“Centered” usually has a positive connotation, as in, an individual’s a center of balance (emotionally, psychologically spiritually, and physically), which allows grace, flexibility, and movement while being grounded in something that stabilizes yet not so rigid one can’t bend, or can’t interact with others whose center may be slightly different — or even personally offensive.

However, when we are talking governmental “Centers,” the word capitalizes on the human perception of it as good, when in fact it may actually be bad, or even evil in intent. In this post, after looking at a somewhat (ludicrous, in my opinion and others’) “Center” which incorporated in 2011 in St. Louis mostly to give a certain set of people some extra “mouth” — along with the Advisory Board, I show three (or so) Policy Thinktanks or “Centers” influencing family courts across the nation — and as it turns out the FORD FOUNDATION was instrumental in starting each of them, in 1968, 1974, and 1995, to the point that it basically seems to have been the originator of the concepts.

DISCLAIMER on this POST:
I am actually working (rather intensely) on a line of investigation that is something of a break through in understanding the relationship of the grants to their tax returns to our bottom lines. It’s somewhere between outrageous and “epiphany” of comprehension. As this means going into focused “lookup” mode — not “communicate and present in an organized fashion” mode — I am going to publish what’s on this post, not because it’s succinct — but because people who know me, or the blog, will be able to glean SOME understandings from it – in parts. The theme of “Centers” which are — or are not — actual nonprofits, and how they interact with government, dovetails with the Regionalism Page. Parallel to this is the “where’s the money” factor? I have been finding EIN# fraud between some significant (bankrupted, but then simply reform and set up to “do it again” foundations) and HHS grants, including to the fatherhood industry. Actually seeing how things work si more inspiring (and fun) to me, than (believe it or not) this sarcastic and ridiculing commentary on them, which is intended to help cut the things down to size so we can see ourselves in better perspective, at times.

Certain sets of grants were set up to enable money laundering, PERIOD. They also accomplish other things, but one should never be very distracted by the advertising and promises on the website. Ask the questions I suggest here, and in “look it up” page, get the outline and then consider what story that evidence is telling you. What does it signify? What are the facts telling, when laid side by side and in chrono order? Because they always do have a story to tell– corporations have people behind them (SOMEONE has to file!) and PEOPLE have intent. What was their intent in filing and refiling?.

How many corporations are running out of a single street address, in fast sequence or all at once? What about the boards of directors? Someone else may incorporate — but why would the same folks keep spitting out more corporations at the same address (particularly when an address is in the general Washington, D.C. area)??

Today, I caught the US taxpayers bailing out an organization that, literally, showed at one point in time $241 MILLION of assets. It was moving rapidly through “faith-based” circles, so I also caution religious people to beware “affinity fraud” and think twice before your buddy recommends a buddy who recommends what you should invest in!!! More later.

Also, I think I cracked the code on that “Family Justice Center Alliance out of San Diego, Alameda County and other California entities — which also is taking faith-based grants. When is enough enough on all this? Americans need better solutions for who to rebalance our personal power with our elected and appointed representatives who get in office, form a few morem corporations and then suck the grants towards them. It’s like digging irrigation channels, via nonprofit filings, to redirect the flow of funds away from people that need it, and towards people that simply want it. (more later…). Enjoy — there’s still good data in this post! (08/09/2013).

These are, respectively, “Center for Court Innovation” (a hybrid of the 1968-Ford-founded “FUND FOR THE CITY OF NEW YORK + THE NEW YORK UNIFIED COURT SYSTEM”; MDRC (1974, Ford Foundation + Fedral Agencies) also a Nonprofit in NYC; the Center for Family Policy and Practices (CFPP, 1995, Wisconsin, described as a “policy arm” of the Ford Fragile Families Initiative), National Fatherhood Leaders Group (incidental to reviewing who was on MDRC, i.e., Ron Haskins) — which it looks like never?? filed properly, but is still up and soliciting). Board members of one group also connect to (or are running) programs at others; for example, the Ford-Founded (1974) MDRC has on it people working at the DC-based The Urban Institute (since 1968; see its history page) which has not one, but TEN (10) policy centers. The Urban Institute was a President Lyndon B. Johnson recommended setup — he appointed a commission of “government and civic” leaders, who then recommended this nonprofit format. I see from their tax returns that assets in 2002 were $78 million, but in 2011, $28 million (key EIN# into main site to see in Chrono order).

Also (on the Harvard-Drenched Board of MDRC) are two membership from “The Brookings Institution” (since 1916) and its TWELVE (12) centers, one of which the “Center for Children and Families” is run (they’re co-directors) by two board members of MDRC, Ron Haskins and Isabel Sawhill. Sawhill (Wellesley, Here they are:

To get a concept of its wealth and scope, look at the pattern of assets increase in this millenium — through the tax returns, key in: EIN# 53-019366 [no dashes]. Read “Assets” page from bottom up. Their assets have increased by over $200 million in the past decade.
They publish material on how people should hope to move from low-income to slightly higher and run studies on the factors. Program Area Three (see the tax return) is “A Joint Project with JPMorgan Chase” on “METRO” areas, and how Metro Area leaders can compete in the global economy.

Despite this incredible wealth — Brookings still received $5.9 million from the public (via HHS) from 1995 through 2013; some on medical related grants, but the 1995 (first showing) one on “Public Policy on Saving for Retirement.” This is the curriculum vitae (LONG!) of William G. Gale, the PI on that initial grant (first year $99K and increasing steadily for four years shown). Please note (a few pages in the CV) all the foundations responsible for supporting various centers (“Grants” section). Support for the “Retirement Security Project” — AARP, Pew CHaritable, and Rockefeller. Support for the “Tax Policy Center” — several foundations, including: Casey, (Brodie-Price Philanthropic Fund), Ford, Gates (as in Bill Gates), Gund, MacArthur, Mott, Nathan Cummings, Open Society, Sandler Family (?) and others. This person is from Duke, Stanford, spent 1979-1980 at the London School of Economics, etc.

