Spelling It Out Again, Basic Players, Basic Blueprints [yawn…][well, we’d better not, actually…]

MDRC (1974ff), TANF (1996ff), Gov Leavitt (1998ff), Gov Keating + Wade Horn (2000ff)

Heck, the US Government is investing internationally for sure, and I’ll bet that every single state’s public employee pension plan (CALPers, New York States’ Pension Plan, Pennsylvania’s — probably every single one – and you can find them on their CAFRs and look) — probably also  is investing in multiple currencies and countries, playing one against the other, plus in various corporations.

But I believe there is likely to be a continental lockdown, which may explain perhaps why so many are in privatized lockUPs..  

The number one feature I notice is treating the human population like a material resource, which (from that point of view) it is — if they are poor, because of prior policies set up (by the same crowd) — exploit it.  If they are divorcing — exploit that, too.

Then sell it to them (because any good businessperson is adept at getting other to fund its startups, and of course many things are also tax write-offs) and have their income taxes pay for it, and the income taxes of the middle classes’s taxes who hasn’t caught onto this yet because they’re working 9 to 5, detoxing from work part of their time off, and stressing out about the future while at work, etc.

MAKE SURE the Middle Class believes that the real problems are the shiftless poor, the fertile female African Americans or anyone else with dark skin, or heck any color female skin, and things like DIVORCE. ANYTHING but the bottom-line reality….  

Then go about to help the other side of the equation…. based on some profile.

Hopefully  people who read the last few posts (sorry, I don’t have any gold stars or discount coupons for the effort!) will start to understand that something less than above-board (at some levels) and “in-your-face” (at other levels) is going on involving:

The sky-blue rant at the top of my Oct. 21 post “Christianity and Its Sects” shows how a visit to a federally-funded site which spins off business to the Oklahoma Marriage Initiative PR Firm (Public Strategies Inc.) and friends — then links to a nice MDRC program evaluation, which spins off money to its subcontractors, and you can follow who is supporting this from the acknowledgement in the front of the report.  Not to mention the number of the federal HHS contract used to do the study.  In short, the people getting the most employment profit from this do NOT appear to be the poor, but those studying them.

I think I have more than demonstrated that the public access database TAGGS.hhs.gov isn’t going to help us study where the bulk of the HHS money is going in any efficient or meaningful way.  I say that after three years of scrutiny, mostly showing screwups in the basic design, not just data entry and a whole lot of them seem like MORE than accidental.

I also find groups that don’t file taxes with their chief personnel (CEOs, who got over $100k salary from apparently the original HHS) then being further promoted to more responsibility — i.e., I”m talking about for example, Mrs. Charles Ballard, commonly known as Frances Ballard, sitting on the board of WIFI (Women in Fatherhood Inc.) AND being somehow involved in the administration of the “national responsible fatherhood clearinghouse” which it assures us, is funded by the US Government.  So how can a person be an “Executive Director” of what looks like a government-supported website unless he or she is a government employee?

I haven’t figured that one out yet.  Maybe you can: The first title given in her description is ED of the NRFC — which is a website!  She is doing this while also on the board of WIFI — so on HER tax return (assuming there is one) where’s the income coming from and reported as? I also note that while wifi is not a D.C. organization, most likely the clearinghouse (being a website), IS:

Frances Ballard is the Executive Director for the National Responsible Fatherhood Clearinghouse (NRFC). In her role she is responsible for the strategic direction and leadership for activities regarding the NRFC, including the coordination of the media campaign, clearinghouse and Web site, Training and Technical Assistance (T & TA) to responsible fatherhood demonstration sites, and building relationships and partnerships for NRFC

This site is, literally, steering and setting national federal policy.  Was Ms. Ballard somehow elected as a public official, or was this website voted into existence and then privately contracted out to her?  I notice that the WIFI link has a direct link at its bottom to “childtrends.org” which is an Annie E. Casey foundation “thang.” This is certainly ALL about the children, that’s why no one need to explain to the adults– their parents — where their inheritances (or household incomes) went, or is going in the future, except out the door and from there, who knows?

This website has a *.gov address.

So, what does it mean to have an “executive director” — is that person an employee or a contractor — it should be one or the other.  To be an “Executive Director” of a *.gov site is a very interesting job title.  Is that not an accurate job title?

[next section in different background color is a quote.  Not sure why I didn’t use the “quote” function originally…//LGH comment added June 22, 2019 during post format quasi-cleanup]

Both the DRA of 2005 and the CRA are authorizations appropriating money (I guess) and continuing — with some variations — TANF (the name is different with each round, but we’re basically talking Title I,II,III,IV-A (welfare), IV-D (Child support), IV-E (I believe this is foster care), etc. of an Act of Congress.

The word “resource” in this context does not communicate a business, contract, or commerce relationship as would the word “corporation.”  Nor does it communicate a federal agency situation, such as would the word “agency.”  So WTF is it — and why should the US Government be appropriating first, money which is directed at preventing violence against women (VAWA) – AND money which (in effect) reframes the same as a family affair and blames violence against women and children on fatherlessness?

The only reasonable answer I can come up with is that what government does, given half a chance, is to expand itself and cut services — i.e., it’s basically a business, only making the rules more than being subject to them!

This lack of connected dots, in my opinion, ought to bother a lot more people than yours truly…. But we all have been somewhat trained into “just take it on faith” and not given the means to track these things, either through software or basic accounting AND business knowledge (universally taught) .

It took me a while (like looking up the street address; I forgot my basic procedures I usually do when it’s a nonprofit site) — which perhaps has answered the above questions on the NFRC and leads to a NYC nonprofit called “Fathers, Incorporated” — and I’m going to hazard a guess the address is a single-family home, too..

• Fathers Incorporated | weMentor! | 307A Consaul Road | Albany, New York 12205 | 518-227-6161
• Mentoring USA | 5 Hanover Square, 17th Floor | New York, NY 10004 | 212-400-8278
• Raising Him Alone | 1111 Park Ave, Suite L-151 | Baltimore, MD 21201 | Phone: 1-877-339-4300

New York Corporations Search (on “Active” corporations) spelled exactly as above.  A search on “All” (active or inactive) didn’t unearth anything either, nor  “weMentor!” search.

Wanna bet that last address is pretty close to the address of WIFI, Inc?  I could be wrong, but, hey..  These groups had better be all current with their registrations:  Corporate, Nonprofit if they’re taking donations or calling themselves nonprofits AND tax filings — how dare they all be setting up shop at HHS/ACF and not reporting this up front?

