for his analogy of various timbers placed over time by different people to construct a certain kind of house.  Look for his handling of the “self-government” argument to justify continued slavery.  That’s the point I’m after — perception of intention based on awareness of the chronology of events showing a campaign has been in place:

A House Divided Against Itself Cannot Stand

Lincoln delivered this famous speech, noted for the phrase “a house divided against itself cannot stand,” when accepting the Republican nomination for U.S. Senate from Illinois in June of 1858. In July of that year he challenged his Democrat opponent, Stephen Douglas to a series of debates over admitting Kansas into the union as a slave state, and, to a large extent, over the future of slavery and of the union itself. Lincoln, of course, represented the anti-slavery position. The skill with which Lincoln debated Douglas helped catapult him to the Republican Party’s nomination for president in 1860, a race which he won.

MR. PRESIDENT AND GENTLEMEN OF THE CONVENTION: If we could first know where we are, and whither we are tending, we could better judge what to do, and how to do it. We are now far into the fifty year since a policy was initiated with the avowed object and confident promise of putting and end to slavery agitation. Under the operation of that policy, that agitation has not only not ceased, but has constantly augmented. In my opinion, it will not cease until a crises shall have been reached and passed. “A house divided against itself cannot stand.” I believe this government cannot endure permanently half slave and half free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved — I do not expect the house to fall — but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing, or all the other. Either the opponents of slavery will arrest the further spread of it, and place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction; or its advocates will push it forward till it shall become alike lawful in all the States, old as well as new, North as well as South.

Have we no tendency to the latter condition?

Let any one who doubts carefully contemplate that now almost complete legal combination — piece of machinery, so to speak — compounded of the Nebraska doctrine and the Dred Scott decision. Let him consider not only what work the machinery is adapted to do, and how well adapted; but also let him study the history of its construction, and trace, if he can, or rather fail, if he can, to trace the evidences of design and concert of action among its chief architects, from the beginning.

[Lincoln then recited the details, the specifics, of actions taken over time, i.e., presented his argument.  Below this I have an annotated image (different source, some central points of the speech), and will explain why.  Meanwhile, here’s the ending (at least as posted on this website) and call to action.

We cannot absolutely know that all these exact adaptations are the result of preconcert. But when we see a lot of framed timbers, different portions of which we know have been gotten out at different times and places and by different workmen, — Stephen, Franklin, Roger and James, for instance, -and we see these timbers joined together, and see they exactly make the frame of a house or a mill, all the tenons and mortises exactly fitting, and all the lengths and proportions of the different pieces exactly adapted to their respective places, and not a piece too many or too few, not omitting even scaffolding — or, if a single piece be lacking, we see the place in the frame exactly fitted and prepared yet to bring such piece in — in such a case we find it impossible not to believe that Stephen and Franklin and Roger and James all understood one another from the beginning, and all worked upon a common plan or draft drawn up before the first blow was struck

“We cannot absolutely know… preconcert (pre-meditation of concerted action), …. but when we see.

Our cause, then, must be intrusted to, and conducted by, its own undoubted friends — those whose hands are free, whose hearts are in the work, who do care for the result. Two years ago the Republicans of the nation mustered over thirteen hundred thousand strong. We did this under the single impulse of resistance to a common danger, with every external circumstance against us. Of strange, discordant, and even hostile elements, we gathered from the four winds, and formed and fought the battle through, under the constant hot fire of a disciplined, proud, and pampered enemy.** Did we brave all then to falter now? — now when that same enemy is wavering, dissevered, and belligerent? The result is not doubtful. We shall not fail — if we stand firm, we shall not fail. Wise counsels may accelerate or mistakes delay it, but, sooner or later, the victory is sure to come.

** I don’t know offhand what cause he’s referring to in Republicans mustering over 1,300,000 strong.  Previous Congressional elections probably.  However you cannot miss that Lincoln is using above several terms of warfare (danger, hostile, battle, enemy (2x), belligerent and victory) to resist a perceived plan to eventually turn the entire nation into one where slavery remained “lawful.”  And as we all know, it did get down to war, “The Civil War.”