I searched by EIN# — This shows the “DUNS Number.”

Then consider that some of these millions are put in publishing papers about how to move people from “low-income” to “middle-income” by methods, A, B, C, or D. The “experts of the CCF include ONLY one woman, Dr. Sawhill (Wellesley and she got her PhD at NYU in 1968; previous to here, she worked at The Urban Institute. She also worked in a highly responsible budget position in the federal government 1993-1995 (Clinton Admin leading up to welfare reform). I am curious whether she ever had a family; however her age and degree dates alone mean that she attended college significantly BEFORE 1970 no-fault divorce (in California), before most feminist movements gained some ground in the 1970s, and in general, with respect for the accomplishments, she appears to be towing the administration/corporate line — we should all just keep trying to make it, not the way others who actually SUCCEED in life (such that poverty is not a daily or monthly concern) but keep trying to gradually increase our hours of employment and move off minimum wages — and keep pretending that such things as domestic violence, or the family law courts themselves, are irrelevant factors. …. The other two members of this CCF appear to be more “fresh blood” (younger); and one is directly from London; the other from Northwestern — both men.

One of them, Richard Reeves, came straight from London only in 2012, works at a liberal think-tank there (CentreForum, [See History page at Wikipedia; the thinktank was launched after liberal Democrats won in 1997, and by them; however the person who launched it died in 2003. It was re-launched, funded for three years by a Democrat Business Forum; they brought in as CEO a Goldman Sachs banker (!) Jennifer Moses, who later left to advise British Prime Minister (2007-2010) Gordon Brown [see para.3], who represented Labor, and the UK-based “Demos.” For a flavor of how these think-tank members circulate in and out of government (just as in the US) and what types of things they’re thinking about (Wiki on Reeves):

[[There’s a Goldman Sachs member on Brookings Prime Leadership. ]]

On August 9, 2006, British Home Secretary Dr John Reid gave a speech at a Demos conference stating that Britons “may have to modify their notion of freedom”, as a result of his plans, claiming that freedom is “misused and abused by terrorists.”[8]
Over the summer of 2008 Demos cut back its workforce (from 23 full-time staff in January 2008[9] to 17 by September 2008[10]) and did not attend any political party conferences, leading to speculation that it was in financial difficulty.[11][12]
Following his appointment in 2010 as Special Adviser to the Deputy Prime Minister, Nick Clegg, Richard Reeves stepped down as Demos’ Director and was replaced by former Economic Secretary to the Treasury, Kitty Ussher. She then left Demos and the new director is David Goodhart.[13].

[[In 2010 Demos started a Commission on Assisted Dying — The Commission seems to have zero representation from any commoners — it shows: Two Lords, a Sir, a Baroness and a Dame, plus a Professor, two doctors, and a member of Parliament. Watch out!!!..]]

So that’s DEMOS where Richard V. Reeves (now at Brookings) formerly was on Board, and CentreForum, where he now is. He is a perfect fit for Brookings, which (in case you don’t get this now — see leadership) is working to align the United States with at a minimum the UK, even though we fought and WON a war of independence against being their colonies, long ago. Economically, this war was lost, looks like.

It goes back to 1916, and should be understood.

If one looks at WHO IS on the board of Brookings (especially the top sector), I think we will start to comprehend that this is a managed society, and most people are NOT in on the planning process.

To briefly address Brookings (as its Ron Haskins et al have been influential in welfare reform, and affecting court cases) — This board (it says) meets 3 times a year. See link. Of the top four, one is David M. Rubenstein, co-founder of The Carlyle Corporation [2003 reference], which says a lot (I’ve blogged it, also see “Iron Triangle”). Also, Glen Hutchins of Sillver Lake — new to me, so I looked it up. He’s Harvard, Harvard, and Harvard (that’s a WSJ article 2011), and in 2011 joined the New York Fed (still on it). (MDRC also has several Harvard members on it).

Head Honcho is Strobe Talbot, who was Yale (incl. Skull & Bones), Deputy Secretary of State 1994-2001 (Clinton) AND a Rhodes Scholar, apparently “the Russian Connection.” Here’s a humorous, or at least scatalogical, 2010 piece for “The Onion” (By Mr. Talbot) about having a hard day doing what he’s hired to do — think. (“I thought like shit today”). There’s a database sometimes that just gives the “data” on famous people — here’s his. I note high school was “The Hotchkiss School” in Connect, then it’s Yale (BA 1968) and off to Oxford.     High School: Hotchkiss School, Lakeville, CT (1964)
    University: BA, Yale University (1968)
    University: MA Literature, Oxford University (1971)
    Administrator: Director, Yale Center for the Study of Globalization, Yale University (2001-02)
You can see he went from Yale (Rhodes) into journalism: Time Correspondent. Then Clinton appointed him US Ambassador at Large, then to the White House (1994-2001 with fellow Rhodes Scholar, Clinton, looks like brief overlap with GWBush,

and I did do the background check on both this group, and some of its associates. They came up lacking, that is, failing to stay incorporated. Too busy mouthing off, I guess…)

The model of the “Center” — a heavily funded website or group (sometimes nonprofits, sometimes not) whose purpose is to dominate and disseminate propaganda with a view to influencing policy — and these centers (thinktanks, policy centers, resource centers, etc.) seek to influence laws that dominate specific populations without their participation, knowledge, or informed consent — then we are talking fascism. Dictatorship. Domination by rhetoric. We are talking, cut the dissent and disseminate the doctrine.

We are talking, exclude most voices, and the main voices are NOT chosen by the people, or by their existing laws, but sponsored by wealth (and often in the form of a major, famous, “foundation”) — and chosen in association with government; the government contracts with the wealth, and the wealth (as I have been showing in the pharmaceutical (my last post) or biotech (Genzyme, etc.) fields — knows that government regulation can make or break its back. In the case of KV Pharmaceuticals, who did have problem leadership, it’s still a fact that government (the FDA & DOJ) almost broke its back, and set the conditions under which a successor board could continue. WHY? Because government has access to the welfare population and disburses payments for it.