29 organizations beginning with the word “fathers” show up — you can search as easy as I…

As it turns out, the first one of these (minus the word “Incorporated”) called just “FATHERS” is the same one (active and inactive both)

Charities Bureau Registry Search {=”charitiesnys.com/Registrysearch/search_charities.jsp”}

Welcome to the Charities Bureau Registry Search. To search for specific charitable organizations, use the search fields below. Please note, in order to use the Registry Search, one of the following search terms must be entered – Name, Charities Bureau ID #, or federal employer identification number (EIN). Some organizations, like religious organizations, are exempt from registering with the Charities Bureau and may not appear in the Registry.
Posting here does not mean the organization is an approved tax-exempt organization under the internal revenue code. The IRS determines tax-exempt status.

Contributions are not tax deductible unless the IRS determines the organization is tax-exempt. To search a list of tax-exempt organizations, use the IRS Exempt Organization Search Tool provided by the IRS. Some organizations, like religious organizations, may not appear on the IRS list because they are not required to file with IRS in order to be tax-exempt.

and here are those 5: Notice the different spelling of the top one: there’s a “,” and there’s an “Inc.” (not “incorporated”)  Here they are:

Fathers, Inc. 42-88-99 NO DATA AVAILABLE NFP ALBANY NY
FATHERS AT LARGE INC 01-07-72 NO DATA AVAILABLE Estates N Y NY
FATHERS DAY COUNCIL INC 04-55-99 NO DATA AVAILABLE NFP NEW YORK NY
FATHERS HEART MINISTRIES 06-38-50 223495873 NFP NEW YORK NY
FATHERS RIGHTS ASSOCIATION OF NEW YORK STATE INC 04-80-74 141678642 NFP ROCHESTER NY

“RAISING HIM ALONE” DOESN’T SHOW AS INCORPORATED IN MARYLAND, BUT HERE’S THEIR WEBSITE SHOWING THE BACKGROUND AND ITS FUNDING PREDICTABLY A MIX OF PRIVATE (SOROS) AND PUBLIC (HHS) FUNDING.   IT’S AIMED AT HELPING SINGLE MOTHERS OF (APPARENTLY THE FOCUS IS AFRICAN-AMERICAN) BOYS, RAISE THEM…

JUDGING BY THE FINE PRINT AT BOTOM OF THE PAGE, THIS IS (A TRADE NAME FOR?) THE URBAN LEADERSHIP INSTITUTE — WHICH SEEMS A LITTLE OBLIQUE — WAS THAT ITS ORIGINAL AIM?  IT WAS FORMED 12/2000 — AND DISSOLVED (INTENTIONALLY) FEB. 2002, MEANING, IT EXISTED FOR ABOUT A YEAR.  IT THEN REVIVED (AS AN LLC) IN FEB. 2002, AND AGAIN FORFEITED ITS STATUS IN OCT. 2004 FOR FAILING TO FILE PROPERTY RETURN FOR 2003!   FROM OCT. 2004-2008 I GUESS IT WAS INACTIVE AT LEAST LEGALLY (FUNDING RECEIVED THEN?  LOOK AT THE WEBSITES!!!) — AND THEN REINSTATED IN APRIL 2008…THIS TIME FINALLY NEATLY TYPING IT (AND ONLY ONE LEADER MENTIONED).

THE

THE THIRD ONE IS A TRADE NAME, WITH THESE THREE GUYS:
LAMARR D. SHIELDS
1951 EUTAW PL
BALTIMORE, MD 21217 4359

DAVID MILLER
1951 EUTAW PL
BALTIMORE, MD 21217 4359

KEVIN BROOKS
1951 EUTAW PL
BALTIMORE, MD 21217 4359

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

Readers are asked to please help me look these up.  I also note that Braswell (the exec dir here)  — the logo is the link to “Fathers, Incorporated” It says he is a board member of the “Fathers and Families Coalition of America” (AZFFC.org”) a group I’ve kept my eyes on and haven’t found the nonprofit or corporate filing of yet — maybe it’s in New York? — and etc.

How MUCH of this should we all be tolerating — private businesses and professions spinning off of federal funding programs, with personal agenda? — from either male or female sides?

Grrr!! The HHS field in particular is just too susceptible to transferring its profits to public media groups and anyone who can run a good campaign.  This then will help support the current or next President — as it has done both Republican AND Democrat!!

Fathersinc.com — you have the mailing address and you know know it’s managing welfare funding directed to a NFRC — public money.  So let’s get some transparency on who’s managing it, starting with salaries from combined board positions of all nonprofits involved.  And are any of them shell corporations — in other words, is there a legal limit on how many nonprofits out of one street address?

Who is “mentorusa.inc”?

1. Who Lives on Consaul Rd, Albany,NY

   http://www.spokeo.com/Consaul+Rd+Albany+NY+addresses

   Find residents and property records for Consaul Rd, Albany,NY homes. Reverse address search any Albany,NY real estate.
   

   two males (40s, 50s) & probably a wife? living in Unit A, it says here:  R Dingee, and T & P Sherwood.  There’s also a Unit B, and a Unit “unknown” with 18 residents, past & present (hey, do I navigate Spokeo very well?? Not really….)

   http://www.spokeo.com/Consaul+Rd+Albany+NY+addresses#20495111

2. OK, Looking at the website (and Executive Director of) “FATHERS, INC.” I BELIEVE I HAVE A LITTLE BETTER HANDLING ON THE MEANING OF ‘women IN FATHERHOOD, INC.”

   This should be a separate post – and I’m going to say upfront, it’s deceitful not to put this information up front on the NFRC page to start with.  . . . . . .  Geeze!!!

   WeMentor Interest Mentor Form | Fathers Incorporated

   http://www.fathersincorporated.com/…/wementor-interest-mentor-form/

   307A Consaul Road | Albany, New York 12205 | 518-227-6161. Mentoring USA | 5 Hanover Square, 17th Floor | New York, NY 10004 | 212-400-8278. Raising …

3. Contact Us | Fathers Incorporated

   http://www.fathersincorporated.com/contact-us/

   307A Consaul Road Albany, New York 12205. Telephone Numbers: 845-290- 2763 | Outreach Specialist. 1-800-716-3468 | ParentHelp Hotline. 518-779-6007 …

4. 2011-12 Holiday Appeal | Fathers Incorporated

   http://www.fathersincorporated.com/projects/2011-12-holiday-appeal/

   Your donations can be made online or a check can be mailed to Fathers Incorporated; 307A Consaul Road, Albany, New York 12205. We are already excited …
   

5. Contact Us | National Responsible Fatherhood Clearinghouse

   fatherhood.gov/about-us/contact-us

   Mailing address. National Responsible Fatherhood Clearinghouse307A Consaul Road Albany, New York 12205. Federal Contact Lisa Washington- Thomas …
   

6. Unified Services Corp – Albany – 5184566683

   company-in-us.com/unified-services-corp-albany-5184566683

   Unified Services Corp – Albany. The Address of Unified Services Corp is307 Consaul Road, Albany, NY 12205. Result for this Company in Albany, New York, …

. After reading

The current president of MDRC is “Gordon Berlin” (I knew I’d remembered that name from somewhere….)

First of all “income” is a word relating to the INCOME tax, which many of these groups and corporations are expert in avoiding.  That’s FYI what nonprofits and foundations are about — preserving wealth by organizing to pay less income tax, and incorporating (against personal liability), plus taking advantage of federal funding (power likes power, and wealth attracts wealth, right?  The magnetic flow of resources to anywhere that’s perceived to have some already — which means away from those that don’t, basic capitalism, right?).

When are we going to get a little MORE honest and saying, we are allowing wealthy corporations, individuals (religious) and our own government to exploit the poor AS CAPITAL by studying them, testing programs on them, evaluating the programs, and the entire time resourcing this from a flow of money which came from them to start with?   (That’s why I started the ColdHardFacts blog, to the right, so we’d see that viewpoint).  This is simply a business plan!

Look at the MDRC greeting and notice how people are labeled by their income level! I am not completely defined by My income, I assert — but this is how they are commonly called:  “low-income people” like a permanent social science tag & profile.  Then they are further profiled (by this wealth and power) by gender, race, where they live (while the others are able to globe-trot, or at least conference-hop transcontinentally) and so on….

They are setting up programs which just about guarantee that the appellation “low-income” will stick for a lifetime, in part because welfare (child support, that is) no longer is just for low-income people.  Its purpose is “evolving.”  Women, mothers, have known and reported this for years — see Anne Stevenson’s blogs over at HuffingtonPost, look up “randijames.com” blog and search for Michael Hayes (Texas OAG, if he’s still there), or if you want more firsthand information, carefully read the revisions and expansions in the history of welfare legislation since 1996….  It can be done….Meanwhile, the dollar overall (and most of the low-income people studied are not going to have access to multiple currencies, I’ll bet!) is slipping. .. . .

OK, I’ll cut that conversation short...

Gordon Berlin President	“The driving force behind MDRC is a conviction that reliable evidence, well communicated, can make an important difference in social policy. We are passionate about learning and communicating what works – and what doesn’t work – in improving the economic and social well-being of low-income people.”

The president of this nonprofit admits that its purpose is to affect social policy.  So, the next question is — who’s financing it?  Because that’s really who wants to “affect social policy” (which is to say, direct legislation and the appropriations that go with it.  Money, OK?)

The goal apparently is to keep most people low-income, but working (for the corporations behind the foundations that finance this) and keep them feeding the central depository over at the Fed — whether you take that as the US Federal Government, or the Federal Reserve, at this point, I don’t particularly care.

What CANNOT be allowed is for low-income people to be freed up to actually (using their own common sense, business sense, initiative, and most importantly IDEAS) get free from the income trap and start seriously competing (en masse) with the people controlling the majority of the wealth. Sorry to put it that way, but that’s my present take.

We are being used as lab rats and paying for the experimentation, in part, ourselves.  There is a strategy and goals; but most people are not encouraged to see, or examine these goals, or their worthiness (or lack of worth).

What Does “MDRC” Stand For?

In 1974, MDRC was founded as the Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation. However, in 2003, we made “MDRC” the registered corporate identity of our organization, thereby formally adopting the name by which we had become best known to our professional colleagues and the general public.

This is 2012.  The same old “Financial Profile” is up there, almost illegible, from 2010:

Can you actually read that?

This is their 2011 audit — but that’s only for one year’s worth of activities, showing the prior year.  I used to type statements like this.  In this one, you can see that its liabilities are only 1/10th of its assets, which is to say ca. $8.3 million liability to $85 million (almost 86) assets!! How many of us can say we literally are living off of <=1/10th our total worth, and if we had to, could liquidate some of it to pay for an emergency bill — like a medical bill, a few months without contributions (income) or a forced move, etc.??

If I were to compare its liabilities to its UNrestricted assets, this would be closer to 25% – in other words $8 million ($8.3) liabilities, in other words how many people could say they are literally only utilizing 25% of their net worth to live on?

In 1999 I read, MDRC got an endowment, with $7 million, five-year matching grant from (predecessor of) The Atlantic Philanthropies, etc.

In 2010, get this:

Working in almost every state, all of the nation’s largest cities, and the United Kingdom, MDRC conducts its projects in partnership with national, state, and local governments, public school systems, community organizations, and numerous private philanthropies.

MDRC is substantially funded through grants and contracts awarded by government agencies, private foundations, universities, and corporations.

In 2010, MDRC made $19.4 million in payments to sites and program participants for the operation of the Opportunity NYC conditional cash transfers, Social Security Accelerated Benefits, and Supporting Healthy Marriage programs; as these temporary programs wound down on schedule in 2011, these payments declined by $18.5 million to $0.9 million.

{notice in the summary they didn’t bother to say how much for each of those three causes).

http://www.mdrc.org/publications/mdrc_2011_audit_report.pdf
Opportunity NYC reviewed by an MDRC person shows MDRC working with SeedCo — and similar foundations underwriting this process, the usual assortment (Rockefeller, Annie E. Casey, MacArthur, AIG again (interesting….), the Starr Foundation (AIG was an outgrowth from the originator of the Starr foundation, i.e., insurance.  AIG was bailed out in 2008 — to the tune of $182 million, right? by taxpayers — but, hey, whatever…Bloomberg Philanthropies, The Open Society Institute (Soros?), the Tiger Foundation, however that is, and “New York Community Trust.”) (that’s just me reading the fine print footnotes.  This program was based on an idea from Mexico, people get actual cash if they “invest in human capital.”  The cash appears to have ranged from $600 to $3,000.  I don’t know if the word “Families” meant two parents had to be involved or not.  Here’s a conservative complaining (badly) about it, but bringing up a few points — New York City isn’t Mexico….  AND he said the amount was about $14 million overall…. and with overhead, looks like ca. $7,000 per family (if my math is right, that’s more than 50% going to administration). ….

Basically the system was paying people to take their kids to the dentist, or keep them in school (financial incentives for attendance? . . . . yep!) and for passing the Regents exam (high school).  WOW.  They quit the plan, but you’d hardly know to read MDRC reports –and the internet is busting with writeups on it….

City Will Stop Paying the Poor for Good Behavior By JULIE BOSMAN Published: March 30, 2010

The mayor, a believer in incentives in business and government, was determined to try it, but he avoided using public money initially.

<p”>The program was certainly expensive: Mr. Bloomberg and Linda I. Gibbs, the deputy mayor for health and human services, traveled to Mexico to learn more about Oportunidades, the welfare program there on which the New York City effort was based.

About $40 million in private donations, including from Mr. Bloomberg’s foundation, was collected to finance the effort, called Opportunity NYC Family Rewards. Two years into the program, more than $14 million had been paid out to 2,400 families. An additional $10.2 million is for operating costs, and $9.6 million for research and evaluation.

Am I the only person looking at the math there? $40 million / $14 payouts, $10.2 operating costs & $9.6 evaluation to me sounds like about a 2:1 overhead and follow-up. So who’s operating it and who gets to evaluate it (like MDRC….)

While most behavioral changes were not large, the cash provided to the families had a short-term effect: Those who participated earned, on average, more than $6,000 a year in the first two years. Largely as a result, those participating families were 16 percent less likely to live in poverty.

The families used the money to pay for basic living expenses, school supplies, electronic equipment and going to the movies, among other things.

Good. The goal of the program was to bribe parents into behavioral change (hardly unusual for a group invested in the fatherhood programs earlier in its history), like attend schools. On the other hand because some money actually did get into family’s hands, that was helpful, for a while. Of course if MDRC and friends weren’t running so many experimental programs, there might be more in welfare to start with. ….

Here’s another review pointing out, it’s more than a little condescending to say (see Conservative Pessimist article, above) that the poor’s poverty is their own fault, just lack of thrift, sloth, and failure to do the right thing, but perhaps they can be trained, like dogs, to do tricks and then they won’t be so poor any more…..I’m pretty glad that someone else actually figured this out….

Can Mayor Bloomberg pay people to do the right thing?

Behavioral Theory DANA GOLDSTEIN AUGUST 14, 2009

Bloomberg created the Center for Economic Opportunity in 2006, an effort that includes 40 different anti-poverty programs spanning 20 city agencies. The Obama administration is observing the center carefully, looking for successes that can be scaled up at the national level. But while longtime New York City anti-poverty advocates are grateful to Bloomberg for his focus on the issue, they are not all sold on his approach. Many regard Opportunity NYC in particular as the questionable pet project of their hyper-capitalist, billionaire mayor — the richest man in New York, who is expected to spend $100 million in his quest to win a third term.

“Opportunity NYC borders on offensive — the idea that a person can be bribed into doing better in school or being a better parent,” says Mark Winston Griffith, executive director of the Drum Major Institute for Public Policy in New York City. “It sort of suggests that poverty is a lifestyle choice, that somehow if we’re just given a nudge, that we can choose not to be in this condition, or choose for our children to do better in school, or choose as parents to provide better child care. It comes out of the idea that poor people are almost sort of culturally and inherently dysfunctional. Not because of structural circumstances but because of their own personal failings.”

In April the city published initial results of the trial, which is the largest-ever controlled test of conditional cash transfers in the United States. There have been some notable successes: Only 43 percent of families had a bank account when they enrolled in the program; now over 90 percent of the families have accounts, a requirement for receiving the payments. And families have been very successful at earning the rewards for annual doctor’s visits ($200 per family member) and good school attendance in the lower grades ($50 per child every two months).

Yet for a program modeled on the idea that intergenerational poverty is, at least in part, a “behavioral” problem that can be modified through free-market incentives, there have also been challenges — ones that reflect advocates’ concerns about the Bloomberg approach to poverty-reduction. Because of child-care problems and low skills, only about 3 percent of Opportunity NYC single moms have been able to find or maintain part-time work while taking a skills-building course, even though the city will pay them $3,000 to do so. Dovetailing with the larger Bloomberg school-reform agenda, the program emphasizes academic achievement. Yet according to the contractors who administer Opportunity NYC and are studying its results, children in the program have not done particularly well on standardized English and math tests or on the New York state Regents examinations required to earn a high school diploma — perhaps a result of low-performing, segregated neighborhood schools or poverty-related education deficits dating back to infancy or even to a lack of prenatal care.

Unsurprisingly, some behaviors are much easier to change through cash incentives than are others — in part because poor people don’t have much control over the institutions and conditions that shape their lives. “Opportunity NYC reflects an understanding of poverty as a cultural problem,” Griffith says. “The missing piece is a candid conversation about the role of wages, for instance, or affordable housing.”

The idea of fighting the “culture of poverty” is nothing new. It dates back to sociological studies of the late 1950s and was popularized by Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan of New York, whose 1965 “Moynihan Report” focused on the so-called pathologies of the African American family, including the lack of future-oriented financial planning and a disregard for academic achievement.

As such, it’s everyone’s concern how this is being used (including when it’s used for evangelism, and/or to downplay life-threatening activities affecting primarily females, which is to say — we’re still the child-bearing half of humanity, so lets just come out and call it what it is — affecting mothers).  Although these beliefs are rooted in beliefs about women — per se — it’s landing REAL hard on women (single, married, or divorcing) who are women.  I don’t believe it’s good for men to be (through federal funding or any other form of coercion or indoctrination) to be promoting and condoning policies which put women’s (or men’s) lives at risk and which are based primarily in religious beliefs which not all taxpayers share.

I was going to post more on the Wade Horn link provided in my last post — however, you can as easily just look at it yourself, and are encouraged to.   it’s to be found under “TANF set-asides” section, which I’d found on Smartmarriages.com “Legislation.”  The background is I believe light-yellow.   You can click on the Wade Horn link and see him talking about his tour to promote responsible fatherhood, like the good governor of Oklahoma had already done.

(Here it is – and that’s the entire letter viewable on the website of a Washington, D.C. based LLC which has trademarked the name “Smartmarriages(r)” which can be seen at uspto.gov in a basic trademark search, as I’ve given many samples of herein)

(actually, it’s below the following rant, which I seem to be doing these days; sorry….)

BUSINESS (and economics) kind of goes like this:   If you are not constantly seeking to expand your income and reduce your expenses to the point of more than complete freedom from the need to work — which is basically how people setting up the foundations running this place figured it out, since the nonprofit/for-profit divide was put in place to help centralize the economy, and better track it — you are then working on an “I Hope I can keep my job, and my wages will keep up with expenses — I’ll cut back — and I HOPE the economy won’t go bust, and I HOPE my kids’ schools will be good for them, and I HOPE my market niche won’t disappear as I approach retirement, and I HOPE I won’t be replaced by a machine, or someone half my age from overseas, or a combination of both, and I HOPE the price of gas (or public transportation, housing, food, etc.) doesn’t go through the roof while my wages stay pretty much stable — or decrease) — and I HOPE my neighborhood stays safe, but doesn’t get gentrified above my ability to live there, or (I hope) I can afford the household move to one that I can afford, which I HOPE doesn’t so increase transportation expenses and the work day that it affects my child care expenses and what schools my kids can attend (great public schools, of course), or my ability to participate in monitoring how safe those schools are. . . . ..  I HOPE moreover, if I’m a single parent receiving child support, that I actually do.

Also, if I’m a single parent because of prior violence, I HOPE it doesn’t escalate, or we actually get out of the famiy court system so as to be able to focus on our respective work, and let’s HOPE that someone’s 2nd marriage isn’t to a bitch (or abuser) who wants to cut of my access to my own offspring (whether I’m male or female).

And I then also HOPE that I don’t get laid off because of either too much stress surrounding the custody matters (etc.) — or simply because — like happened to the British Confectionary/chocolate company around since the 1800s — that a monster corporation doesn’t buy it out and move the factory overseas (which did happen, as we saw (or at least this blog author did) — and voila — it’s in Poland, only half of that owned by a Korean firm which the EU forced to happen.

What else can we HOPE?  I HOPE that if layoffs happen, theres’ unemployment to cover the situation.  I hope my pension fund has something in it.  I hope to have enough for my kids’ college educations and that they will be in fields and with the skills competitive enough in the new economy, not the one I was raised in (as it’s changing at the speed of light anyhow) — and that they don’t resort to crime.

Or become victims of Crime.

I HOPE that the best man wins in the next National Election of  a US President (NB judging by the polls, about half the people are going to be disappointed in that one).

I HOPE that we don’t turn into a theocracy.  Or, alternately, believing we are God’s representatives and it’s our duty to jumpstart the kingdom of God by taking over the global economy, even if it means cooperating with groups our forefathers (sic) expelled and persecuted, even massacred — as heretics.  At least those guys had religious zeal and knew how to keep their women in line. . . .

While so many of these dialogues — or at least operating principles, part of the CPU of our work and lifespans (conscious or not, and I’ve only named some) — are going on, this is what other people were doing, and it’s far more than HOPE.  They had a business plan and were instituting it, deducing correctly that our government is corrupt enough to cater to those who are willing to sell SOMEONE out — whether it be all the females, all the males, all the poor, or the concept of justice — for a buck.

People who don’t REALLY believe in representative government unless they are the spokespersons…

(you can see why I need a serious time out here — I really didn’t appreciate discovering that the NRFC was run by a well-positioned nonprofit out of Albany, NY.
What’s ironic about that — the Battered Mothers’ Custody Conference has been held at or near Albany, NY for many years and so far– no one (as of about 2011) even mentioned the fatherhood grants or healthy marriage grants from the public platform, that I can tell of — to date.  Go over all the presenters, and look up what the presenters have been talking about — this stuff is NOT on there.

That’s why I started the blog!  If VAWA won’t admit that there’s the other side of the grants system (and vice versa) it’s kind of like having a hot water tap and a  cold water tap (although one was an act of congress first, and the other was an HHS/Crony nonprofit allegiance, which then found its home under welfare reform.  Welfare reform focuses on HHS, and VAWA focuses rather more on the DOJ when it comes to grants, from what I can tell.  Expect the DV organizations which I’ve profiled, some of them, draw from both sides — as do the fatherhood ones.  

Here it is – and that’s the entire letter viewable on the website of a Washington, D.C. based LLC which has trademarked the name “Smartmarriages(r)” which can be seen at uspto.gov in a basic trademark search, as I’ve given many samples of herein)

Use Welfare Money to Promote Marriage

Fatherly Advice
Dr. Wade F. Horn
President, The National Fatherhood Initiative

Use Welfare Money to Promote Marriage

April 4, 2000

I have spent much of the past four years traveling around the country
exhorting state officials to spend some of their welfare dollars on
activities which promote marriage, both as a means of reducing welfare
rolls (married adults are significantly less likely to be poor than unmarried
adults) and as a means of improving child well-being.

Do the math.  He started this right in 1996, as soon as welfare reform was passed.  So, tell me — what was welfare reform for, then?

https://familycourtmatters.wordpress.com/2010/07/19/white-guy-helps-african-american-marriages-until-he-jumps-ship-on-hhs/

He was in HHS under Bush (around the time of welfare reform) and then back in again in 2001 (Bush, Jr. became president) at a fairly high position.  Then he resigned, suddenly:

This is the Listserve from Diane Sollee, and her (entire?) commentary on his sudden resignation April 2, 2007:

 WADE HORN STEPPING DOWN

At first I hoped this was an April Fool's Day joke, but I'm told it's true.
Wade Horn, Assistant Secretary at the Administration for Children and
Families/HHS - and for our purposes a champion of Marriage Education,
visionary leader, and recipient of the 2002 Smart Marriages Impact Award -
is stepping down to take a job in the private sector, effective April 8,
2007.  The private sector just got lucky. - diane

But the rest of the internet had a LOT to say on it…. NOW sued for $1 million on gender discrimination over this marriage/fatherhood funding, abstinence education was a big issue.  But when he stepped down, I was so stressed and involved on the home front (i.e., custody matters, work loss surrounding them) that I didn’t STILL even know about this funding stream.  I wasn’t on welfare, so wasn’t connecting the dots….

This man was overseeing $46 BILLION of programming — and he was involved with the National Fatherhood Initiative; he was called “Bush’s point man for welfare reform” — and his background is guess what — child psychologist…

1. Head of welfare, abstinence programs resigns – USATODAY.com

   usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/…/2007-04-03-horn–resignation_N.h…

   Apr 3, 2007 – WASHINGTON (AP) — Wade Horn, the Bush administration’s point man for welfare reform, Head Start and abstinence education, resigned …
   

2. (Wade Horn) Welfare, abstinence chief resigns – Democratic Underground

   http://www.democraticunderground.com › Discuss

   11 posts – 11 authors – Apr 2, 2007

   Welfare, abstinence chief resigns. By Kevin Freking, Associated Press Writer | April 2, 2007. WASHINGTON —Wade Horn, the Bush …
   

3. | Wade Leaps

   http://www.talk2action.org/story/2007/4/3/13226/32116

   Apr 3, 2007 – Wade Horn resigned as Assistant Secretary of Children and Families at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services yesterday, and…
   

4. Are political bloggers powerful enough to force a resignation without …

   newshare.typepad.com/mgp2006/2007/04/are_political_b.html

   Apr 4, 2007 – SOCIAL SERVICES OFFICIAL STEPS DOWN. Wade Horn, the Bush administration’s point man for welfare reform, Head Start and abstinence …
   

5. WADE HORN CASHES OUT « Crisis In The Family Courts

   abatteredmother.wordpress.com/2011/04/14/wade–horn-cashes-out/

   Apr 14, 2011 – While it’s difficult to really know exactly what Wade Horn was thinking in the days prior to his resignation from the Department of Health and…
   

6. Wade Horn – SourceWatch

   http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Wade_Horn

   Aug 11, 2008 – Wade Horn was “the Bush administration’s point man for welfare reform, Head Start and abstinence education.” He resigned April 2, 2007, …
   

7. Bush’s Point Man Wade Horn Resigns .

   news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1976&dat…id…sjid…

   Apr 3, 2007 – Bush’s point man Wade Horn resigns . WASHINGTON — Wade Horn, the Bush administration’s point man for welfare reform, Head Start and …
   

8. Wade Horn – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

   en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wade_Horn

   Wade F. Horn is an American psychologist who received unanimous confirmation … Before his resignation on April 1, 2007, he oversaw the function of the …

As you can see it was big news!   At the bottom of this post, I’m going to link to and highlight large segment of the Dissident Voice article by Bill Berkowitz (always one of my favorite investigative writers) speculating on what, actually, prompted Wade Horn to Jump Ship.

AND it points out, however, where he jumped to — and his wife’s firm, which apparently has subcontracted for another major HHS Grantee (see article).  AND, that in Deloitte and Touch, Horn would be working under Tommy Thompson (hopefully that name, from Wisconsin, is familiar!).

Which is the point I’d like to keep pointing to — there’s an HHS Revolving Door going on here.

It’s hurting the most vulnerable sectors of society and helping those who least need its help – program administrators, various cronies (not just Bush cronies) — and handing control of “low-income” people, many aspects of their lives — to the Not-Low-Income people, on a silver platter.

That’s why we just HAVE to understand this much, much better.  I know this blog won’t do the job– there are better answers coming (and to be posted imminently, which is to say the tools include the CAFRs) — over at ColdHardFacts blog (link to my right).

(WADE WRITING FOR SMARTMARRIAGES (I THINK) IN 2000)..

Everywhere I went, my exhortations resulted either in disbelief that
welfare funds could be spent for such a purpose or with scornful
dismissals that marriage is none of government’s business. {{I AGREE!!}}

Given such reactions, it
was not surprising that no state had spent even a penny on activities to
promote marriage. All of that changed on Tuesday, March 21 — and not a moment
too soon.

A little background. Congressionally enacted welfare reform did many
things. It required that the vast majority of welfare recipients go to
work; it placed a five year time limit on the receipt of welfare; and it
replaced an open-ended federal entitlement to cash welfare with a block grant,
giving states much more flexibility in how they spend federal welfare dollars.

But welfare reform legislation did more than all that. It added the
idea that from now on, welfare would also be about promoting marriage, that
welfare funds could — and should — be used to promote the formation and
maintenance of two-parent families.

Theoretically, states could have devoted 100 percent of their welfare
block-grant funds to this purpose. More realistically, they were
expected to devote at least some portion of these funds to promote marriage. In
actuality, states devoted nothing — not one red cent.

If this weren’t in the accompaniment of such religious beliefs about women, I wouldn’t be so opposed.  But it’s been used to cover up wife-beating and child abuse.  How do we think some of those on welfare get on welfare?

Just a reminder — around 1996 was when the HUD apparatus, as I recall, went after Catherine Austin Fitts’ “Hamilton” company, including stealing its software which linked HUD defaults geographically to high-crime, high-drug areas.  See “vital info/links.”  In short, poverty may have less to do with how many people in the marriage, than HUD (subsidized housing, get it?) being run as a criminal organization, and that’s a quote.

The LOGIC of marriage reducing poverty doesn’t hold.  it’s not a logical proposition universally — unless we are ALL forced to work in the same set of institutions, all of us (except those setting up and setting policy for them, or governmental employees working in them.  FYI, all school teachers are civil servants, right?  Who pays the salary?  Look at who the biggest contributors to President Obama’s election were (I did).

Then do another study (I hope to, some day) — and profile every single member of Congress, particularly those in the 1996 legislature — and find out how they became Congressmen & US Reps — did they go to traditional schools, and if so, how many of them?  Moreover, do their own children attend such schools?  I’ve already looked at Gov. Keating’s background — and he sure didn’t.  Neither did Rick Santorum.  Go check it out!  Schools segregate people by income, and I know this because I’ve dealt with (and lived in) various neighborhood and in more than one state.   School and real estate value are related; there’s more discretionary wealth in certain neighborhoods, which is poured into public schools (although many in these areas also attend — or work in — private schools, which also flourish in the same areas).

Until March 21,  (2000) that is. In a bold move, Governor Keating of
Oklahoma announced on that date that he would be using $10 million in federal
welfare block-grant funds to encourage healthy, stable marriages as a means of
reducing divorce, out-of-wedlock childbearing, and welfare dependency.

In that order…. reducing welfare dependency as actually the last priority — and forming two-parent marriages was also the fourth (not first) welfare purpose.  Oklahoma is a Bible belt state, and Utah is a religious state.  They both loved this stuff… WHY?

His announcement was a follow-up to his launching of an Oklahoma
Marriage Initiative last year.

Since then, the Governor and First Lady Cathy
Keating have been busy laying the groundwork for this bold initiative by speaking
with leaders from a variety of sectors of Oklahoma life — including
business, the faith community, education, social services, government,
the courts, and the media — seeking input as to how marriage can be
strengthened most effectively.

Looks to me from that short list, the only group not on there were the actual people ON welfare.  Maybe they should ask these people how come they’re on welfare!

Governor Keating and his wife have also held several public meetings
on the topic. As a result, in his recent inaugural and State of the State
addresses, the Governor laid out his ambitious goal of reducing the
state’s divorce rate by one-third by the end of the decade.

Having speculated (not proved) that divorce causes welfare dependency, that becomes his focus.

In fact, in our marriage I was poor at a very real level, and with me, so were the children — because the marriage was abusive and paranoid-controlling.  In such marriages, there’s a love/hate relationship with allowing (yes, that’s what I said) the wife to work.  I had no way to force the father to share his earnings when I wasn’t working, or to force him to actually seek to maintain work when I was working, and he opted not to seek employment.  It was totally unstable.

When we separated, and the work-interference stopped, and I had some control over these matters, the household income tripled.   He also initially contributed — being required to.  Oh yes, I forgot — in our situation (mirrors many) for just a short period, no one was assaulting and threatening me in the home.  when I worked, no one tried to steal my paycheck, or shut down my checking account, but keep me producing income.  I had a little control over whether when I came home, I could actually sleep (sleep deprivation is also used on, FYI, hostages — and I’m not talking a young-kid situation.  My kids slept through the night fine from early days.  I’m talking about when I wasn’t allowed to go to bed when exhausted, through working a night job — or when in bed, being hauled OUT of bed in anger in the middle of the night, etc.

Those matters have a very real influence on a household’s income — mutual.  Women who are not safe in their homes, cannot produce to capacity, PERIOD.  It appears that if welfare — temporary — allows us a foothold to safety (in cases where there’s not a supportive family around to help that transition) — then it should be allowed, and REDUCE what’s available to allow those parents to manage themselves (in thebest interest of their own kids) rather than run them through demeaning and religiously-motivated programming.

Did I mention, Gov. Keating was raised and I think is, Catholic; Jerry Regier (involved at this time, and head of HHS under Keating)  is also deeply religious, InterVarsity, Campus Crusade for Christ, etc.  He also attended a religious high school, not just college.  I blogged it.

So, at least in Gov. Keating, Wade Horn had a kindred spirit — promote fatherhood! Stop Divorce!

Although the action plan for this initiative has not yet been
finalized, major activities will most likely include the development of a Marriage
Resource Center (done); a public education campaign emphasizing the importance
of marriage; youth outreach to change the attitudes of young people about
the virtues and advantages of marriage; encouragement of pre-marital
counseling; and the integration of pro-marriage activities into existing social
service delivery systems.

This is extraordinary news. My hope is that other states will follow
Governor Keating’s lead and use at least some of their welfare
block-grant surpluses to develop marriage initiatives of their own.

Plenty of surplus money is available in state welfare block-grant
funds — $7.5 billion to be exact. Although some states have already dedicated
some of these surplus funds for other purposes, it is estimated that at least
$4.2 billion is available for marriage-promoting activities. Given the
current weakened state of marriage in America, we’ll need to spend a whole lot
more than $10 million dollars out of this $4.2 billion surplus to revitalize
it.

There are signs that the floodgates for spending on marriage
initiatives are opening. The Wisconsin Legislature, for example, recently designated
$45,000 in welfare funds to be used to hire a person “to develop
community-wide standards for marriages solemnized in the state.”

Moreover, state Rep. Mark Anderson has introduced a bill into the
Arizona Legislature to spend $17 million in welfare funds to teach communication
and conflict resolution skills to high school students, give tax credits to
couples who take such a course, and develop a public education campaign
extolling the virtues of marriage.

NOT MENTIONED — Rep. Mark Anderson is a faithful and long-term MOONIE (and tied in closely with the Bush Admin).  He got an Assembly of God organization (the Godziches NAME) go obtain the marriage funding; this is commonly called grants-steering.  This is the couple who (or the man) came out with a book called “Men Are From Dirt, Women Are From Men” which is up under this PUBLIC funded nonprofit website to this day.  It’s a clear reference to the book of Genesis and creation story.

There will, of course, be the inevitable nay-sayers. A regrettable
alliance of critics from both the libertarian right and the
we-hate-marriage left will assert that government has no business promoting marriage.

I’m neither and I don’t believe that welfare should be used to promote marriage…. However this does give us a good indication that wade Horn was not addressing a crowd here he felt had libertarian or leftist leanings, right?

Some fiscal conservatives will join in and argue that we can’t afford to spend
tax dollars on such things.

{{WHOSE MONEY WAS IT TO START WITH?  GIVE SOME OF IT BACK TO THEM!!}}

These critics, of course, will be wrong. Marriage is indispensable
to the well-being of a healthy society, more important than a rising Dow
Jones Industrial Average or trigger locks on handguns. That’s because research
consistently finds that communities with high marriage rates have fewer
social pathologies, including less crime and less welfare dependency,
than communities with low marriage rates. If marriage is good for
communities, why should government be shy about promoting and strengthening it?

As i note often enough, there’s a lot of unreported crime going on within marriages.  If that crime were instead reported, the “research” might show a little differently.  moreover, there are I’m sure, plenty of marriages like mine — in which there was intention to keep resources away from one partner so S/he could not leave.  I was financially pimped during the traditional marriage and for its duration.  I was humiliated in front of my kids (AND neighbors) and forced to beg, go without access to transportation, and at times to a bank account (we never had a shared one).  I recall those times as a long-term nightmare, and the light didn’t break til I got out. Thereafter I was forced to fight this guy — not knowing who was funding the other side in detail — abandoned by my own family (who took up the opposing side in a custody battle, apparently they share some viewpoints with Wade Horn and Gov. Keating, if not on the matter of God, on the matter of independent single mothers which I, til they took up the banner, was….).

FYI, there is such a thing as safety and such a thing as operational efficiency.  Some Moms are bad, some Dads are bad.  Some pastors are bad, and from what I can tell, so are some legislators.  I’m all for less centralized control — the least, the best.

If in the opinion of men like Wade Horn, it’s Ok to have dependency and poverty (and crime, and child abuse) so long as it’s hidden behind closed doors — in marriages — then I believe we need different leadership.  Period.  And we need to quit making decisions about the many in conferences of the few.

The only way i know to obtain such a situation is to take their playtoys away — and those playtoys include an out of control federal budget and a too-easy-to-manipulate public hooked into the economic system which includes a caste system.  This WILL be resisted, and I hope it will be without much violence, but then again — stealing from needy families is a form of violence.

Let’s start by scrutinizing where the slush funds and fraud are, and when a situation is beyond auditing, then pull the plug until it can actually be audited.  The general public ends up taking up the slack anyhow…

Governor Keating addressed these critics himself when he said at the
launching of this initiative,

“Frankly, some people asked Cathy and me
what business the government has getting involved in marriage. But when you
look at the consequences of divorce, the better question is: ‘What business do
we have not getting involved?'”

I wonder who was there for the pronouncement, or understood its significance….

None that I can think of, Governor. None at all.

___________________________
Dr. Wade F. Horn is President of the National Fatherhood Initiative, a
clinical child psychologist, and co-author of several books on parenting
including the Better Homes and Gardens New Father Book (Meredith, 1998)
and the Better Homes and Gardens New Teen Book (Meredith, 1999). Send your
question about dads, children or fatherhood to: The National Fatherhood
Initiative, 101 Lake Forest Blvd, Suite 360, Gaithersburg, MD 20877, or
e-mail him at NFI1995@aol.com.

As of 2000 here, it was also six years post-VAWA.  Please notice, this didn’t even get a single mention (nor did abuse) in Wade Horn’s speech.  That’s no accident….

I just want to mention here, which I hadn’t known at the time (being so wrapped up in my own case and completely oblivious to ALL these programs, which is how DV advocates like to keep their clients, lest they start to solve the problem of why domestic violence incidents just won’t go away  . . . . . . Because people are feeding the fire with federal monies taken from TANF year after year.  that’s also probably why, when a case goes through mediation, the mediators in many states are deaf, dumb, and blind to criminal behavior by either parent.   Mine showed zero interest even in a parental child-stealing event that had JUST happened, and when he kept grilling me on my relationship with my kids, and I responded, I do not currently know where they are (at which time the other parent was in serious violation of several court orders AND state laws, as my kids were also held truant) — he just wasn’t interested at all in this fact.  Not one of the judges (three) I stood before that year, nor the GAL, were in the least interested either, in one parent’s complete disobedience (blatant) to ALL court orders in our case, compared with my compliance to them.  the Child Support Agency wasn’t interested in doing anything about thousands of $$ of arrears either.

People are circulating in and out of employment at HHS and into positions of state-level authority (including Governor.  I.e., Gov. Leavitt of UTAH went to HHS in Jan. 2005; Gov. Sebelius of Kansas went there in 2008).

For nearly sixteen years, my life has evolved in four year terms. I was elected three times as Governor of Utah. Some of what I consider our accomplishments were initiated in my first term, but fully matured in my third. Likewise, some seeds planted in my third term are only now beginning to flower.

Living in four year cycles has taught me the importance of choosing priorities and impressed the need for urgency. Time passes quickly.

I am currently in my fifth year as a member of President George W. Bush’s Cabinet. I served first as the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency and now as Secretary of Health and Human Services. The constitutional constraints on the President’s service imposed limits on what initiatives I might see to completion. However, I view it as my obligation to lead with a longer horizon in mind.

When you see enough of this odd behavior in the courts month after month and year after year, it’s obvious their engines are running on a different kind of gas — which we are now identifying.

You can help — please help me look up some of these organizations, and I’ll give a personal promotion (I’d send money if I ahd some!) to anyone who can show me the corporate registration (and from which state, articles of incorporationIm talking) of Fathers and Families Coalition of America.  My understanding of its origins is a coalition of a bunch of statewide (Arizona) marriage and fatherhood grants initially, which may explain in part why they’re just SO O O O o o o o cozy with HHS professionals every year.

I think we are talking major slush funds, perhaps. (Notice the qualifier — I exercised my first amendment right to express an opinion).  I think that HHS is being run about like HUD, only the names  of the programs, and the projects themselves, are different.

I’d like to note here that on smartmarriages.com one set of “Plenary speakers” (in conference lingo, thats a place of honor — it means “full” meeting, as opposed to breakout workshops where leaders only get a portion of the attendees. . . Plenary speakers get the whole population of attendess, that is, those who aren’t circulating, out having coffee, or etc.) — includes a woman whose husband was in jail for child molestation of her younger brother (as I recall the story).

The judge said he was guilty.  HHS judged apparently he wasn’t, and the Ridge Project (which is a fatherhood support program) go their full blessing.  To a family where the Dad was in prisoner for that crime.  Go figure why we should be endorsing this!

_ _ _ Sorry about my bad attitude these days — I want to be over more at the economicbrain (coldhardfacts) blog, but this sh*t is just getting too deep, and disturbingly so….

AS PROMISED — here’s the link to the Bill Berkowitz article (date 2007) speculating on the causes and the political (etc.) climate surrounding the sudden stepdown of Wade Horn.  i rather think the point that he’d be in front of Waxman and getting subpoenas if he didn’t, is relevant.  I also want us to NOTICE, please the investigative bloggers (Mike Reynolds, Cynthia Cooper) who followed some funding — and put out an APB for more of them.  Contact me by comment to this blog, eh?  Or just start doing it, blogging it — and let me know….

BELOW HERE IS QUOTE.  I’M NOTICING A GROUP MENTIONED CALLED “INSTITUTE FOR YOUTH DEVELOPMENT” WHICH I PLAN TO LOOK UP.  WHEN YOU READ ARTICLES MORE THAN ONCE (AND WITH SOME TIME IN BETWEEN), ASSUMING THERE’S BEEN SOME PERSONAL GROWTH AND LEARNING INBETWEEN TOO — YOU NOTICE DIFFERENT ELEMENTS. WHAT I’M NOTICING HERE IS THAT WADE HORN’S HAVING TO — OR CHOOSING TO — STEP DOWN HARDLY SLOWED THE MOVEMENT, WHICH ALREAD HAD BY THAT TIME 11 YEARS OF MOMENTUM.

• About DV
• Archives
• Donate
• Contact Us
• Submissions
• Books
• Links

(Posted at The Dissident Voice)

Wade’s Horn of Plenty (there’s more to article than shown here…)

by Bill Berkowitz / May 8th, 2007

(obviously that was a fairly progressive voice speaking, but I want to point out a book they have for sale:

The Self-Made Myth: And the Truth about How Government Helps Individuals and Businesses SucceedBrian Miller

The foreword apparently was written by Bill Gates, SR. — who as it turns out was an attorney and the author is ED of a nonprofit founded by Bill Gates, SR — oh well!

About the Author