The same speech from a different source (AbrahamLincolnOnline.org), and in annotated image format.  I’ve underlined and rectangled, arrowed, and emphasized it maybe too much, but, looking at Lincoln’s description of the “macro” situation as it showed up over time, piece by piece (he calls it “machinery”), noting the “passive/aggressive” policy regarding slavery (comparison:  the criminalization of acts of domestic violence), with pieces being put in place gradually can be, in retrospect, understood as a gradual way of ensuring slavery of “the Negro” and all descendants would become effectively, possible throughout the nation (reference to the Dredd Scott decision, and references to jurisdictions:  State v. Territory.

When it comes to trouble within the family law system, and people who have sought federal remedies (and encouraged others to), again, the “hands-off” overall policy from the federal angle has been, “that’s the states’ jurisdiction.” It gets complicated, but take a look:

(click image to read if needed; source link is on the image)

My question here, in 2017, is, why would a situation exist where public funds are promoting two apparently opposing sides of a single cause? First, under the theory that “Violence Against Women” (under, first passed, 1994 VAWA, helped in good part by 1989?-founded Family Violence Prevention Fund (FVPF, now called Futures without Violence) should be stopped and protested,

…calling for more counseling, education, and training of judges, and legal means to flee (with children) to safety, sponsoring new professions and nonprofits (with sometimes certifications) to provide the new services to correct the imbalance

and second, under “fatherlessness and out-of-wedlock childbearing, and female-headed households” (under, first passed, 1996 PRWORA, helped in good part by 1994-founded nonprofit National Fatherhood Initiative, which in effect happens — that violence against women who are mothers, in particular, should be minimized and handled as a breakdown of communications, and of the family unit,

…calling for more parenting skills, counseling, education, etc., and instead, fatherlessness is the real social problem, for which government agencies should be realigned to recognize and involve fathers more in social services, calling for counseling, education, training of judges, and legal means to regain control of children and overcoming “barriers to involvement” in the name of restoring the balance,

and both of these advertised as valid grants series in the name of the public good.

[FYI, the respective sizes of funding doesn’t appear to be at all equal, however].

The opposing in theory “ends” result in similar means, both proliferating cause-based nonprofits, and federal funding streams, also attracting (and/or originally promoted by — who’s to say which came first?) private money via those humongous (among the biggest privately controlled tax-exempt foundations in the nation:  Ford Foundation, Annie E. Casey, MacArthur, Open Society Foundations, and others).

[This is the lead-in paragraph I referred to at the top of this post:]

I’ve been talking about this setup, this scenario, “a proliferation of private associations representing public offices,” and these types of organizations for about half the timeline of this blog, but have YET to see other bloggers who are upset about some of the programming resulting from these entities discuss the networks and the 501©3 or 501©6 entities as a systemic factor in promoting them what they are protesting.    

(Classic example:  it has been popular in the protective parents movement to encourage argument on “parental alienation” as a classic derailment of discussion of domestic violence while not naming the classic “international, multidisciplinary entity or two behind the “in your face” promotion of the theory, the nonprofit of judges, psychologists, marriage therapists, mediators, custody evaluators, and of course, family lawyers (and family law professors or associate professors) “AFCC” and/or CRC (Children’s Rights Council associated with David Levy, Esq.).

While these discussions, and ones about the funding streams freed up by 1996 Welfare Reform, AND the collaboration of DV [domestic violence] entities with FR [fathers’ rights] entities  coordinated together in part because both sides reason that a “coordinated community response” (for the DV side) and (for the FR side) networking (organizations so named, same general idea to promote “more father involvement” from the White House down to the local child support agency ##)…

##to even out the supposedly still mother-favoring public institutions and legislatively authorized federal grants backing of state and local public systems  from Head Start, through K-12 schools, child support orders, domestic violence agencies (THAT’s a laugh….), and of course divorce, or ‘family’ courts and all welfare.

…were NOT taking place (and they still aren’t, enough), the infrastructures on both sides were gaining momentum, support, numbers of organizations (some rotating, some through private backing rising to the top), and with it employees, and CEOs or boards of directors making (or expanding) professional names and reputations on warring against the other side’s rights.  In what has been roughly positioned as a gender war. It’s an orchestrated good cop, bad cop routine designed to get something — concessions of legal rights and due process IN the public institutions — out of the public, in favor of a desired outcome.  