What is a “CENTER”? See, and Understand in Corporate Terms!!

Develop a good language, and set of labels (not just “value” labels but the actual nouns and verbs that apply to the situation — with the most neutral, objective and “settles arguments with the evidence” set of terms which describe a situation. I am constantly doing “show and tell” to people who refuse to obtain a set of vocabulary, and by use, understand what it means, and then consistently apply that vocabulary to situations skillfully, and to cut down on the hundreds of emails exchanged to describe what could be summarized in an accurate label — and lead to recognition of a pattern.

To only use familiar and proper names, and never use labels, is to be forced to keep a running list of who’s naughty and who’s nice, on our favorite cause. To use labels, and use the names as an illustration of that label itself — is to have a better understanding. People who cannot COMMUNICATE with each other using terms the both understand — can’t organize.

I believe that’s why so many Centers, Corps, Organizations, Initiatives, and Institutes — simply don’t tell up front on their websites who they are, and what is their EIN#, including, do they have one. The viewer has to look it up. Similarly, people privately emailing back and forth on forums, email lists, blogs, comments fields if a topic is published on an item of interest — do NOT have a common vocabulary with each other (even when they agree) — they cannot organize and will not act with focus, wisdom, or in any sane way — to counter whatever it is they are upset about, or to create a new reality. They haven’t thought it through enough to even use filing labels.

When it comes to this issue of the courts and family law — some things are straightforward, easy to understand, and easy to keep in mind IF a person wants to. These labels are a grammar for putting together meaning and understanding. More than one set of labels can apply to any situation, more than one should usually be applied — but at some point, you have to either choose, or stay confused. WHICH set of labels is MOST helpful for my purpose and wishes?

Should some of them be rejected as inaccurate? On what basis?

I have suggested (repeatedly) that among CORPORATIONS, the primary divider is not their names, not their size, not what they sell, and not what even they say. Here are some pointers, and perhaps they should be among the first filing in the inbox of your brain. You might ask the same questions with people, why not ask them also with business entities which legally are sometimes considered “persons” anyhow?

This is SO basic and before having prolonged debates with any one entity, or any person saying they belong to (or are President, etc., of) any entity — FIRST comes:

1. DEFINE: WHO IS IT? (“Who Are You?”) Government or Corporation

Is it a government entity (ANY government entity), or is it a CORPORATE entity, which means it has to sit its “behind” down to a home state, or territory. Government entities have to show up on a CAFR somewhere. Corporate entities for the most part, have to file an annual report in a government entity some where. Because Corporations are created, legally and literally, by someone submitting, paying for, signing with the “Secretary of State” (who is a public employee, and part of government, this tells us that Government actually has power of the Corporation. It is the greater legal authority, and (regardless of consistent enforcement) is the underlying authority for anything to exist.

[IF GOVERNMENT, WHICH BRANCH, AND WHERE. EASIER TO FIND OUT, AND NOT DISCUSSED RIGHT HERE. NEXT, KINDS OF CORPORATIONS ARE PRETTY SIMPLE BASIC QUESTIONS — ALL RELATING TO THEIR IDENTITY, ORIGIN, AND ARE THEY DOING BUSINESS LEGALLY (UP TO DATE WITH THEIR STAYING INCORPORATED) OR NOT? WHY? BECAUSE THAT’S A REAL CHARACTER INDICATOR, A KIND OF QUICK & DIRTY LIE DETECTOR — DOES THEIR WEBSITE INFO MATCH THEIR SECRETARY OF STATE INFO, OR NOT.

2. If a Corporation — “WHERE DO YOU LIVE?” (Now, that is).

If they are a corporation, in this country — so they have to file somewhere, tying their location to ONE state (or D.C. or Territory) as “domestic” and if they register or do business in any other state, that makes them “foreign” to that state. If I set up in Delaware, but sell in Massachusetts, I am a domestic corporation when in Delaware, and a foreign in Massachusetts. Go look it up.

3. If a Corporation — “HOW OLD ARE YOU?” [When did you incorporate?”] That will be found when one looks up at least the current name. At this time you will also find out, or should want to, “What other names do you go by?” (i.e., the d/b/a or trade names section of any “business entity search” site).

4. If a Corporation — “Who’s your Daddy, or Mommy?”. The simple answer is — who incorporated, and who is the registered agent. This is shown on the paperwork. Depending on the state, this can be looked up in 5 minutes or less. It’s just doing it so frequently which is a pain in the neck; but made habitual — it’s easy enough.

4a. If a Corporation (this will show up quickly) — ‘ARE YOU LEGITIMATE OR ILLEGITIMATE.” Doesn’t have same connotation as legitimate (married parents) or illegitimate (unmarried parents). It is basically an honesty check on any corporation — if it’s still up and running, but it’s corporate status is NOT, then those bastards need to either quit selling and taking donations — or fix their corporation status. When this becomes large scale and involves public money — that’s a VERY big deal.

5. If a Corporation — ARE YOU FOR-PROFIT OR NOT FOR PROFIT?”. THIS IS A MAJOR DIVIDING LINE AND SHOULD BE FOUND OUT.

A.
IF IT’S A NONPROFIT, YOU CAN GET THEIR EIN# (HOPEFULLY) AND GO FOR THE TAX RETURNS. It’s also searchable on the TAGGS.hhs.gov database, and others. It’s not a searchable element on the USASpending.gov; for that you need a DUNS# or more name detail. Both of those sites are “for reference only” anyhow and not the most accurate source of information; just helpful for leading to other info.

IF IT’s a NONPROFIT, what kind? Religious or regular? 501(c)3, 4, or what? Is it also a Private Foundation? If it’s a privately controlled foundation, then “who’s your Daddy” (or Mommy, or both) still applies — some wealth was put together and funded a foundation. What field was that wealth made in? Auto industry? Pharmacy? Telecommunications? Computers? i.e., mean, Rockefeller, Carnegie, Ford etc. — I have a “Private Equity” page (and/or post) from 2013 which lists the top ones in the US. It’s good to know, and may explain why certain foundations want certain things done.

B.
IF IT’s a FOR-PROFIT, it could be either PUBLIC or PRIVATE. Which is it?

These are just a few basic terms and habits to form when cruising various websites, or arguing with someone whose point of view comes with what looks like a corporate (or looks like a governmental) name attached. Make no mistake, there is an effort to make things look like government which aren’t. And that’s all I want to do right here.

OK, so I got a glimpse of another rambling rhetoric website claiming to be a Center for all things Normal, and blaming society’s problems on not “fatherlessness,” but in a language-shift, “marriage-absence.” (Actually, I had a visitor from the site, and so took a look).

As if we didn’t already know that Maggie Gallagher and Mike McManus had some backing. I got a glimpse of a David R. Usher/marriage fatherhood nonprofit (and I’m not aligning my life choices to match a man I never met, and who isn’t central to MY ideology, either.

They want to be heard loudly, Prominently, and with Tax Perks.

That’s working (for one it’s an easy target to ridicule) . . . Any independent woman who doesn’t really want to be married, or can’t stay married — must be a lesbian, and is a social hazard. Moreover, women who protect other women (after the men in the area obviously haven’t are feminists — probably man-hating lesbian feminists — and because this may also involve kids, they are responsible for ALL of society’s problems (and married couples and men responsible for none of them, although as I recall, who’s been running Congress? Who’s been President? Accordingly, is it women that get us into world wars???.) It goes about like this:

From Rightwing Watch:

**why don’t reporters just put the data up where it can be found right away? For, “created a group” write: filed for incorporation. Actually he wasn’t the incorporator, but the “registered agent.”

It took me only about four minutes to get this — and I now have a date of creation, a term (“nonprofit”) a state of origin (Missouri) and in two more minutes, I’ll have names, from the Articles of Incorporation (hopefully)….I even have an EIN#, obtained separately. For sake of “containment” it’s in another table:

However they’re far less of a problem than some other, better-funded and more respectable-looking “centers,” so I decided to use the example (along with others) to make a point — these centers are simply wishing to legislate for all, from afar, and via certain techniques, most of which involve nonprofit status (maintained properly, or sometimes not) and a website. IN another generation it might have been a carpet bag.

Like small, unruly children (except they are in fact immature adults), they (the marriage-mongers, including this one) are not content with having their own physical wants met, or their own houses, cars, children, publications, and social circles– they want to be center stage (attention), and for the world to accommodate their personal wishes and needs, without regard to its own, slightly larger, perspective.

The thing to do — when they won’t shut up — is just to limit how many toys they can play with, and whose toys are theirs — as opposed to, whose are someone else’s. In otherwords, boundaries, limits. What they really need is, apparently, a Mommy. Someone’s going to have to do put these people in their place, without catering to the narcissistic element.

That’s where the corporate records come in handy. The “Center for Marriage Policy” is a simply nonprofit corporation filed — in 2012 — in the state of Missouri — by David R. Usher. He’s “President” not because someone elected or chose him — but because he someone else (actually a lawyer from Virginia) signed the papers of incorporation and he volunteered his street address to be Registered Agent (in case someone wants to sue them, there’s supposed to be a mailing address!) someone got it in to the Secretary of State. Do do this complex process, one has to be 18 years old, able to read English and have $10 or $15 to pay the fees, not to mention at least figure out a boilerplate or reasonably coherent “Articles of Incorporation.”

Here are their essentially 10 Commandments of Marriage (the idea for Ten probably comes from the Bible, but isn’t as well written, and of course has a far different priority.)

#1 is of course, hetero marriage is the norm.
#2. Is, “you booze you lose” (There is no “you commit felony assault and battery, threaten, terrorize, abandon, exhibit extreme mental cruelty, or any of the originaly seven causes for divorce that the allegedly evil no-fault divorce eliminated. Although there’s a known connection between types of abuses, only substance abuse counts. I forgot — there’s also no Marriage policy saying anything about child abuse, or father/daughter/son sex. That’s funny because that does seem to drive some families apart….).
#3. Defending Marriage from Invaders (anyone who entices the richer spouse away will be punished, I think this is the “Dark Handsome Stranger // Femme Fatale” clause).
#4 is, Why Not Use our Handy-Dandy “Marriage Savers” class for Community Marriage Policies, and there are more.

#4 and #5 in particular fail to acknowledge that we have other religions in this country, and live among people who do — and marry (and divorce). It’s as though they simply do not exist, or as though women like me are simply boycotting the 501(c)3 sanctuaries — for good, and by choice, because they’re simply dangerous for our kind (see link). For contrast, here’s a list (from the Exodus 20 / the Bible) of God’s “Ten Life-Saver” Commandments. Notice the top of Center for Marriage Policy’s list is heterosexual marriage. The top of God’s list is — You shall have no other gods before me. Not coveting is #10 (including coveting one’s neighbor’s wife. This is handled with #4 in CMP, which blames and seeks to punish, if necessary the “marriage invader” and puts no responsibility upon the spouse for resisting temptation of said “invader.” etc.

And the same group believes that Religious groups should take the lead in marriage education programs. You should hear them teach the Bible — it goes about like that…. “Once upon a time (take it on faith), ….” In fact, a few more organizations down, we’ll have a sample of that today (Association of Family & Marriage Ministries out of Scottsdale, Arizona).

The “archives” of domestic violence (this group is also rabidly anti-VAWA) includes two links only, both which advocate ways to force spouses into subtance abuse treatment (“the alcohol made me do it?” philosophy?). If people are actually being killed by their spouses or ex-spouses, (not exactly acknowledged), let’s keep life simple. The reason is marriage-absence and lack of marriage education promotion.

Think I’m kidding? This is actually what it says:

Missouri House Bill 402 is a major step forward reducing gun violence, domestic violence, and other forms of serious violence.  For decades, federal and state policy attempting to impact these growing problems failed because the policies were pointed in the wrong direction.

---

Substance abuse in the family is the leading factor and primary driver of many kinds of gun-related crimes, domestic violence, and other offenses.

---

Substance abuse is tightly bound to domestic violence. Three-quarters of serious domestic violence is associated with substance abuse at the time of violence (Fig 3). This statistic does not include substance abusers who were not “loaded” at the time of violence.

---

. . . (many inane unsupported paragraphs later, the bottom line is this:)
Our legislation creates a “Family Intervention Order”.   If your spouse is a substance abuser, a restraining order gives control of the family to you.  The substance abuser has only two choices: seek recovery or “lose it all”.   Nothing is more likely to reliably result in recovery than this.  The Family Intervention Order is ideal because it is self-balancing within families and does not give the nanny-state power to interfere in families.

I agree with that statement. Only replace “batterer” with “substance abuser.” My batterer was stone cold sober (from what I could tell/smell) most of the time he was assaulting. A major ongoing study from Kaiser/CDC (feminazi?) involving 17,000 has it the other way around: http://acestudy.org. They must be wrong.

Apparently the “Concerned Women for America” helped “launch” this group in Fall 2011 (hey — right about the time of more marriage fatherhood funding from yours truly, the HHS). A search of David Usher will show the highlight (pro or con) seems to be anger at his anti-GLBT stuff, secondarily anti-feminism, and so forth. However, I think that it’s time to admit that the “centers for this ‘n that” policy of any sort are simply not working.

It’s not worth the time arguing with someone who can actually say some of these things without embarrasment. It would be better to pull a Bill Berkowitz and write about who paid whom, and who was working in HHS or for at the time.

But as my inbox and phone tend to get busy with women, mostly mothers, who are distressed, distraught, inbetween angry and defiant — and having been psychologically and economically raped through the family court centers across the land, and these women are standing with forged court orders (at times0, conflict of interest relationships around the courthouses, and/or runaway kids — not from them, from the household the kids were put into by the courts. If they help their runaway kids, it’ll get much worse for them. If they don’t help their runaway kids, there are a number of issues starting with the kids’ safety and ending with, how to live with one’s own conscience, and after that, what to do with this country. Like after we figure out how it got this way, to find new leadership and to do so with an actionable plan.

The reason we can have centralized policy is that someone planned and wished the country to go in that direction many decades ago and had already obtained the means and influence to set it in motion and to train their associates, descendants and favorite talent to train and manipulate others to keep it going with the same goal in mind — increased centralization, and less representation, a social-science-engineered, planned society.

If you’re not on the planning commission, who cares? You must not matter. Go back to work and give us more taxes to reduce poverty and heal families. If that’s stressful, on the weekends (Fri, Sat., or Sun. depending on your religion of choice — if it’s not the neighborhood bar, or basic discretionary income distractions; after your kids have their homework done and any sports involvement is over with) go to your house of worship, where we also have outreach representatives.

I’m continuing to work on more posts here — the idea is that the centralized planners DO know what’s going on, and the peripheral personnel (that’s you and me, if you actually ended up looking for a post on “family court matters!” or a search on some of the issues it deals with!) — do not, and are scattered, and confused. This makes them easier to control.

While this is for an allegedly smoother functioning government with a kinder, gentler, more holistic flavor, in fact it’s going to be a rough ride until all protest, dissidence, or dissent has been squelched or bred out of enough of the people, that those who protest can be mischaracterized, marginalized, incarcerated, institutionalized, or just accidentally shot, like Trayvon, Oscar, or any number of others. Also people off their meds, or on the wrong meds (see my last post!), or atypical antipsychotics with side effects, like the suicide urge — can then go off in a movie theater, classroom, beauty salon (these seem to be a target now), shopping mall, or during a court-ordered exchange of the children NOT at a police station, or at a supervised visitation exchange center (it’s happened), or almost anywhere else — and blow someone up.

I am using violent terms, in part because these things are happening and more marriage and fatherhood policy isn’t fixing the issue – nor is that the real issue. The real issues is that no matter how many think tanks and policy centers are set up — including six of one and a half dozen of the other kind — in the bottom line, each of them will have a corporate form (or be a project of someone with a corporate form), and can and should be viewed as to where they stand in regarding that corporate form, and their finances.

If they function under 26 U.S.C., the “Internal Revenue Code” then that is the viewpoint to be taken of them, and for them to be measured against. Are they compliant or not, when were they formed, and what is the purpose of the organization? TO unduly — or legally– influence state government? When we look at enough samples of these, it becomes pretty clear who is attempting to call the shots around the country, at the state level — but not FROM the state level.

Examples of “CENTERS” who wish to lead in their fields, most of which are nonprofits (title = links)

Center for Family Policy and Practice (CFPP)

EIN# 364038873

The Center for Family Policy and Practice is a progressive nonprofit organization with expertise in child support and social welfare policies. We advocate for policies, programs, and services that respond to the needs of low-income individuals, families, and communities.

Notice photo: Black man hugging boy. Address (23 N. Pickney #210, Madison, Wisconsin) is within spitting distance of the State Capitol. This is a group I’ve blogged; their name used to have the word “fathers in it.” They kept the initials and changed the name…

About Us Link tells their purpose — and origins; see Ford Foundation’s “Strengthening Fragile Families.” Any idea how much public policy and practice today has Ford Foundation at its heart?

The mission of the Center for Family Policy and Practice (CFFPP) is to strengthen society through the expansion of opportunities for low-income parents – mothers and fathers – to protect and support their children. CFFPP operates as a policy think tank to remove the unique barriers and negative public perceptions that affect low-income men of color.*** Through technical assistance, policy research and analysis, and public education and outreach, CFFPP works to support low-income families and develop public awareness of their needs.

Founded in 1995 as the policy arm of the Ford Foundation’s Strengthening Fragile Families Initiative, the Center for Family Policy and Practice (CFFPP or the Center) examines the impact of national and state welfare, fatherhood, and child support policy on low-income parents and their children.

[[The FORD FOUNDATION, get it? — 1995 (right before welfare reform).]]

The Center is a progressive policy think tank that uses technical assistance, policy research and analysis, and public education and outreach to advocate on behalf of low-income families and develop public awareness of their needs. Because of limited advocacy and policy analysis from the perspective of very low-income and unemployed men of color, the Center focuses on their perspective with regard to these issues. In particular, we concentrate on noncustodial parents who are in financial positions equivalent to custodial parents who qualify for Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) and other public assistance programs<?. These parents typically have very low earnings and have unstable and intermittent, if any, employment. While this scope may seem narrow, it includes large numbers of people, many of whom are African American and Latino men who are frequently the subject of economic and family policy in the United States. Due to their status as noncustodial parents, these men are largely ineligible for social welfare services and support, despite sharing the same level of need as their children and their children’s mothers.** In addition, these men make up the bulk of parents who are struggling with child support.

This may have been true in 1995, but it is not true on 2013, although it’s still on the website. Don’t let ANYONE tell you there aren’t programs for men. There are statewide commissions for men (Ohio), there’s a “fatherhood.gov” President after President (Clinton, Bush, Obama) has endorsed fatherhood funding (and tried to get even more), there’ve been Executive Order (linked to on my site) — and if these are not actually reaching real men who really need it, then those real men need to step up to plate, look up some nonprofits, and “FLUSH OUT THE SLUSH.” meaning, if their leadership is cheating the taxpayers, KNOW it, CONFRONT it, and then QUIT FOLLOWING THEM! LET ‘EM FIND SOME OTHER SUBJECT MATTER!

And the time you saved being in a Parent Opportunity Program — start reading those CAFRs, and if you think it’s too hard to write down some numbers and figure out which ones are larger than the others**, then it’s too hard for you to have representative government? Get a ballpark idea — or, if you’re a more step by step person read the instruction ! (http://cafrman.com gives a recipe!) If it were a matter of your paycheck, versus your rent — could you tell which is larger? (FYI, some CAFR charts will tell you on top, “in thousands” to save all the extra “000s.”)

(**clue: the larger ones either have larger digits on their left of any decimal (if there is one): I. $500 is larger than $200, or they have more numbers to the left of the decimal point, i.e., $5,000 is larger than $500. Billion is larger than million. With that complex figure in mind, then figure it out!)

Then learn about labels. Budget =/= assets. For an example of this, look at any application for some social services — they want to know what you are ASSETS are, as a condition of getting any help, right?

So, government has more “Assets” than they are showing, which is held in statements OFF_Budget, just as some of you don’t want to (as oppose to, really can’t) pay child support — so you hide your ASSETS. Somewhere else. Wealthy people are better at this, they have more to hide and have been doing it for longer and have more names, probably, to call their assets.

I’m pretty angry about this — because I just found another prominent (in their eyes, and as to connections) group, calling themselves “National” with board members, some of whose groups I already KNOW have cheated by failing to stay incorporated while taking public funds, and this group itself is still soliciting on-line (but is no longer a legitimate nonprofit, per the IRS listing, and got revoked for not filing). And that’s a “leaders group?”

Find some other leaders! If men aren’t getting helped by THOSE men, then do something about it — don’t blame women in power or poor women — keep your own houses clean!

Jesus: My house shall be a house of prayer, but you have made it a den of thieves….

Matthew 21:
12And Jesus entered the temple and drove out all who sold and bought in the temple, and he overturned the tables of the money-changers and the seats of those who sold pigeons. 13He said to them, “It is written, ‘My house shall be called a house of prayer,’ but you make it a den of robbers.”

He was quoting Isaiah. Different millennium — but same practices. People come for help, and they pay a fee for services. Our days, this is done on the internet, and it’s also done in tax-exempt houses of worship, which means government subsidized houses of worship.

[I’m just irritated at seeing yet another instance of dishonesty in this latest group). A lot of “stuff” can slide under the water via the internet.

How about MDRC? (formerly Manpower Development Research Corporation) self-defined as:

MDRC

Created in 1974 by the Ford Foundation and a group of federal agencies, {{<=<=<=link…}} MDRC is a nonprofit, nonpartisan education and social policy research organization dedicated to learning what works to improve programs and policies that affect the poor. MDRC is best known for mounting large-scale demonstrations and evaluations of real-world policies and programs targeted to low-income people. We helped pioneer the use of random assignment — the same highly reliable methodology used to test new medicines — in our evaluations. From welfare policy to high school reform, MDRC’s work has helped to shape legislation, program design, and operational practices across the country. Working in fields where emotion and ideology often dominate public debates, MDRC is a source of objective, unbiased evidence about cost-effective solutions that can be replicated and expanded to scale.

{{Board of Directors, MDRC shows 4 Harvard, 1 Princeton, 1 MIT, 1 Urban Institute, 1 Urban Strategies Center at Univ. of North Carolina (where Haskins comes from?), someone formerly in leadership @ Stanford Medical Center and @ Morrison & Foerster (i.e. prominent Los Angeles law firm), the retired head of Citigroup (bank) and The president of “The Grable Foundation”; and the two co-directors of “The Brookings Institute Center for Families and Children,” Brookings also probably being a nonprofit…along with the Urban Institute (I don’t remember off-hand, easy enough to check).

In other words, a CENTER can be a nonprofit, or the product of some other nonprofit, or a funded area at a university. ALL of these are intensely interested in what to do with the huge investment platform and distribution platform of wealth represented and accumulated, especially from the Social Security Act of 1934, and the Income Tax of 1913. This centralizes wealth; and people decide how it’s redistributed.

Some people gravitate naturally to positions closer to the fount of funds, and as such, we are all supposed to understand that, given how prominent they have been and the university connections (as appropriate), this ALSO means they are a fount of wisdom (and we, collectively, or lacking the near-aristocratic connections, are not….).

Of those two co-directors, one is Ron Haskins, who I read recently was also affiliated (on board of, or among original founders of) the well-known Children’s Rights Council (CRC), which I have also seen officially (by a publication circulated by CRS, Congressional Research Service — see recent blog) called a Fatherhood group, despite its name and flipping between saying it’s not gender-specific (to the public) but in fact, is going for the Dads (in policy settings). The other is Isabel Sawhill (see photo on site); they often publish together. }}

These groups NEVER give up promoting their cause, which rarely changes from year to year. Ron Haskins, besides his influence on welfare reform shows up on many boards. See influence and background (i.e., position on House Ways and Means, found on yet ANOTHER nonprofit, modestly titled:

“National Fatherhood Leaders Group“

. . . which was formed (it says) in 2003, but didn’t incorporate as a 501(c)3 until 2007 in, Washington, D.C.), and whose IRS status was automatically revoked for failure to file in 2010!! (I just looked it up:

The primary thrust (pun intended, sorry!) of this group includes, actually IS, soliciting and testifying in front of Congress (it probably helps if you’re already flush enough and your group is based in D.C……) to get millions for fatherhood funding. It claims to have gotten $50 Million in the DRA (Deficit Reduction Act. To repeat — more millions for fatherhood promo is part of reducing the National Deficit. (Sure, right)…. although it wasn’t properly incorporated at the time — and $75 Million for Marriage (which is also FR promotion) and $75 Million for FR in 2010, (meaning, through another appropriations cycle, the 2010 Federal Budget, esentially; an update of the PRWORA, which Haskins also yielded his leverage in — see access/visitation funding….).

This also bring up the point that some of these FR groups have this habit pattern — despite how loud they talk, how much press they want and get, and how they wish to re-write and influence legislation AND policies affecting every U.S. citizen, through federally-funded programs (and in other networks) — they often just don’t follow the rules of getting and staying in corporated. The “DONATE” button may still be up. What happens to funds collected after they lost their corporate status — skip teh state, or just continue “business as usual” but without telling the public what went where?

I didn’t think people would believe this unless they saw it, so here’s the IRS site. I’d googled organization name and “EIN#” to get here:

Exempt Organizations Select Check Home
Automatic Revocation of Exemption Information

The federal tax exemption of this organization was automatically revoked for its failure to file a Form 990-series return or notice for three consecutive years. The information listed below for each organization is historical; it is current as of the organization’s effective date of automatic revocation. The information is not necessarily current as of today’s date. Nor does this automatic revocation necessarily reflect the organization’s tax-exempt or non-exempt status. The organization may have applied to the IRS for recognition of exemption and been recognized by the IRS as tax-exempt after its effective date of automatic revocation. To check whether an organization is currently recognized by the IRS as tax-exempt, call Customer Account Services at (877) 829-5500 (toll-free number).

Revocation Date (effective date on which organization’s tax exemption was automatically revoked): 15-May-2010
Employer Identification Number (EIN): 45-4542131
Legal Name: NATIONAL FATHERHOOD LEADERS GROUP
Doing Business As:
Mailing Address: 2728 SHERMAN AVE NW WASHINGTON, DC 20001-3920
United States
Exemption Type: 00

45-4542131 National Fatherhood Leaders Group Inc. Washington DC United States PC

Compare with their website — they say they incorporated in 2007. They were revoked (per IRS) in 2010. So, in my book, this looks like they NEVER filed a tax return!!

Who’s This “National Fatherhood Leadership Group”? It counts — because they ARE birds of a feather, often, when it comes to dispensing with the rules (after all, leaders SET the rules, they don’t have to fly by them, do they?

They are still soliciting members on-line — and membership ranges from $50 – to $2,500 (for-profit) and 3 levels if it’s a nonprofit (up to $1,000 a year). This is a photograph of the street address (601 Pennsylvania Avenue, Suite 900, WDC) to send memberhip into:

This is what it says they do (Membership Benefits). Basically mining for funding and influencing legislation– the inside track…

Their board members also run fatherhood organizations (I profile the Braswell one, top right column, as this NY group apparently didn’t incorporate (or stay filed) properly either — it was quite the wild goose chase; and moreover, Kenneth Braswell of “Fathers, Incorporated” was at one point given as who was running? or at least whose corporation’s street address matches the prominent “fatherhood.gov” a.k.a. the “national responsible fatherhood resource center.”

Seriously — on the “Contact” page (underneath the web response form) is a mailing address:

National Responsible Fatherhood Clearinghouse
307A Consaul Road
Albany, New York 12205

(As I’ve mentioned herein, before, that is the street address of “Fathers Incorporated”
(see bottom of the page). On this site, after listing his accomplishments, presentations, conferences, etc. and again at the bottom, the accomplishments includes directing traffic to (recruiting for) fatherhood grants in association with others already on the network (i.e., nonprofit Women in Fatherhood Inc., also see herein — Charles Ballard’s wife having been involved, and BOTH of them having run a nonprofit on the HHS grants stream that didn’t stay incorporated either (Institute for Responsible Fatherhood and Neighborhood Revitalizaiton, or similar name. I blogged it, too). Get the picture?

What’s truly annoying about all this is that such people believe my public resources (and family) are their long-distance playground.

Again — read the “funding” (it’s public funding! OFA, Deficit Reduction Act (2005), Claims Resolution Act (2010), the bottom of the page says “This website is managed by the US/HHS) (and on the other side, “The White House” — understandably as the HHS is under the Executive Branch of the United States Government, whose head is the President….)

Center for Court Innovation

(New York). This is not a nonprofit, but a blend of a nonprofit (Fund for the City of New York) and the New York Court System. It promotes many AFCC-style policies, most of which are father-family friendly and calling violence-against-women-what-it-is weak. The purpose is, however,strategic system change, outside of direct representation from constituents; in short bypassing representative government. This is a powerful one.

“Research. Development. Justice. Reform”
Founded as a public/private partnership between the New York State Unified Court System and the Fund for the City of New York, the Center for Court Innovation helps the justice system aid victims, reduce crime, strengthen neighborhoods, and improve public trust in justice. The Center combines action and reflection to spark innovation locally, nationally, and internationally.

This center isn’t going to have a tax return, obviously. However here’s a generic look at the size of “Fund for the City of New York” (the figures show assets only — revenues will be substantially more, remember):

I’ve linked the year column to two tax returns (see URL and go to main site to find the rest), so you can see that this FUND was also created by the Ford Foundation (in 1968). The tax year is one less than the year shown.

The essence of the message is, we don’t like truly representative government — Of, By, or For Any People.

However, we DO like tax-exempt privileges.

If a religious 501(c)3 group, add to this, we REALLY like the extra special tax-exemption for religious groups, including that pastor’s housing deduction, and hopefully no one will notice how very many MORE regular 501(c)3s reside at the same street address — or that our property, when you get right down to it, is owned (many times) by a corporation — and the flock, the people attending, the contributors and supporters, aren’t exactly shareholders, nor do they have a real voice (except from time to time getting one pastor thrown out and a more favorable one installed). Chances are, the real controlling factor is the National Conference of that denomination is the owner. Then, let’s look at debt, mortgages to the property, etc. — who really owns the group?

Not the people supporting it.

Moreover, “we ARE the people” — who the _ _ _ _ are you? We are the ‘CENTER for ABC_XYZ’ POLICY…. and while you are working, we will be working (tax-exempt with donations, of course) to alter the landscape, the culture, and your children’s future, from a central location you may not have time to go to, or be aware exists.

This is EXACTLY what I found when I had to go to a local (I thought) county courthouse. I found out, the hard way, exactly where it stood in historic time (late 1990s early 2000s) in regard to national demonstration projects on how to eliminate poverty (i.e., on fatherhood.gov, etc.); where it stood economically (most states are dependent on federal funding to function — so where does that put people who live in them? Do they have to keep track of ALL the regional social, nonprofits influencing their single jurisdiction, and hope that their voices are heard (they aren’t being) nationally also — instead of just being able to function safely, locally, and get a few things done in life?

This post was occasioned by noticing some of the topclicks to my site. I noticed a visit from (yet another) Marriage-Mongering Nonprofit of people who like to listen to themselves prate on about marriage-absence (father-absence, individually), lesbians (how about homosexuals? Do they get an honorable mention), and how to scapegoat, essentially mothers — calling themselves

The Center for Marriage Policy

2011

It’s a well organized site, not too cluttered, white back ground — Donate link at the top, Donate button on the side, although if you read the personnel involved, probably any one of them has enough money to personally donate to whatever they want (see books, position, associations). Why should yet another group get donations to be “the voice”? When all they’re doing is for the most part echoing each other, and excluding alternate points of view?

Where’s the comments field? Where’s the open debate? And why should people who’ve already been badly hurt by the same sort of policies stop rebuilding what was broken down to give them the time of day? Let’s cut to the chase:

This is a 501(c)3 out of St. Louis, Missouri which (at least SAYS it) took the 501(h)3 election, who much they are actually lobbying is judged by their expenditures. (I had to look it up; Here, or Here (National Council on Nonprofits) essentially it redefines how to measure what is lobbying and what isn’t differently than a regular 501(c)3; and probably for the purpose of doing more of it).

The “NATIONAL COUNCIL ON NONPROFITS” motto, on its website is: “National Voice. State Voice. Local Impact.”

Which summarizes the pros and cons of having a tax system enabling nonprofit status — it advantages the nonprofits in unduly influencing local matters without having to actually live in the area and experience the consequences of good, or bad, policy (i.e., street-level open feedback) they have previously lobbied for and obtained.

It’s the antithesis of local government and one reason the courts, and governments behave as they do — the voices are NOT of the jurisdictional constituents — but a crowd of bystanders unaccountable to the people who reside there.

This is fashionable, and a handy distraction from what the government (including military and overbilling pharmaceutical sectors)/church/corporate/steal kids from poor people, stick ’em in foster care (where they sometimes run away), adopt ’em out to middle-class or upper-class couples who want more, or can’t conceive, or want to blend in with their local social groups — has actually been doing with the taxes it DOES get — like investing them for a remarkable ROI, hiding or “forgetting to mention” the profits, and then going back to the public for some more costs and fewer services, except for the diversionary services to promote marriage and reduce fatherhood, and attack competent single mothers . . . .

Finances are Finances. They come from somewhere, in response to certain actions, and they earn money in transit; they earn interest when sitting still (depending in what amounts and where) and while removed from one sector of the population into other hands — like the collective governments (which are essentially corporations) of this land (or other lands — most are on the same or similar model) — that other sector is deprived of them.

Food self-sufficiency, legislative-integrity, judicial accountability (who pays for the judges? When they commit crimes where are the grand juries that could judge matters of fact AND law to do something about it?), are gone. If we cannot raise our own food and develop from pretty local sources (i.e., wells, springs, rivers), etc. our own (clean) water — then it has to be mass-produced (with associated problems and extra expense), and then transported. This is the commercial/global/economic corporate model, providing a lavish or at least materially elegant lifestyle for some, stripping of natural resources from whatever people originally lived in any geography, then low-income or slave-style labor for others, all ages. Warehousing people from start to finish alters their psychology and is a self-perpetuating cycle of dysfunction and anger (do animals like living in cages? Then why would people like living in institutional and other “cages”?).