Permalink
The initiative sounds like a paraphrased mismosh of other acts. I could probably show HOW some of its parts are almost direct quotes from the Access/Visitation funding. She either realizes this or does not realize it. The act as written doesn't exactly exhibit a sharp mind at work. . ... she must be sharp in other areas....
She refers to people being killed. Go ahead and refer to my site if you want, where I show women being killed. I have worked on South Side Chicago, AND in Kansas City Kansas long ago (one year only). I have seen colleagues of mine, one prominent one commit suicide (he was gay, top in his field), others die of AIDS, and we had one young man shot because he was not in a gang, which Chicago Children's Choir had helped him NOT be in (Virgil White). I have worked in helping organizations for years. But in this area of law, the HELP we need is not to have our civil rights violated, or constitutional 14th amendment to due process violated.
For her to equate your case, which hit the IACHR, with some of the others, isn't really acceptable. Ignoring it is a choice.
I searched this person on: Google, Wikipedia (which may or may not be current), and a link (footnote 5) on contributions to her winning campaign: I won't take time to show each step, but I looked at top INDUSTRIES contributing, among which were lawyers. Hmm. . . . .
Part of that is follow the money. I love trying to help other people, because I just found another tool -- that website, "FOLLOWTHEMONEY.ORG" (link below).
We all MUST understand that People can be:
1. Very genuine and sincere, but genuinely uninformed, and easily manipulated by people who are, OR, they can be:
2. APPEAR very genuine and sincere but genuinely be playing to your emotions, knowing you're unlikely to check the facts.
You cannot always know which a person in leadership is til you see how they react when confronted or faced with certain information. Until you interact somehow and see their reaction, it may not be possible to tell whether 1 or 2 (or some version of the above). Meanwhile, be aware they also are doing the same thing, judging you in part by how you respond.
There is always a reason why a person "doesn't get it" after it's explained clearly to them. it's always a choice "not to get" something obvious, and I believe it is also possible for us to "get" why they don't "get it." Generally speaking, the tool of influence has to do with money, though not always.
By the time a person gets to a position of leadership and being followed, they GOT there with some support.
Look at their support team. In the case of politicians, this includes who supported their campaign to win.
Senator. Oletha Goudeau-Faust is PERFECT to be supporting the fatherhoods initiative -- she is female, she is black, and she was raised by a single mother. (Sounds almost like President Obama, except the gender). She's Democrat, but some of the groups supporting her usually support republicans. Hmm -- why?
Her letter to you was empathetic and personal, based on her family background. It uses the word "i feel" several times, regarding father involvement, and sounds as though she just thought up this initiative from her depth of empathy, based on her own life.
However, as an elected Senator, she has to have some way to fairly represent the basic protections of law within her district and state. "I feel" is not good enough. She drafted this act in response (it even says in the letter) to calls from constituents. But it's quoting something, in an incomplete sentence, and doesn't say from where:
However, in part of the district where I live in Wichita Kansas, "One of the key ingredients for the success of Our children is missing from the home - The (Father)!.
We can be sure she did not go through ANYTHING like what you did, or witnessing domestic violence growing up, or losing a child to a batterer. If so, she would NOT promote this line, I'm sure. Great for her well-adjusted family, but what about due process in the courts?
She refers to other abstract nouns, and attributes them to fatherlessness.
Follow the money. Here's a clue:
This person won a race in part because of who contributed to her campaign. AMong primary industries contributing were lawyers. Hmmm. Primary among the legal industry contributing to it was a PAC (political Action Committee -- i.e., I guess they're registered as lobbyists)
KTLA CONSUMER CIVIL JUSTICE
Total Given to Date: $13,918 (22 records)
Contributor Type: Institution
Address: TOPEKA, KS
Occupations Listed: LOBBYING LEGAL, PAC, POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE LOBBYING, PAC-JUDICIAL-LEGAL INDUSTRY
PAC: KTLA CONSUMER/CIVIL JUSTICE PAC
Look at that group in PENNSYLVANIA Agency Solutions GROUP, that contributed to her campaign.
IndustryRecipient NameLocation↓Amount↓DateKTLA CONSUMER CIVIL JUSTICE
Lawyers & LobbyistsFAUST-GOUDEAU, OLETHATOPEKA, KS$1,00007/21/2008AGENCY SOLUTIONS GROUP
Lawyers & LobbyistsFAUST-GOUDEAU, OLETHAFORT WASHINGTON, PA$25010/15/2007BOTTENBERG, JOHN C
Lawyers & LobbyistsFAUST-GOUDEAU, OLETHATOPEKA, KS$25012/18/2007DAMRON, KATHY
Lawyers & LobbyistsFAUST-GOUDEAU, OLETHATOPEKA, KS$25012/14/2007GACHES BRADEN BARBEE & ASSOCIATES
Lawyers & LobbyistsFAUST-GOUDEAU, OLETHATOPEKA, KS$25007/11/2008CARMICHAEL, JOHN
Lawyers & LobbyistsFAUST-GOUDEAU, OLETHAWICHITA, KS$20005/29/2008JOHNSTON, KELLY W
Lawyers & LobbyistsFAUST-GOUDEAU, OLETHAWICHITA, KS$20008/08/2008SANDBORN & SANDBORN
Lawyers & LobbyistsFAUST-GOUDEAU, OLETHAWICHITA, KS$20002/16/2008PETERSON, JOHN
Lawyers & LobbyistsFAUST-GOUDEAU, OLETHATOPEKA, KS$15012/30/2007
Permalink