In other words, without awareness that two, opposite and apparently conflicting sides BOTH backed by government funding, both organized in networks, and both seeking to alter the basic forms of government through private associations, “the public” becomes like a suspect being interrogated in hopes to obtain a confession about an (alleged) crime.

IN THIS SITUATION, when one becomes aware that one side of the “RIGHTS” debate doesn’t, when it comes to public interface in local situations tell clients** about the other side, that important information leads to another possible motive. It’s a form of withholding vital information, leaving the clients exposed and vulnerable, and not able to make the best strategic situations they otherwise might in a situation — in addition to handling an immediate emergency.  From the DV perspective, in my experience, the very first few steps of leaving (in the process of filing) are where pressures to compromise were HIGH; one in flight and setup protection mode, is not necessarily in (legal) FIGHT mode.  It’s possible many of the workers in these agencies might know — but IF they are lawyers, especially with a background in family law, they have no excuse for not knowing.  They should have told their staff, and their staff should’ve warned their clients about the existence of the federal funding on the opposing side.  Once a compromise is made, more will be wanted.

(**example:  a battered woman shows up in a domestic violence nonprofit agency seeking help, perhaps to file the initial kickout and/or protective order, or get into a shelter with children;  Example:  a man accused of domestic violence, in prison, or in arrears on his child support, shows up in a fathers’ rights group locally, perhaps to sit through classes or get a caseworker),


The Good Cop, Bad Cop routine doesn’t work so well when it’s uncovered as a routine and that outside the ears of their suspect, they have a strategy.  Then again, once both cops know the routine has been covered, other means to interrogate and attempt to break the will are in their hands, particularly if one is isolated in a room. So overall, it’s just wise to know where the balance of power individuals vs. governments stands and in what direction it’s moving.  This will be found from sources outside the mainstream media and not high as “alternate” or “independent” media but still aligned on the political (Left/right) OR gender-divide routine (which the public, mainstream media profits from highlighting) into the infrastructure and basic operations sector.  

That is, after all, the reason given for ongoing taxation of various kinds nationwide, in-state and locally.

NO DISRESPECT TO COPS MEANT HERE, and OBVIOUSLY EXAMPLES ARE HYPOTHETICAL (I’ve never been in one of those rooms….). Here,  I’m using the word “cop” to stand in for the financial force of government and the phrase Good Cop/Bad Cop because it may be familiar to many readers, in reference to the entire, organized, networks focused — so far as fathers’ (men’s) rights and womens’ rights — on changing governmental processes to favor each their own outcomes — THEN (without publicizing this QUITE so much, if at all in some cases), MEETING IN  AND/OR ORGANIZING SELECTIVE CONFERENCES WITH THE “OTHER” SIDE AND CONGRATULATING THEMSELVES FOR THE COLLABORATIONS WITH THE OPPOSING SIDE.

Part of my purpose in blogging is to expose that these two sides HAVE been collaborating but (speaking from my experience with the DV side, awareness of others who have, and awareness through basic, though diligent on-line search along under-reported lines (I wasn’t the first one to start in that direction shortly after welfare reform of 1996– too bad it wasn’t really being publicized BEFORE welfare reform of 1996)

Gradually, the system is tweaked to becoming an out-come based vehicle, with justice and equity, fairness, and due process is the casualty.  

If my explanations in this “call-out”box or inset here doesn’t make sense to you (yet), don’t work, and just move on to the examples in prior posts and their excerpts listed in this post.  To each our learning styles.  I suggest getting your faces (heads, attention, etc.) in front of enough material to make some logical deductions about similarities and differences among organizations on the pro/con of these debates AS entities, AS organizations, at all times being aware of the material’s and the organization’s place in time regarding some key events in those fields (i.e., 1996 Welfare Reform, 1994 passage of VAWA, 1995 President Clinton (it’s on my sidebar) issue an Executive Memo about Fatherhood, and — meanwhile, in 1994, some evidence of solicitations through the NGA (National Governors’ Association) to compare their respective “Fatherhood Initiatives” for what works best.  (Search phrase: Disconnected Dads).  Or, Year 2000, an AFCC conference involving both the well-known Wellstones (Sen. Paul and wife Sheila) and Columbia University’s well-known (Ford foundation-backed at some point) Ronald Mincy, Ph.D. presenting also.

Formerly battered women should (but I think most don’t) educate themselves onto the role group names like “Battered Women’s Justice Project’ (concealing the organization behind it until ready for spin-off, which this group finally did) in providing a “heat shield” in put to groups like AFCC, to deflect any accusations they aren’t listening to the concerns of, for example, “battered women.” Is BWJP (as  a mask for “DAIP” (the Duluth Model entity in Duluth, MN) ever about to tell the fiscal history and origins of AFCC while careers are supported, leading to more opportunities, presenting at its conferences? Or, of NCJFCJ?  Or of how the routine of supervised visitation, batterers intervention and train-the-judges, train the prosecutors, etc., got “baked into the recipe” for stopping domestic violence or violence against women.

People on both East and West Coasts of the US who have had dealings with BMCC (Battered Mothers’ Custody Conference) as participants (I doubt the presenters want to really know) should admit that from 2003 forward, the DV entities (already by then coordinated into statewide coalition and subject to redistribution under HHS and DOJ grants) were welcomed in, but information about the existence of HMRF funding, access visitation grants, and federal fatherhood incentives directed SPECIFICALLY at child support, custody, divorce and parenting issues, was excluded until very recently, when (I noticed a few years ago), apparently the same leaders who had habitually excluded it (and at least one protective mother) now seek to appropriate themselves as “the source” on the whole field, and will admit it exists — but NOT provide women the tools to look it up, or lay it out systematically for them.  They also won’t quote other blogs (such as this blog) who have been working hard, typically unpaid, to fill in the gap and speak over the “PAS” and now ‘Safe Child” noise.  Women are still encouraged to quote figures handed to them without showing where the come from (one figure I see repeatedly is “$50 billion.”  Sez Who?).  Good grief, get real!

Also, do not fail to identify as close to the beginning of any research, once a website name or affiliation (for example, in some news article quoting an expert) is cited, find out what kind of entity it is — do a routine drill-down (it does NOT take that long) and see its size.  If the size is small but it’s being cited a lot, it has sponsors — and those sponsors matter.  They are the “executive producers” of the show, and will have other simultaneous shows going.

It’s jungle out there, and not all groups proclaiming their interest in helping vulnerable populations (male or female) really are.

Note: entering my few tags here, another long one popped up automatically:

Mo Hannah Barry Goldstein (eds) 2010 book ignoring the PRWORA aspect and CA NOW’s 2002 outing of AFCC + 2006 outing of HHS Fatherhood grants — I guess irrelevant??

I didn’t discuss here, but included the tag as a point of reference; another post it was in will (click and see), and it contributes to my main point. Mo Hannah, PhD (psychology) is a co-organizer of the BMCC (Battered Mothers’ Custody Conference). I was blogging with others on-line around the time this book came out, and questioned (already having searched and seen “the Greenbook” Initiative website, and others by similar titles) why another one?  As time turned out, this was it seems advance positioning for becoming the new technical assistance and trainers in a movement which had already begun, under the name, “Family Court Enhancement Project,” another way to CONTINUE not reporting on the HMRF and Access/Visitation funding.

Something besides the obvious is taking place when public policy is apparently divided against itself, and better attention must be paid to the overall situation. Remember Lincoln’s speech, above! Here’s link back to the main post from this this one came, on Thursday, June 22, 2017, and as part of it I will again reminds us about the significance, especially in the gender wars, on “The Greenbook Initiative” and of who was behind it, quoting an earlier (2016) post.

Here’s the link back to my main post from which all this came, published just moments after this one (and about a week’s work):

….1. The War on Women(‘s Rights) in an All-Gender World? 2. Organization Names and Name Changes Distract from their Coordinated Agenda, but Operations and Strategy Reveal Agenda (So, LOOK at the Books, and KEEP Looking). (case-sensitive, shortlink ending “-73P”)

One Response

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. daveyone1

    June 25, 2017 at 1:23 am

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: