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

Identify the Entities, Find the Funding, Talk Sense!

CVE | BAMF |GIRDS | Hayat and Reading IRS Form 990s Too? C’mon!!, Let’s Get Honest, Whaddaya Want?

leave a comment »

After this August 1 post:  Family Counseling for De-Radicalization Programs/Home Base, Germany?  Daniel Koehler (Princeton/Free University Berlin) has a Grreat new Market Niche and References, courtesy 2015-formed “Center for Cyber and Homeland Security” (post published 8-1-2016) which came after events this summer involving “Munich” while I was writing on something else.   What I found exploring Munich and Strong Cities Network was disturbing enough to blog, at “Munich,” and the Strong Cities Network [ISIL/ISIS aren’t the only ones who want to control the World]. (Begun 7/22/2016).

Before then, I was minding my own business, writing about Social Science PolicySpeak and such things as “CFFPP” (the Center for Family and Public Practice, Illinois, then Wisconsin organization with backing by “JustGive” which just-so-happened to have recently blended operations with “JustGiving.org” — out of the UK.  Off-shoring, lightening-fast startups, while concealing the trail in hard-to-read IRS forms and/or sticking it all in one large Donor-Advised Fund (“DAF”) which all donors must “sign off on” to acknowledge they are relinquishing control once funds are received.  Meanwhile, the same organization (JustGive), as I recall, then claims it doesn’t monitor grants because they are “donor-advised.”

Clearly someone is “advising,” but the question is, who is monitoring, and after that, after any monitoring — who has the power to put, or will put any breaks onto illicit operations among nonprofits whose paperwork is impossible to track, or who simply start up in the US then move operations “offshore” and continue taking millions of dollars of funds which go to influence USA Social Policy on matters affecting our Department of Justice, Department of Health and Human Services, our prison populations, our custody and divorce matters, and the safety of children and their mothers in “Fatherhood 4.0, USA” which is about where it’s at currently.

I am again about three or four posts deep in draft on one basic topic. This one, started August 3, will be published today, August 9, and so I hope will the next one, which poses a good question:

If You Won’t Responsibly Notice, Detail and Come to any Conclusion on DOMESTIC Govt-Funded NGOs (Here, DAIP, BWJP in MN) and Databases (here, TAGGS.HHS.GOV, a 990-finder, and IRS Pub. 78 EOS Search), How Will You Stand Up for ANYONE’s Rights (incl. yours) under GLOBAL Govt-funded NGO Control?   {Being a Show and Tell post on what some digging for details unearths, and how disconcerting that is from “the experts” in the field.  It also shows a major, and consistently present, flaw on TAGG.HHS.GOV in which running a straight (basic) recipient search only revealed about ⅓ of the grants a search of the same organization’s name — but under “Advanced” — and the first result was around $8M.}

To be followed by one on the NGOs, is required reading when we have “Strong Cities Networks” and somehow an institute in “The State College of New Jersey” (Rutgers — and it’s one of 11 in the statewide network) sets up an institute one year, and the next year it’s suddenly an UNESCO affiliate with a funding partner on the opposite coast, and running programming in Mexico, Africa, and South Central Los Angeles, with a view towards standardization of how to do “peace and development” — focusing of course on youth.

What is an NGO?  Is the International Institute for Peace, that UNESCO affiliate at Rutgers an “NGO”?  In fact, What is Rutgers? (See State of NJ’s CAFR; in fact see Rutgers’ CAFR too) (Post status:  “imminent,” link will work once it’s published, not before.)

and from THAT one (may not be published today — or it may be), one on Soap, Exploitation, Colonization and what that’s got to do with (and how hypocritical considering the backing) when it comes to setting up in 2015 an International Institute on Inequalities at the London School of Economics.

I can easily connect that one, again, through financial backer government entities (a “nonpublic government body” was the term) with the Rockefeller Foundation’s early efforts to prioritize Social Science and formal study (with attached experts) of “Economics” for this country — and others.

Then I also am looking in upcoming post “NGO vs. Corporation…” at the history of “Corporation” (which was fairly unexplored territory to me at least) and whether it did indeed begin with groups like the Dutch East India, British East India, and the Portuguese needing sponsorship for the ocean trips in search of world domination/colonization/commerce, i.e., empire-building, or much earlier.  Full title (presently):NGO v. “Corporation.” Whose idea was “corporation” originally and FOR WHOM/SINCE WHEN?  The Dutch, the Portuguese, the Brits –and their East India Companies? (post status –“imminent,” but I have my time-available limits…)

Think THAT doesn’t have much to do with the USA?  The timeline tells me quite different, and according to “the panic of 1772” caused by Alexander Fordyce, when banks went belly-up on more than one continent, affecting the stability of the British East India Company, and maybe not directly causing, but being related to something called the Boston Tea Party over in the North American colonies. In that post, I found a blog summarizing this nicely and supplemented it (of course) with lookups.  

Bottom line:

IF we want liberty, or justice (for selves or others) we in the USA who haven’t yet MUST get our heads around, and coordinated with our mouths when talking (blogging, commenting on blogs, tweeting, etc.) the concept of Corporation, of Government Entities, and in relationship to this, Taxation (which is within the US also to say, the nonprofit sector, and the income tax) and start talking with a vocabulary, as responsible adults in this country — Otherwise, it’s just (continue) complaining about how the government we support is treating us without even understanding its terms and, long-term, what businesses it’s in, and how.  At some levels, this is consenting to be the peasants in the relationship, and generally speaking, that’s not good for most communities.

Ignorance is contagious, but whether or not it’s a permanent condition rests mostly in individual hands, and depends to start with on whether restoration to sound thinking about onesself in relationship to work and government and the relationship of government to corporate entities (and even a glimpse at their accounting practices, balance sheets) is even wanted.   

The stock corporation vs. the nonstock.  Public-traded vs. private equity.  Tax-exempt foundations, or huge nonprofits, building power bases and alliances with for-profit corporate business identities, when both or either may also be government contractors, or grantees…

The corporation versus inherited land from ancestors or gentry or (in the UK, proximity and importance to “the Crown” factor in histories older than the US).  How different, really, are we, and do we like obedient children (the peasants such behavior communicates to the public) consent to our leaders — through functionalism-based networks — merging the identity and economy of the USA with former masters’ exploitive practices, retaining wealth obtained through slavery and colonization? And instead of talking about control of individual assets and cashflow, complain about size or distribution of collective allowances (Social Security Act based and other)?

So this post explains what, yes, I DO want and expect from readers!

This post explains what, yes, I DO want and expect from readers.  I can’t demand this, but if you’re willing to read or reblog these posts, why not move one step further and be willing to “do” at least some of what I’ve been doing for years, becoming a resource and point of reference, a different voice for others?  And once there, write and talk about it more than what I am seeing ANYWHERE on-line. Think about it:

Does something really have to have an attached expert and a group name to be true?

Does having an attached expert and a group name make it true?

Does lack of resident experts, or lack of testimonials from some prominent institution (such as Brookings, or the Urban Institute, “MDRC,” the Children’s Defense Fund(!)) university (Princeton/Columbia/Georgetown/Yale/Harvard — or Brown/Smith/Dartmouth) — or even the U.S. Department of Justice make anything , any premise untrue or irrelevant?  

Do we not yet understand how easy it is for something to appear more popular and grassroots than it is when the PR money is put behind it, or tax-exempt foundations who are already funding university centers (and often, their professionals) coordinate for what to promote?

All the time, social policies, initiatives, and public expenditures are said to be based on that which IS true.  RIGHT NOW, as of LAST DECEMBER, George Washington University has set up a Center for Cyber & Homeland Security** and within it a “Program on Violent Extremism” and brought together international experts, one of which who is clearly designed to target the “sovereign” or tax-protestor movement as homebred, right-wing extremists — but most of the rest who seem focused on the Muslim / Islamic Terrorist question, with attention to Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan.

(BEGINS SECTION on  ADDED POST-PUBLICATION 9/11/2016.  I expanded on the Center for Cyber & Homeland Security, including a reference from Greek mythology on “where did THIS spring full-fledge from) and more concerns about some of its elements, including lack of visible financial trail of who drives the content choices of this Center and the potential to turn its sights on US Citizens who might not be considered mainstream or central enough for the current, terrorized-by-terrorism international political climate).

**CCHS is described (see last post) as a “nonpartisan think and do tank.”  Per its banner headings, it has MEMBERSHIP (new option for Corporations), PUBLICATIONS, NEWSROOM, EVENTS , a SECURITY INSIGHT BLOG and the PROGRAM ON EXTREMISM.  It is a convener across sectors and borders:

The Center for Cyber and Homeland Security (CCHS) at the George Washington University is a nonpartisan “think and do” tank whose mission is to carry out policy-relevant research and analysis on homeland security, counterterrorism, and cybersecurity issues.  By convening domestic and international policymakers and practitioners at all levels of government, the private and non-profit sectors, and academia, CCHS develops innovative strategies to address and confront current and future threats

Per the sidebar, it seems this one like Athena sprang pretty full-grown and armed, from Zeus’s head.   (An informal account of THAT myth from Palothea.com remembering myths carry symbolism that communicates on many levels..they are succint (?) encapsulations of entire belief systems), and this site’s summary of “the birth of Athena” actually describes this country’s current love/hat (mostly hate) relationship with the concept of children even being raised by, having any bond or loyalty to, or (“God forbid!!”) receiving intergenerationally-transferred wisdom from, their own mothers.  (Don’t forget to read the story on the site Palothea.com — or somewhere else).

K7.9 THE BIRTH OF ATHENE Museum Collection: British Museum, London, UK Catalogue No.: London B424 Beazley Archive No.: 301068 Ware: Attic Black Figure Shape: Kylix, little master lip Painter: Signed by the Phrynos Potter Date: ca 560 BC Period: Early Archaic SUMMARY Side A: Hephaistos splits open the skull of Zeus with a mallet, releasing the goddess Athene from his head. The king of the gods is shown seated on a swan-backed chair, holding a lightning bolt in his hand. A miniature Athene springs from his head, already equipped with a shield. Hephaistos waves one hand, in imitation of an Eileithyia (birth goddess) bringing forth a child. In the other hand he holds a two-headed mallet or axe.

Birth. After he swallowed her pregnant mother, Metis, Athena is “born” from Zeus’ forehead as he grasps the clothing of Eileithyia on the right; black-figured amphora, 550–525 BC, Louvre.

 …No matter what the story is, she never has a real mother.

Athena’s birth “is a desperate theological expedient to rid her of matriarchal conditions” says J. E. Harrison. She was the Goddess of Wisdom, and the daughter of the Titaness who basically personified it. By having her born only from Zeus, it gave males authority and power over something that had previously only been a female realm. Zeus swallowed Metis, and so he did not lose wisdom, but made it a part of himself. Likewise, the Achaeans suppressed the Titan cult and said wisdom was only with Zeus. Athena could be free of the bonds that tied her with a mother. She did not have any loyalty to a mother figure. That played a big role. She described herself as misogynist but would not have been able to take that role had she had a mother.

Another reference reminds us that the image of Athena (or “Minerva”) is still symbolized, currently, in the U.S. Military, Medal of Honor, (and other places throughout culture):

“Where is Athena today? Surprisingly she seems to be everywhere. She, or her Roman counterpart Minerva seem to pop up all over the place, and are still mobilised for their eternal qualities. While this website celebrates the legacy of the Goddess Athena, it does in no way support, or promote Neo-paganism, which in some countries has recently become an recognized religion….

re: “from Athena” — U.S. Medal of Honor (left), $5 coin, 2011 (right)

For over two thousand years Athena has decorated coins; either appearing in full battledress, or with one, or more of her attributes – the owl or olive tree. In today’s world she is still seen as an emblematic figurehead; representing heroism, and acting as a role model for those going into – or having survived battle. On the United States Military Academy Coat Of ArmsAthena’s helmet sits prominently in the centre of the composition.

 As recently as February, 2011 two new coins were authorized by the US Congress, designed with Athena as the central motif. These shiny new coins were minted in recognision of the United State’s highest personal decoration, The Medal of Honor. This medal was originally produced in 1861 as the Army and Navy’s recognition of valor in the battlefield.  Minerva is pictured prominently both on the original medal, and on the newly minted coins on the reverse side. In both desings (sic) she is pictured holding a shield and the Union flag

I’m not ignoring the Oklahoma 1995 Bombing, or other well-known events in USA history.  However, I still think people should be aware of who might be studying even NONviolent protests within the US and Canada, which might include protests of economic oppression or violations of its own laws by government itself:

J.J. MacNab is one of the nation’s leading experts on Sovereign Citizens, Tax Protesters, U.S. paramilitary militia groups, and related anti-government extremist organizations.

MacNab received her Bachelors in International Relations from the University of California at Berkeley. She has testified before the U.S. Senate and other governmental agencies on subjects ranging from the growth of extremists groups to the financial scams used to recruit new members to these groups.

This does not sound like she has a masters degree in anything….interesting the scale of coverage with a single degree from UCB.

MacNab writes a regular column on the subject of anti-government extremism at Forbes.## She has appeared as an expert on CBS 60 Minutes, CNN, NBC Nightly News, ABC World News, NPR, and on numerous other television news and radio shows. In 2005 The Wall Street Journal published a front-page profile on her tax protest movement research. She has been featured in three documentaries on the subject of domestic terrorism in the United States and Canada.

## Link added by me. Motto: “I write about sovereigns, tax-defiers, and anti-government extremists.”  Bio at that site (click it to see) has more detail on which government committees she’s testified for.

MacNab is the author of the forthcoming book, “The Seditionists: Inside the Explosive World of Anti-Government Extremism in America,” **scheduled to be published in late 2015 by Palgrave Macmillan. The book takes readers deep into the movement, including its racist history, recent growth, and factors that drive members towards violence.

In addition to her research and writing, MacNab works as a consultant for various federal, state, and local regulatory and law enforcement agencies.  She travels around the United States and Canada, teaching at law enforcement, judicial, and legal conferences.

McNabb’s work with the Program on Extremism at George Washington University explores current trends in and public policy responses to homegrown anti-government extremism.

** Link added by me. Here’s the book (see link for more description), obviously book already out:

Image from MacMillan.com

There are approximately 300,000 people in the United States today who believe that they are exempt from all laws, taxes, and debts. They drive without licenses and stockpile weapons, gold, and survivalist supplies in preparation for what they see as the U.S. government’s imminent collapse in a second American revolution. Frustrated when law enforcement, tax collectors, and the courts label their detailed research as worthless, many have lashed out in anger.In The Seditionists, JJ MacNab escorts the reader deep into the movement. Recent events have pushed them onto the political stage, from the rise of the Tea Party, to the rash of mass shootings throughout the country. In the last three years, more than a half-dozen police officers have been killed by Sovereigns and at least three major terrorism events have been prevented, prompting the FBI to label the group as a domestic terrorism organization.The Seditionists will educate readers about a fascinating and growing subculture that has recently forced its way into mainstream politics, but it also serves as a warning that anger in the movement is building, and that one or more significant domestic terrorist events are likely to occur.

From the main CCHS.GWU.edu website:
Corporate Membership = Corporate Privileges, including regular off-the-record contacts.  Conditions (or cost of) Corporate Membership not published on center blog at GWU:

The GW Center for Cyber and Homeland Security has established a new Corporate Membership program to provide a means for companies (for-profit and not-for-profit) with interests in the areas of cybersecurity, counterterrorism and homeland security to support the work of the Center and participate in its activities, including through events developed with the specific interests of its corporate members in mind, including roundtable discussions on key policy and regulatory issues and regularly scheduled off-the-record events.

This literally means that an internationally funded nonprofit by private interests could potentially have privileged, and more access to this center on “U.S. Soil” than resident citizens, although it looks like they are most at-risk of being judged terrorists for religion, views towards government (the “sovereign”movement is targeted through the Program on Extremism) or even political persuasions from this center. In fact, how left or right of center as defined by _(tba’s)____’s version of patriotism is going to be permissible in the US, from now on? A few inches — a few feet?


AND, Strong Cities Network (meaning the USDOJ) is involved, as well as some family counseling // deprogramming NGO models from, specifically here, Germany. So in this context, can I perhaps apply a few “analysis” tools in comparing how domestic violence prevention / intervention policies do or do not get the job done, and how the fields relate?  Can I learn a few vocabulary words, or even to navigate differences (not an easy prospect) between USA reporting on its own NGOs (501©3s)  and the public/private partnerships in other countries connected with ones in THIS country?

And can I not, fifteen years later this coming September, re-institute a few comments on the validity of the premises behind what happened on 9/11/2001 in New York City?

Should all others involved and (by force) supporting the infrastructure just quit trying to separate fact from fiction, roll over and play dead, and start quoting Expert 1 vs. Expert 2– or is it maybe time to figure out how to take a closer look at the facts?

I’m not on the conference circuit, haven’t trademarked, published a book (though that’s not off the radar eventually, if investigative blogging for free isn’t good enough in others’ eyes) and am not hiring myself out as a consultant or coach on this material…although with six years of work, on this topic, I already qualify as one). One reason I haven’t has been the targeted litigation (personal local pressures), but my approach from the start has been more teaching and explaining as a friend (public-interest) than “PR.” I have been in the “clueless” position where experts were acting clueless on this material — when they absolutely weren’t; by and large, they simply didn’t want it out in the open, as it would make their own dialogues “moot points” and less relevant.

But if people starved for factual information relating to their immediate concerns can be reached with diluted (bastardized, framed for marketing the solution) information, then if hungry enough, they would consume, and help proliferate the philosophies.  Hence, we get “parental alienation” debates, year after year, of “judges just can’t tell a charming abuser from a good parent” premises, and more where that came from.   I know because I’m on several of the group emails disbursing it.

It doesn’t come all the time, but people have commented on this blog, while “going through it” on their own cases, that this blog has helped them not lose their minds.  That’s a VERY big deal, and it takes work — mental, cognitive, comprehension work.

One good way to lose one’s mind is to attempt to connect to equally and contradictory premises, each one of which eliminates the other as logical, and often enough, none of which were shown to be factual in the first place.

I expect that people can accelerate their own learning curves, and in the issues I’ve been personally reporting on for years AFTER personally “looking it up” myself, which process I also continually narrate and demonstrate on most posts….

…to personally consider prioritizing researching over reblogging others’ re-hashing of the same pro/con/maybe debates, topic by topic, we see every four years for Presidents, every two years for Congress, and with every new terrorist headline, “Domestic” (as to the USA) or “abroad” (non-domestic as to the USA, including Canada and Mexico).

I want readers (and re-bloggers of familycourtmatters) to acknowledge first to themselves (most important) their need to overcome their own collective cognitive dissonance regarding ALL social policy debates involving public funding or public/private partnerships, national AND international, and then start practicing other ways to overcome cognitive dissonance than “pick a side” in the polarized debates being offered us, OR simply adopting a third-position because it claims to be “bi-partisan” or NOT polarized.  Joining another on-line cult or organization who has some shrink-wrapped solutions, but isn’t teaching others how to look-it-up is not overcoming anything — it’s simply switching social clubs.

The LCD (lowest common denominator – an important concept when comparing things) is often economic.  In this post, I again show what valuable evidence — not just inconclusive and unreliable summaries on “evidence-based practices” — the willingness to

  • look at a few free, on-line databases (i.e., at least three different sources of information),
  • make notes of some key facts from them, or odd, unexplained circumstances on the record, AND about the individual databases, and
  • compare notes, and from there,
  • be able to at least say what they say, draw focused, factual, small-in-scope statements based on that source of facts — and from there,
  • notice the discrepancies between the databases when reporting on the same information // same organization, and from there,
  • come up with a plausible possibility which databases involving economic information on key organizations representing current federal social policy, are internally inconsistent, and at points seriously unreliable, and, as representing communications TO the public from the agencies (HHS database) and organizations (IRS Forms) about public-interest expenditures, conceivably, not by accident.

actually unearths the (in plain sight for those who look) the evidence in a non-speculative way.

In the process, you also become acquainted with the databases and organizations in a non-traditional, more independent (“Uncommon analysis” is in the blog motto for a reason!) way, as opposed to the “marketing” angle, which the public websites, or press releases, or journalistic reporting (where the purpose is to keep the readers coming back to THAT journalist or publication, not to “tell all” in such a way readers could NOT need to keep coming back for more…)

Why would I ever bother going through all the above if it was not going to lead to something independent, and which would withstand sales-pitches on the value of programs ABC we are funding, and being sold, nationwide and as it now turns out (see “Munich” “Paris” etc.), internationally?

I could’ve done this from a fatherhood practitioner field (easily…) but this time chose for an example (and not the first time this example), domestic violence groups in Minnesota.

I end up taking on the reasoning behind Strong Cities Network (as described in its September 2015 launch at the USDOJ website) and countering with the existing evidence from other sources that this “just might not have happened” according to the common account.

The countradictory evidence, surprisingly, doesn’t take the form of social science R&D pilot project descriptions and their summaries and evaluations, but from some sources, the realm of structural engineering, design, and material science regarding the WTC center, and from another, a bit of history and economic incentive for actually “raining down terror from on high” and kickstarting Homeland Security on Americans, which is where we are now, in importing “CVE” classes and training from “der Vaterland” and one of the original USA colonists, “the Brits,” which is to say, currently, the UK, and specifically, London.

And what difference it makes if thosediscordant 9/11 accounts were right, when the common account is being used to justify inter-continental airfare both ways to bring CVE experts to, say, Daniel Koehler to, say, Minneapolis, to train others how to evaluate what are the chances of convicted defendants getting de-radicalized — after, that is, a US District Judge Michael J. Davis flew to Germany to take a look at it first).

I know many readers or followers may be thinking, “C’mon!! What’s with All these Terms, Organizations, and Details? And people, too?  What do you expect of me?” I also sometimes hear this in private communications (email) from former co-bloggers or parallel bloggers on custody issues.

Along the lines of chart at the bottom of July 16, “Look at Who’s Been Looking at This Blog Recently. ..“, in the last two days August 1 & 2), visitors to this FamilyCourtMatters blog came from: UWisconsin-Madison, Syracuse University, Harvard University, University of Adelaide (Australia) and Elon University in NC (who??) — and government entities, The State of New Jersey and Florida Dept of Mgmt Services, Pierce County (in Washington State), and the City of Lincoln, NE. (I guess visitors from any university might be any university employee or student).

As well as what looks like a large Los Angeles law firm, and visitors from Canada, the UK (that’s normal), a lot from France, also Japan (unusual) and Germany — understandable given recent subject matter.

(Updating the list at August 9, reverse chrono (but I’m not going to make the table as before; dates are omitted):

  • Total Visits:1 Location:Saint Paul, Minnesota, United States IP Address:State Of Minnesota (
  • Total Visits:1Location:Minneapolis, Minnesota, United StatesIP Address:State Of Minnesota (
  • Total Visits:1Location:Minneapolis, Minnesota, United StatesIP Address:University Of Minnesota (
  • Total Visits:1Location:West Hartford, Connecticut, United StatesIP Address:State Of Connecticut Judicial Branch (
  • Total Visits:1Location:Durham, North Carolina, United StatesIP Address:Research Triangle Institute (
    • I can see why.  I’ve been talking about the Miami Child Well-Being Court (™) in which RTI International professionals played a role…
  • Total Visits:1Location:San Diego, California, United StatesIP Address:Network Management Division ( {{ of ____??}}
  • Total Visits:1Location:Baltimore, Maryland, United StatesIP Address:Johns Hopkins University (
  • Total Visits:1Location:Austin, Texas, United StatesIP Address:County Of Travis (
  • (Two from UCSF, two similar but not identical IPs on August 4th).
  • Total Visits:1Location:Minneapolis, Minnesota, United StatesIP Address:City Of Roseville – Minnesota (
  • Total Visits:1 Location:Washington, District of Columbia, United States IP Address: Department Of Veterans Affairs (
  • Total Visits:1Location:Columbia, Maryland, United StatesIP Address:Agency For Health Care Policy & Research (
    • This is under “AHRQ” HHS — (Definition, not gov’t site but “SearchHealthIT.com”)***
    • Govt website:  http://www.ahrq.gov/cpi/about/index.html |  2017 Budget Request: shows its funding history, its organizational chart, and that from 1993-2012 hospitalizations for opioid use more than doubled and that MCC (“Multiple Chronic Conditions”) put one at risk of many things, including premature death.##
  • Total Visits:1Location:Riverdale, Georgia, United StatesIP Address: Georgia Technology Authority (

***From there, and FYI on this part of HHS:

The AHRQ uses a system of quality indicators to determine the standards of quality health care and if a particular provider is meeting those standards. These indicators are divided into four subcategories that each monitor a different aspect of health care quality  (listed)….

Hospital performance results based on these quality indicators are reported on an HHS site called Hospital Compare and are published in an annual AHRQ survey. However, as a research organization, the AHRQ lacks the authority to penalize organizations who receive low marks for the quality indicators.

In addition to its quality indicators, the AHRQ publishes the results of its research as reports, toolkits or other resources for health care providers. One AHRQ project, for example, is a toolkit that helps standardize health information exchange and the storage of personal health information The AHRQ’s document helps provide a more streamlined approach to health information technology data storage and exchange. Another AHRQ guide gives providers advice on how to create software and other systems geared toward adult patients with limited literacy to ensure that they receive proper health care.

## Misc. FYI: Single paragraph on opioid use hospitalizations — response, increase access to Medication-Assisted-Treatment, esp. in rural areas (from the AHRQ.gov 2017 budget link, above):

AHRQ data helped to highlight a jump in hospitalizations among Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay patients for overuse of opioids. AHRQ showed that these hospitalization rates more than doubled between 1993 and 2012, when there were more than 700,000 Americans hospitalized for opioid overuse. This warning contributed to the Department’s launch of a major multipronged initiative to reduce opioid abuse in 2015. As part of this effort, in December, 2015 AHRQ released a funding opportunity announcement with the goal of making medication assisted treatment for opioid use disorder more accessible to people in rural areas. The announcement, titled, “Increasing Access to Medication-Assisted Treatment in Rural Primary Care Practices” will fund demonstration projects that explore how to overcome barriers to implementing Medication-Assisted Treatment (MAT) for opioid use disorder in primary care practices in rural areas of the United States. Primary care practices offer an opportunity to expand access to evidence-based treatment for substance abuse disorders, particularly for those in rural areas which lack specialized treatment facilities. This initiative was developed in close coordination with SAMHSA, HRSA, and NIDA. We intend to fund up to three projects for 3 years, at $1 million per year for each project. The FY 2017 Congressional Justification continues this important work to address prescription drug and opioid misuse and abuse

Interesting.  Anyhow, someone at AHRQ was on this blog not too long ago.  Hospitals and Medical Plans occasionally do get on there.   While I was typing this up, there were two more (brief) visits from someone at USD (University of San Diego) La Jolla, and a family law firm from Dallas, TX whose principal describes the practice as:

She is a board-certified family law specialist and limits her practice to complex family law litigation, including divorce, property division, adoption, child support, paternity and post-divorce modification.

and apparently it’s been good, as she’s been in it Board-Certified since 1991…after graduating early from law school in Texas.

Also not shown above, but I’m going to mention because it’s just a little unnerving is several recent visits from different County Sheriff’s Offices in different places where I have not been living, have not previously lived.and do not own any property (I’ve never owned any home).  Maybe they are reading up on the DV issues.  Also odd, a long (20 hours, possibly overnight) visit from the Barry M Goldwater A F (Air Force) Range in Arizona has me puzzled. Shortly after that my followers (per webcount) dropped from down to 385, although that count hasn’t moved much for many months.  During this time I also posted (and tweeted) something about a local nonprofit begging for money but with undeclared assets (and a missing tax return or two); perhaps it was in response to that, or some people just not being interested in international events posted on the blog; I do not know.

For the rest of FamilyCourtMatters‘ readers, not particularly included in the above lists or necessarily public employees, including probably some US-based professionals (psychologists, lawyers, custody evaluators), family court reform-advocates (experts spokespersons or “laypeople” followers and recruiters/rebloggers) and people associated with nonprofits I pick onwhat do I expect from you, or “Whaddaya Want, Let’s Get Honest!?!” regarding all this international stuff?

For example, these are the tags from just my last post, several of the organization or outfits being new to me too.   An “X” separates each term from the next and the system alphabetizes them, so Arne Duncan — only on there to remind me to review that bio blurb — comes up first.  I bolded a few of them.

X Arne Duncan Brookings Expert bio blurgX Arno Michaelis – reformed skinhead – multiple associated nonprofits (LAH | Serve2Unite)X Arts @ Large (WI 501©3 – PCAH approved?)X BAMF – Bundesamt für Migration und Flüchtlinge (=German Office for Immigrant and Refugee Affairs)X Brookings ExpertsX Brookings Institution EIN#53-0196577 – ½ $Billion @ YE2014X Brookings promo of Strong Cities Network | CVE Events | GIRDS etc.X Brookings Sponsorship of Haskins-Sawhill CFCC comboX Building Community Resilience (CVE program in Minnesota?) – Andrew Luger-promotingX CCHS -Center for Cyber & Homeland Security at GWU in WDC (started Dec. 2015)X CCHS.GWU.EDU & “Program on Extremism”X CVE – Countering Violent ExtremismX Daniel Koehler – Director GIRDS+ Sr. Fellow CCHS “Program on Extremism”X Dept. for Communities and Local Government (UK)X GIRDS – German Institute on Radicalization and De-Radicalization Studies (D. Koehler)X Hayak Canada – Christiane Boudreau (see also “GIRDS” staff)X IRS Form 990s – compare Part X (assets) to Schedule D (Investments-Other / Assets – Other etc.)X ISD – Institute for Strategic Dialogue (London UK) see “Strong Cities Network”X J.J. McNabb – one of (only) 3 women & only USA woman at CCHS Program on Extremism: specialty sovereign + anti-tax movementX LAH – Life After Hate – Noncompliant IL 501©3 featured by Brookings Institution eventX LEYF – London Early Years Foundation (shows in Sajid Javid’s “wiki”)X Right Honorable Hazel Blears (UK – also CCHS/Program on Extremism Sr. Fellow)X Right Honorable Sajid Javid (7-14-2016 appointee for UK Dept for Community and Local Govts)X Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (UK Office)X Strong Cities Network (ISD project)X U.S. District Judge Michael J. Davis (Mpls – GIRDS evaluations for ISIS convicted defendants in USA)X Will McCants – Brookings Expert | Princeton doctorate

(COMMENTS on the Tagging (!)): There are so many acronyms you may notice I define a lot of them.  There are so many people’s individual names, you may notice I also include with some people at least one of their affiliations  (for example, “J.J. McNabb”). Or, with the organization — an affiliated person (“LEYF – London Early Years Foundation … Sajid Javid”).  It gets a little bit “out there,” as the people listed range anywhere from ex-criminals running, or being helped to run “we changed and you can too” nonprofits (Arno Michaelis) to highly decorated PhDs or governmental figures, i.e., “The Right Honorable Hazel Blears” and (ditto the title) Sajid Javid.  For “Strong Cities Network” I include as our reminder its an “ISD Project.” [and “ISD” is itself defined separately].

Overall recently, the blog’s recent posts (maybe all of them, for all I know!) impression might be:

“How is anyone supposed to make sense of and connect the dots between all this?”  

“What’s the main message anyhow?”

But I am expecting others to do exactly this, and to do it without being subjected to the “polarization” “either/or” “pick a side — and whoever’s on the other side of it, is suspect” game. I had to do this, and I expect others can too.

Who else do you expect to do this — all the self-contradicting (or collaborating, but not necessarily for our best interests) experts? Then, after decades of “just let the experts do it” mentality, we want to complain about HOW the experts do it, or stand aside and listen to them argue with each other, which is EXACTLY what the gender wars (men’s rights vs. women’s rights) (+ Fix-the-flawed-practices Family court reform advocates) have been doing….

Sure, that makes a lot of sense.   No, I, “Let’s Get Honest” expect the average “commoner” (not PhDs, J.D.s, Psy.Ds, Esquires and “The Honorables” meaning, the judges and the Senators and Representatives in Congress, or in state legislatures)… to look at these things. I also don’t expect the associated LMFTs, LCSWs, MPHs and the occasional M.Ed.D.s to take these issues to heart.  Where are their livelihoods being made in the first place?

The top of the Ph.D., J.D., Psy.D. Esquires and “The Honorables” people have less incentive to figure this out — if in public service, they have their pensions, and most of them, professions.  When working out of a university center that is itself taking major alumni and/or private foundation funding, often enough these people to get TO those positions will show a C.V. full of public (mostly) and/or private grants in the first place (the example I’m thinking of at the moment is Robert J. Gelles, simply because I looked in some detail at his a while back).  Another example might be the UDenver professors responsible for development of “Prep, Inc.” (or “Within My Reach”) for distribution through both faith-based and welfare systems, as well as on-line.

Would those people be likely to give an honest look at, say, how the marriage/fatherhood grantees are tending to set up a system of money-laundering in pursuit of the altruistic cause of these wonderful family values?

If they get TOO far out of line, some board of professional licensure (like the State Bar, or Board of Behavioral Sciences if that’s who licenses the psychologists et al.) can slap them with a probation, or explusion.  That, I’m not exactly holding my breath on being an effective form of keeping a balance of power on the radar, or keeping criminal or unethical behavior by those IN public office in check.

Are you counting on these measures? Or, perhaps luck? Or personal connections?  Or your own upright behavior, while letting the rest slide downhill?

WHY: I am doing this because places where the majority are dysfunctional through denial are not safe, and after what I just witnessed and went through the last two decades, I would like the next two to be better– not worse.  If US Citizens are not able to face where and in what ways they’ve been manipulated — and express it in anything other than the polarized alternatives being offered us — then perhaps some other country with a little more common sense and less self-denial exists.

WHY: And as I am a U.S. Citizen (and born into it, though my great-grandparents weren’t), I would prefer this one regain some collective cognitive functionality on what is taking place NOW to eradicate the national sovereignty and what already has to eradicate sovereignty along state lines, which no question, Strong Cities Network seeks to do, and which no question, NGOs (including NON-profit NGOs that is, “non-government organizations”) facilitate, particularly because they are not government.


Who can’t learn some vocabulary?  And then practice it?

When you learn a vocabulary word, you should also learn what part of speech (noun, verb, adjective, etc.) and then see it in use, see a variety of meanings and when you see specialized vocabulary in use in disparate (many different) sources, then there is SOME connection between those speaking it — they picked it up from each other, shared, borrowed, trained, mentored, or communicated it contagiously through rubbing shoulders or breathing the same conference-room  air and just inhaling it.

When you learn about some of these groups, you should know where they originate, and whether they are an NGO or a government entity.

  • So, I recently showed several sources using the term CVE and several referencing GIRDS and Hayak.  Is that really so hard?
  • I identified some nonprofits are registered in the US (Brookings, “Life After Hate, Inc.” — although barely) and some are in London, and at least one is in Germany. Is that really so complex?

Making sense of anything and, if there are dots to be connected, connecting them, requires some vocabulary, an ability to recognize which vocabulary is in use in any given situation, and what are the organizing principles (as opposed to the supposed organizing principles). That’s just a sensitivity to language (verbiage within the native language, here within English) and general awareness of some existing jargon, as well as created jargons (Social Science PolicySpeak, for example).

For example: “Coordinated Community Response”  originates, in this country, heavily from Domestic Abuse Interventions Program in Duluth, MN — a nonprofit which has most of its duration (since 1980) relied on government funding.  Therefore, it’s not too far-fetched to say that this is a desired outcome for those government agencies funding DAIP over the years.  We should be able to associate that from spokesperson (d. 2012) Ellen Pence.

This next entire section is taking only a LOCAL, DOMESTIC (USA) situation to demonstrate “connecting the dots” on a few different databases, and how you can construct definite sentences based on the information from those databases, and propose possible explanations for the same. It also shows how, through habitual attention to some of these “anomalies” and conflict of information from different sources, I became aware that the sources themselves lacked credibility and accuracy. From there, the questions can come up “why?” and reasonable or unreasonable deductions may be made.

But what is NOT reasonable is NOT EVEN NOTICING some of these details.

We are now 15 years post 9/11 (almost) and dealing with international alliances such as Strong Cities Network basing some of the justification for it, and I will quote and show this today, on who caused “9/11” destruction of the World Trade Towers, and I am quoting the Attorney General Loretta Lynch on this. 2001 happened during a Bush / Republican Administration, and these events cannot be “blamed” on Democrats, or Obama, as may be a typical politically polarized response. We have to know better to do better.

If people cannot or will not look at the local nonprofit organizations and connect the federal/state relationships financially, what about when the NGOs are spanning different continents, not based in the US, and involving the US Department of Justice. THEN what?  [[Rhetorical question, I just took it to another post (Full Title at Top of This Post..]]

Please show patience with that next post, Minnesota (mostly)-based example. It’s there not just for the specific situation, but also as an example of a process of looking at more than one TYPE and SOURCE of organization and making a few observations from that material of which we can be sure, based on that material. IF the database material is off, that’s another, and separate, matter.

A look at the nonprofits and at the rhetoric (not to mention connections) shows that this organization Domestic Abuse Intervention Programs (“DAIP”) (“theDuluthModel.org”) has invested into the “Technical Assistance and Training” mentality, which by definition pulls in the behavioral modification tactics (of both the people being subjected to the Supervised Visitation or Batterers Intervention services — as well as the service providers).

Sooner or later dots should connect with this Duluth, MN organization as having spun off “Batterers Women’s Justice Project” and observing its behavior and involvements, “figure it out.”

46-3584341 Battered Womens Justice Project Minneapolis MN United States PC

This group only registered in year 2013, and so far in 2013 and 2014 filed two 990-N postcards showing revenues under $50,000 and details (from IRS form) don’t acknowledge a website:

« Prev | 1-2 | Next »
EINSorted Ascending Legal Name (Doing Business As)Sorted Ascending CitySorted Ascending StateSorted Ascending ZIP/Postal CodeSorted Ascending CountrySorted Ascending Tax YearSorted Ascending
46-3584341 BATTERED WOMENS JUSTICE PROJECT Minneapolis MN 55403 United States 2013
46-3584341 BATTERED WOMENS JUSTICE PROJECT Minneapolis MN 55403 United States 2014

So far, through “990finder.foundationcenter.org” by EIN# search it has not filed a normal Form 990 where the public might read some organizational details — names of directors, private vs. public revenues, where it’s spending them, and program service accomplishments, for year 2015, or, say, number of employees, how many on board of directors, or any “related” organizations.

The principal director, Denise Gamache, is a name known on the DAIP HHS grants. From the above links (IRS “Exempt Organization Select Check” — Filed Form 990-Ns search results) ….

[[for more, see that post when it comes out..]]

Retaining one’s ability to reason REQUIRES the ability to reject what is an il-logical assessment of a situation, even if it’s a majority position.

For example, “Our Broken Courts” presumes a pristine time in the courts — but further lookups doesn’t discover such a case at all once AFCC is considered.  The “Broken Courts Crowd” for the most part handled this by not talking about AFCC, long past when the omission became obvious.   It also by definition has to exclude the financial incentives stating these are “outcome-based courts” and identifying that the federal government’s official policy is to want a certain type of CHANGE in outcomes called “increased noncustodial parenting time” enough to reward states that achieve this.

The next post shows some of these buzzwords and sound-bytes.

Then there’s making decisions about the connections and conclusions others are coming to when more rational explanations are available.


There’s il-logical, in which the conclusion doesn’t come from the proclaimed presumptions, and then there’s “in-sane” in which two equally opposing and contradictory (exclusionary) premises are both thought to be true, and further reasoning, strategies, and solutions are built upon that bound-to-fail foundation.  Dig a little deeper (historically, organizationally, and in the involved networks) and it may be unearthed, in plain sunlight, WHY a process of problem-solving was set in motion which would never solve the problems, like a manufacturing line which never produces a single usable product as advertised, but being public-funded, keeps lots of people employed meanwhile…


And yet, we have now a situation in the U.S. where Minneapolis, one of the Strong Cities, has suddenly decided to engage the services of a German deprogramming process  — based on the danger of radicalization and youth being attracted to go fight in Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan — then come back, more experienced (those that come back) and start blowing more things and people up here… while in a case out of nearby Dakota County, (see Red Herring Alert or “justice4grazzinirucki” (seems to have started around June, 2016 only) for some of the posted evidence) officers went after a mother who attempted to separate her children FROM violence, and claimed that none existed, hunted her down, JAILED her with $1 million bail for a period, and continued pursue felony charges against her — as it has done with other mothers who either fled violence, or sought to separate their children from the home-grown variety when it didn’t happen to be labeled “ISIL.”


Attorney General Loretta Lynch, in announcing the Launch of the Strong Cities Network at the UN ALREADY referenced Minneapolis-St. Paul and “Youthrive” (next post deals with this organization and the “THRIVE” terminology), as well as Massachusetts and Colorado as examples of “how it’s done…”

Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch Announces the Launch of the Strong Cities Network at the United Nations General Assembly
New York, NY United States ~ Tuesday, September 29, 2015

[remarks as prepared for delivery, posted at the USDOJ]

Thank you, Mayor [Bill] de Blasio, for those kind words; for your dedication to promoting equality and expanding opportunity; and for your service to the people of this great city – the city I call home.  I would also like to recognize High Commissioner for Human Rights [Prince Zeid Ra’ad] Al Hussein and the UN-Habitat program for their inspiring work and bold leadership as we work to create a future of sustainable peace, development and opportunityAnd I’d like to thank all of the mayors and other municipal leaders who are helping to ensure safe and prosperous futures for our communities and our world by serving on the Steering Committee of the Strong Cities Network.  It’s a pleasure to join such a distinguished group of world leaders on this historic occasion and it’s a privilege to represent the Obama Administration and the United States {{in that order??}} as we inaugurate this innovative, collaborative and critically important global effort.

We gather today at a crucial moment of challenge and opportunity for the security of our nations and the well-being of humankind.  Fourteen years ago, not far from where we stand today, terrorists carried out a vicious assault on democratic values and inclusive societies everywhere.  Their brutal attack claimed the lives of thousands of innocent victims – including citizens from 90 nations.  And in the years since that morning when terror rained from the sky, we have continued to see violent extremists emerge from within our own communities – from terrorists inspired by groups like ISIL to fanatics motivated by hatred against religious or ethnic factions.

Yes, asbestos and insurance policies recently taken out on the World Trade Towers, which had been hard to come by because of asbestos, risks from wind-sheer and other FINANCIAL factors had “nothing” to do with 9/11. Nor did the desire to provide an excuse to put the country on even tighter lockdown and remove more privacy, and facilitate government by Presidential Executive Order (Bush Administration) have anything to do with it…

Let’s pause to remember that buildings don’t just suddenly, symmetrically collapse on themselves and there was circumstantial evidence of the above story (terrorists — only — cause the death of around 3,000 (I DNR exact number) people on that day), and there was motive, and that every time a high-ranking federal official implies there WAS no inside job, whom we are listening to.  DENIAL is a very dangerous game to play…

I’ve shown the first three of approximately 2,590 other Architect or Engineer signatures to the petition, plus over 21,000 non-architect/engineer signatures to the same petition:

From AE911truth.org. Webpage has photo background, not solid gray.

http://www.ae911truth.org/signatures/ae.html (alpha keys to those Architects and Engineers who signed, and a link to the petition, which starts):

The architects and engineers below have signed the Petition demanding a new investigation into the destruction of all 3 World Trade Center skyscrapers on 9/11.

On Behalf of the People of the United States of America, the undersigned Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth and affiliates hereby petition for, and demand, a truly independent investigation with subpoena power in order to uncover the full truth surrounding the events of 9/11/01 – specifically the collapses of the World Trade Center Towers and Building 7. We believe there is sufficient doubt about the official story and therefore the 9/11 investigation must be re-opened and must include a full inquiry into the possible use of explosives that might have been the actual cause of the destruction of the World Trade Center Twin Towers and Building 7.


Dan Barnum, FAIA, of Houston, Texas, holds a Bachelor of Architecture degree from Rice University. He has been practicing architecture for the past 40 years and has designed a variety of buildings, from houses to high-rise office buildings. Among his major projects are One Shell Plaza and Two Shell Plaza in downtown Houston, and Houston Lighting and Power, which is now the Houston Public Works office building. Barnum is a Fellow of the American Institute of Architects, the highest honor bestowed on its members by the AIA.

Dan “knew” at the outset that something was fishy about 9/11, because both of the buildings collapsed suddenly, and in the same manner.

Tom Spellman has an undergraduate degree in architecture (with a minor in civil engineering) from the University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee. He also managed a housing co-op for 15 years and was an accountant for five years. An Internet discussion about 9/11 in late 2002 convinced him that the official story was a fraud. Upon hearing Dr. Steven Jones state that random fires and damage could not produce a symmetrical collapse, he understood that explosives had to be involved. He contacted Richard Gage to clarify technical points made during a presentation and was invited to join the weekly team calls as a volunteer. He has served as Treasurer ever since. 

Richard Gage, AIA, is a San Francisco Bay Area architect of 28 years, a member of the American Institute of Architects, and the founder and CEO of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth. Mr. Gage has worked on most types of building construction, including numerous fire-proofed, steel-framed buildings. Most recently, he worked on the construction documents for a $400M mixed-use urban project with 1.2 million square feet of retail, a parking structure, and 320,000 square feet of mid-rise office space.

I found a 2001 article in “JOM” (Journal of Metals, Minerals and Materials) from “TMS” (the Metals, Minerals and Materials Society) published under the title “Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation”  INTERESTING. Sure, there are some technical terms, but not so many it still doesn’t make sense.

They talk about the skyscraper constructions of the 1960s and 1970s (when these towers were built) being designed to resist hurricane-force winds (not present on September 2011), the “egg carton” concept, lightweight with massively strong central core. They talk about different types of fire and how while the hottest/most forceful would come from combustion within closed container (i.e., as powered the jet) that the “DIFFUSE” fire — NOT contained, which would obviously describe the situation when the jet fuel spilled — is the least hot, AND, it’s fuel rich.  The billowing clouds of smoke around the towers indicated a diffuse, fuel-rich fire.  Sample (with side-table showing the WTC series of articles) and more at the bottom of the post.

The following article appears in the journal JOM, 53 (12) (2001), pp. 8-11.


Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation by Thomas Eagar and Christopher Musso

Better Materials Can Reduce the Threat from Terrorism by Toni G. Maréchaux

An Initial Micro structural Analysis of A36 Steel from WTC Building 7 by J.R. Barnett, R.R. Biederman, and R.D. Sisson, Jr.

News & Update

Thomas W. Eagar and Christopher Musso

Editor’s Note: For a more complete. updated analysis of the World Trade Center towers collapse, read “The Role of Metallurgy in the NIST Investigation of the World Trade Center Towers Collapse” in the December 2007 issue.

There have been numerous reports detailing the cause of the World Trade Center Tower collapse on September 11, 2001. Most have provided qualitative explanations; however, simple quantitative analyses show that some common conclusions are incorrect; for example, the steel could not melt in these flames and there was more structural damage than merely softening of the steel at elevated temperatures. Some guidelines for improvements in future structures are presented. 


The collapse of the World Trade Center (WTC) towers on September 11, 2001, was as sudden as it was dramatic; the complete destruction of such massive buildings shocked nearly everyone. Immediately afterward and even today, there is widespread speculation that the buildings were structurally deficient, that the steel columns melted, or that the fire suppression equipment failed to operate. In order to separate the fact from the fiction, we have attempted to quantify various details of the collapse.

The major events include the following:

  • The airplane impact with damage to the columns.
  • The ensuing fire with loss of steel strength and distortion (Figure 1).
  • The collapse, which generally occurred inward without significant tipping (Figure 2).

Each will be discussed separately, but initially it is useful to review the overall design of the towers …


The early news reports noted how well the towers withstood the initial impact of the aircraft; however, when one recognizes that the buildings had more than 1,000 times the mass of the aircraft and had been designed to resist steady wind loads of 30 times the weight of the aircraft, this ability to withstand the initial impact is hardly surprising. Furthermore, since there was no significant wind on September 11, the outer perimeter columns were only stressed before the impact to around 1/3 of their 200 MPa design allowable

wind load, rather than the gravity load, dominated the design. The building is a huge sail that must resist a 225 km/h hurricane. It was designed to resist a wind load of 2 kPa—a total of lateral load of 5,000t. [tons?]

In order to make each tower capable of withstanding this wind load, the architects selected a lightweight “perimeter tube” design consisting of 244 exterior columns of 36 cm square steel box section on 100 cm centers (see Figure 3).  Inside this outer tube there was a 27 m × 40 m core, which was designed to support the weight of the tower. It also housed the elevators, the stairwells, and the mechanical risers and utilities. Web joists 80 cm tall connected the core to the perimeter at each story. Concrete slabs were poured over these joists to form the floors. In essence, the building is an egg-crate construction that is about 95 percent air, explaining why the rubble after the collapse was only a few stories high.


The fire is the most misunderstood part of the WTC collapse. Even today, the media report (and many scientists believe) that the steel melted. It is argued that the jet fuel burns very hot, especially with so much fuel present. This is not true…   Thus, the fact that there were 90,000 L of jet fuel on a few floors of the WTC does not mean that this was an unusually hot fire. The temperature of the fire at the WTC was not unusual, and it was most definitely not capable of melting steel.

In combustion science, there are three basic types of flames, namely, a jet burner, a pre-mixed flame, and a diffuse flame. A jet burner generally involves mixing the fuel and the oxidant in nearly stoichiometric proportions and igniting the mixture in a constant-volume chamber. Since the combustion products cannot expand in the constant-volume chamber, they exit the chamber as a very high velocity, fully combusted, jet. This is what occurs in a jet engine, and this is the flame type that generates the most intense heat.


“The word stoichiometry derives from two Greek words: stoicheion (meaning “element”) and metron (meaning “measure”). Stoichiometry deals with calculations about the masses (sometimes volumes) of reactants and products involved in a chemical reaction. It is a very mathematical part of chemistry, so be prepared for lots of calculator use.”

http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/stoichiometric-combustion-d_399.html “Stoichiometric combustion and excess of air”

Stoichiometric or Theoretical Combustion is the ideal combustion process where fuel is burned completely. ~  A complete combustion is a process burning all the carbon (C) to (CO2), all the hydrogen (H) to (H2O) and all the sulphur (S) to (SO2). ~ With unburned components in the exhaust gas such as C, H2, CO, the combustion process is uncompleted and not stoichiometric.

To determine the excess air or excessfuel for a combustion system we starts with the stoichiometric air-fuel ratio. The stoichiometric ratio is the perfect ideal fuel ratio where the chemical mixing proportion is correct. When burned all fuel and air is consumed without any excess left over….

Process heating equipment are rarely run that way. “On-ratio” combustion used in boilers and high temperature process furnaces usually incorporates a modest amount of excess air – about 10 to 20% more than what is needed to burn the fuel completely.

If an insufficient amount of air is supplied to the burner, unburned fuel, soot, smoke, and carbon monoxide exhausts from the boiler – resulting in heat transfer surface fouling, pollution, lower combustion efficiency, flame instability and a potential for explosion.**  …

  • if air content is higher than the stoichiometric ratio – the mixture is said to be fuel-lean
  • if air content is less than the stoichiometric ratio – the mixture is fuel-rich

{{**Speaking of in CONTAINED places, not Diffuse, as happened in WTC once that jet fuel was spilled, which resulted in lower combustion efficiency = not enough to melt those core steel columns.  Keep reading.. from the JOM article.}}

In a pre-mixed flame, the same nearly stoichiometric mixture is ignited as it exits a nozzle, under constant pressure conditions. It does not attain the flame velocities of a jet burner. An oxyacetylene torch or a Bunsen burner is a pre-mixed flame.

In a diffuse flame, the fuel and the oxidant are not mixed before ignition, but flow together in an uncontrolled manner and combust when the fuel/oxidant ratios reach values within the flammable range. A fireplace flame is a diffuse flame burning in air, as was the WTC fire.

Diffuse flames generate the lowest heat intensities of the three flame types.

If the fuel and the oxidant start at ambient temperature, a maximum flame temperature can be defined. For carbon burning in pure oxygen, the maximum is 3,200°C; for hydrogen it is 2,750°C. Thus, for virtually any hydrocarbons, the maximum flame temperature, starting at ambient temperature and using pure oxygen, is approximately 3,000°C.

This maximum flame temperature is reduced by two-thirds if air is used rather than pure oxygen.

If you finish the introduction, the authors — both from MIT — reason (from what I can tell as a non-structural engineer) that while jet fuel couldn’t have ignited the inner core, they did stress the other steel and that the angle clips/floor joists (see diagram) couldn’t support the weight of the falling floors above those of impact.

While I’m no structural engineer, I am not quite satisfied with, after explaining that the jet-fuel diffuse fire was NOT enough to melt the steel core, it was still enough to so stress those clips/joints that the floors above them, falling, caused the collapse because of the weight from floors above.  Were ALL those perimeter supports around destroyed completely in that manner?  (“90,000 L Molotov cocktail on one of the building floors…(and) the ensuing fire led to other steel failures.” and the statement “Many structural engineers believe that the weak points—the limiting factors on design allowables—were the angle clips that held the floor joists between the columns on the perimeter wall and the core structure (see Figure 5)” doesn’t list any of them, or fully explain.

Nearly every large building has a redundant design that allows for loss of one primary structural member, such as a column. However, when multiple members fail, the shifting loads eventually overstress the adjacent members and the collapse occurs like a row of dominoes falling down.

The perimeter tube design of the WTC was highly redundant. It survived the loss of several exterior columns due to aircraft impact, but the ensuing fire led to other steel failures. Many structural engineers believe that the weak points—the limiting factors on design allowables—were the angle clips that held the floor joists between the columns on the perimeter wall and the core structure (see Figure 5). With a 700 Pa floor design allowable, each floor should have been able to support approximately 1,300 t beyond its own weight. The total weight of each tower was about 500,000 t.

As the joists on one or two of the most heavily burned floors gave way and the outer box columns began to bow outward, the floors above them also fell. The floor below (with its 1,300 t design capacity) could not support the roughly 45,000 t of ten floors (or more) above crashing down on these angle clips. This started the domino effect that caused the buildings to collapse within ten seconds, hitting bottom with an estimated speed of 200 km per hour. If it had been free fall, with no restraint, the collapse would have only taken eight seconds and would have impacted at 300 km/h.1 It has been suggested that it was fortunate that the WTC did not tip over onto other buildings surrounding the area. There are several points that should be made. First, the building is not solid; it is 95 percent air and, hence, can implode onto itself. Second, there is no lateral load, even the impact of a speeding aircraft, which is sufficient to move the center of gravity one hundred feet to the side such that it is not within the base footprint of the structure. Third, given the near free-fall collapse, there was insufficient time for portions to attain significant lateral velocity. To summarize all of these points, a 500,000 t structure has too much inertia to fall in any direction other than nearly straight down.

Figure 5

Figure 5. Unscaled schematic of WTC floor joints and attachment to columns.


The World Trade Center was not defectively designed. No designer of the WTC anticipated, nor should have anticipated, a 90,000 L Molotov cocktail on one of the building floors. Skyscrapers are designed to support themselves for three hours in a fire even if the sprinkler system fails to operate. This time should be long enough to evacuate the occupants. The WTC towers lasted for one to two hours—less than the design life, but only because the fire fuel load was so large. No normal office fires would fill 4,000 square meters of floor space in the seconds in which the WTC fire developed. Usually, the fire would take up to an hour to spread so uniformly across the width and breadth of the building. This was a very large and rapidly progressing fire(very high heat but not unusually high temperature). Further information about the design of the WTC can be found on the World Wide Web.5–8

Now I’m going to post — still interjecting into the middle of Attorney General of the United States’ Remarks, ALMOST exactly fourteen years later (September, 2015) on Strong Cities Network launch….. and using 2001 (not by name, but by reference) as the justification for the movement — Walter Burien’s 8/29/2011 “Man on a Mission” and his summary, keeping in mind that (it seems) the NY/NJ Port Authority had BUILT the WTC, but then couldn’t for a variety of reasons, ONE of which was asbestos, lease it.  Until, 2001 and Larry Silverstein.  Miraculously, no one launched an intercept with the jets on that date, although they are trained and drill to do this year after year, intercepted the jets coming into the dangerous airspace, without which, on what else could any such WTC collapse be blamed?  I’ve quoted from this before, probably under “Dog-and-Pony Show” in the post title.  Some paragraphs have been combined, indicated by a “~” between them.

Man on a Mission 911 8/29/2011 by Walter Burien

(That doesn’t refer to himself; see top part of the article)….Rodriguez who for nearly twenty years worked at and for the WTC complex is also polishing up a brilliant new documentary of his own called, “From The Rubble,” which will be released in time for the 10th anniversary of 911 ….

Before joining the WTC staff, Rodriguez had worked for ten years as an aide to New York Governor Mario Cuomo, helping organize press conferences for high-level policy-making events. He knows the games that are played of Truth vs. Fiction.He has been on a ten year mission to make sure truth wins out over the fiction we have all been spoon fed to cover up the crime of the century. A crime that was nestled intentionally within a contrived and vile political agenda allowing for massive wealth and power transfer to take place from the planed event.

KEY information per 911 from: WJB
The following is my personal knowledge from being a tenant of WTC1 back in 1978 – 80 and my own look at what I would consider to be the “connect the dots” as to the underling motive for the event. Please share with all 911 researchers that you may know. The following points I bring forward NEED to be the focus of “connecting the dots

. . . 3. From 1978 until 2000 no takers on the NY/NJ Port Authority’s offer to lease the WTC complex. But then in 2000/01 along comes Larry Silverstein accepting a 99-year lease on the WTC complex for 3.5 billion dollars. Keep in mind the lease required monthly payments only. I think it was 33 million dollars per month and he got a deferral on the first several months. When the trade center towers went down I think he had about 110 million into the deal.

So what is the first primary thing Larry does? He takes out a double indemnity insurance policy on the WTC complex. (Total of 7 billion dollars coverage). It took a while to get the insurance company group together that would underwrite the total amount of coverage on the policy but finally the insurance coverage was obtained by Larry. What happens next?

*  I think the ink was not even dry yet on the insurance policy and down goes the trade center towers; in goes Larry’s claim for seven-billion-dollars (biggest profit on 110 million that I am aware of in the shortest period of time)
** There goes the NY/NJ Port Authority’s big problem of asbestos and flat sided towers that would go down in the event of a level 4 or 5 hurricane.
*** No billions of dollars of law suits against the NY/NJ Port Authority due to planned and “open” demolition of the towers that would trigger law suits from all residents in lower Manhattan due to asbestos exposure.

Motive; Means; Staged Event; Problems solved!

4. Last but not least:  From before I was a tenant of WTC1, the military since 1975 ran constant air drills per protecting the WTC towers being that they were a known target to militant types who did not like what the US Government was doing around the world. The air space around the towers was a “no fly zone” to non-commercial aircraft. The Air Force command back in 1978 boasted that it maintained attack craft at the several bases around the towers and that their response time from “threat” to “Jet Fighter intercept” in the air was under four minutes. From 1975 until September 10th 2001 there were probably several thousands of sorties run in drill; potential threat; or genuine threat in the air. The only one day an intercept(s) were not launched with not just one threat in the air but four, with the Air Force having an exemplary 25-year record of launching within minutes an intercept on “every” occasions was September 11th 2001.

When I saw that back on that date in 2001, it was conclusive to me “They were allowing this to happen“. Every air line pilot I have spoken to since then who were very aware of the flight policies in place around the WTC complex also agreed that the event was “allowed to happen”. If they as Air-Line pilots had not responded to a call and were off course they would have expected an F-15 to buzz their noses within a few minutes. The flight logs of the military sorties from the military bases around the WTC complex over that 25-year period should be available if proper channels are used to secure them.  ~ The 911 event WAS NOT the Air Force’s fault. On that day they were told to “Stand Down” and not launch intercepts. They were ready to do so as was the case over 25-years within five-minutes of the passenger planes not responding to communications, but on that day, and only on that day, they were told to “Stand Down” and not launch. It was not their fault the event happened.

Hey folks, the gang that pulled this off did…

The gang that did this are connected at the highest levels and they move in the trillion dollar world of finance and government power. Their objectives HAVE been accomplished. ~  The objectives were not just getting rid of the liability from the design flaws of the WTC towers, that was just the first objective. The overall plan was to trigger the take-over of the Middle-East starting with Afghanistan, then Iraq, and all of the other dominoes you are seeing falling one after another over there with Libya being the “at this time” one. Additionally they got the chance to lock down the entire population here for under the thumb control and management.

This gang chuckles behind closed doors as the population is played as complete idiots while each step on their agenda falls into place. Have the players from this gang had consequences for their actions? Yes they have. The consequences have been the building of their fortunes and personal power bases.


No wonder subsequent administrations are even more focused on “Social Science” when they talk about “evidence-based practice.”  “Hard science” involving physics, mechanics, physical buildings, gravity, and a knowledge of the stress behaviors of various materials which either support or don’t, the weight load, or resist — or don’t — high-impact, or fire — is a little harder to argue with.  Same with, when it’s used honestly, is forensic accounting or other disciplines involving logic and math — not just logic based on a closed set of references based in demographics and religions and general terms such as “violence” or “communities”


(Again, Here’s an interested party — or rather two of them, see “Brookings Institution” lauding Obama’s Evidence-Based Initiatives, and talking about the field:  https://www.brookings.edu/book/show-me-the-evidence/

This is a testimonial for the 2014 book by Haskins and Margolis of “Brookings” from Gordon Berlin of MDRC.  (Ron Haskins is also on the board of MDRC — check their site).  “You Scratch OUR back…” — MDRC does the studies….

Throughout our history, social policy has been made largely by anecdote, self-interest, and ideology.

(And it still is…. unless fatherhood.gov is “evidence-based” and not ideological (??) )

Really?  Then why was MDRC getting all the funding so we didn’t, since 1974 — looks to me like 40 years at this point…

In Show Me the Evidence, Ron Haskins and Greg Margolis tell the little-known story of the Obama administration’s systematic attempt, in the midst of a deeply partisan political culture, to use evidence to drive government policy and budgets. Using the tools of investigative reporting to peer into the inner workings of government and with a historian’s eye for turning points, they reveal the strategies and tactics key actors used to turn the quest for evidence-based policymaking into reality —  a competitive grants process that privileged evidence and specified standards, a legislative strategy that harnessed special interest groups and attached to other must past bills, and transparency requirements that limited insider deal making. Will the revolution they describe leave a legacy? The authors identify the challenges ahead, and drawing on personal experience in Congress, they offer a blueprint to each of the key players —government, philanthropy, and nonprofit organizations — for navigating the evidence-based movement’s uncertain future.  The stakes are high and the failure to do what works has produced cynicism among taxpayers about the ability of government to make a difference, but Haskins and Margolis show us the evidence that it doesn’t have to be that way.
—Gordon Berlin, President, MDRC

If it’s a “movement” then it’s political… “The evidence-based movement.”  It’s well-equipped to be a political ideology with nonspecific, catch-all phrases like this not informing us just how much demography, psychology and sociology will play into the “evidence…” and how much “Moynihan” is still clouding the hallways and thinking filters of the HHS policymakers…

To read this book is to read highly informed field notes concerning a promising new development in U.S. public administration. The story told {Sounds like story-telling to me:  anecdotal…} by Haskins and Margolis about the Obama administration’s evidence-based initiatives shows that policymakers can base decisions on more than mere politics and program managers can base decisions on more than mere opinion and anecdote. Showing and following the evidence will lead to great improvements in the nation’s social policy and could even boost the public’s confidence in government.
—Jim Manzi, Founder and Chairman, Applied Predictive Technologies



BACK TO LORETTA LYNCH PREPARED REMARKS, 9/29//2015, re: Launch of Strong Cities Network:

Some aspire to travel overseas to train or to fight.  Others plot attacks on targets within their homelands.  But all are antithetical to the shared vision and common cause that joins us here today in this renowned international forum: commitment to collaboration; dedication to peace; and devotion to the cause of justice within our nations and throughout the world.

It is clear that the challenge of building resilience against violent extremism – a challenge that spans vast oceans and borders while impacting our most tightly-knit cities and towns – requires a response that is both wide-ranging and highly focused. …These efforts have shown us the power of harnessing local expertise and leveraging local leadership to create targeted and effective approaches to eradicating violent extremism in any community.

Notice the repeated reference to “community” and rejoicing that now there is a MECHANISM for — essentially (to borrow from the domestic violence field, and Ellen Pence’s (DAIP’s) “Coordinated Community Response” — which is coordinating power structures into public/private partnerships, but not particularly reducing domestic violence — especially while the family court system maintains a constant minimization of it as legitimate, or as a crime — coordinating the entire GLOBE at the community level.

We have seen that communities must be empowered to take these steps themselves so that the prevention approaches they design are crafted for their unique situations.

Question — is their a legal or political definition of “community” within the US?  To listen to the talk, you’d think there was.  Go to the US Census Bureau of Government Entities and find the definition “Community,” and if you find one — come back here and post it.  Thanks….

IF communities are dis-empowered, the question comes up — how did that happen?  What’s been draining their resources and destroying their neighborhoods, where it applies?  Should that, perhaps be examined?

Yes, communities are just helpless.  And while, we want a virtually trademarked, global “mechanism” and in fact, “Agenda 21” is already standardizing metropolitan regions around the world for sustainability, still each “community” is (to talk out of both sides of the same mouths) unique and should be “empowered” to slightly tailor our standardized approach at the local level.  (When creating cookie-cutter programs, is it not possible to sprinkle different colors sugar, or different designs on top of the figures without changing the basic shape?)…

And we have observed the need for a mechanism that will expand the most effective efforts to reach more people around the globe – a way to highlight the best local ideas so that they can be adapted for use in other communities.

Until now, we have lacked that mechanism.  We haven’t had the benefit of sustained or coordinated cooperation among the growing number of cities and municipalities that are confronting this ongoing challenge.  Communities have too often been left isolated and alone.  But through the Strong Cities Network that we have unveiled today, we are making the first systematic effort in history to bring together cities around the world to share experiences, to pool resources and to forge partnerships in order to build local cohesion and resilience on a global scale.

A judge flew to Germany (presumably at public cost) and an expert was flown IN from Germany (presumably also at public cost).

(I quoted this last post also — but not this part):

Judge orders study of terror defendants before sentencing March 2, 2016 at MPR News

by Muktar Ibrahim and Laura Yuen

It started in February 2015, when U.S. District Judge Michael J. Davis allowed Abdullahi Yusuf, the first ISIS defendant in the state, to be sent to a halfway house— where he was to receive counseling — rather than jail pending trial. Yusuf’s attorneys had argued for a softer approach in hopes that he could be reintegrated into society. Weeks later, Yusuf pled guilty to supporting the terror group.

But that experiment had a hitch. Months later, Yusuf was sent back to jail after a box cutter was found in his room at the halfway house.

Davis emphasized that it’s up to the four men to decide whether they want to participate in the program or not….

Koehler commented on how sophisticated is the tactic of provoking conflicts within the family (that’s NEWS?)

“Organizations like the Islamic State and others use a very sophisticated psychological approach to recruitment and radicalizations,” he said. “So they would actually try to provoke conflicts and arguments within the family.”

“These families are scared,” Koehler added. “They fear they are losing their sons and daughters.”

There’s no guarantee that interventions programs will work, Koehler said, and the only thing he can do is assess the four defendants and “explain what I think is the reasons for the radicalizations and what I think could work in terms of de-radicalizations.”

Most cults do this.  My ex-batterer routinely forced conflicts with my work or social involvements. My own family did this when I got out of domestic violence.  What were lesser issues became main contentions, best inflicted with a degree of shock, betrayal, and ideally under situations of distress or need from other sources.  It’s a well-known change tactic.  In fact, sounds like straight out of Alinsky’s community-organizing “Rules for Radicals” playbook — the last two rules, specifically:


12.  “The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.” Never let the enemy score points because you’re caught without a solution to the problem.

13.  “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions.

Obviously, somewhere between Minnesota and Germany, a solution was already known, but someone had to generate the demand for it….

I just discovered what BAMF stands for and found another reference for the German version of HAYAK.

= Federal Office for Immigration and Refugee Affairs

BAMF (see bottom of quote) funds Hayak.  Hayak is, however, it seems an NGO. I’d reproduce the Hayak logo, but website doesn’t allow; click to see.



Counseling | De-radicalization | Network

Hayat (Turkish and Arabic for “Life“) is the first German counseling program for persons involved in radical Salafist groups or on the path of a violent Jihadist radicalization, including those travelling to Syria and other combat zones. Further, HAYAT is available to the relatives of a radicalized person as well.

Confidential – Anonymous – Multilingual


Hayat was established in 2011, tying in with the experiences of the first German de-radicalization and disengagement program for highly radicalized neo-Nazis: EXIT-Germany. This initiative developed methods and approaches to counsel and work with the relatives of radicalized persons to eventually prevent, decelerate and invert the radicalization process. Transferring this unique knowledge and experience into the realm of Islamic extremism, HAYAT is now available to parents, siblings, friends, teachers, employers, and anyone else who has a relationship to a person potentially on the path of a (violent) radicalization. Moreover, HAYAT is working directly with radicalized persons in order to demonstrate the prerequisites and possibilities of desistance from radical behavior, ideologies and groups.


Since January 2012, HAYAT has been the partner of the German Federal Office for Immigration and Refugee Affairs (Bundesamt für Migration und Flüchtlinge BAMF), which established a national counseling hotline on radicalization (‘Beratungsstelle Radikalisierung’). Taking calls from relatives and other concerned persons, the hotline provides a first line assessment to then redirect the calls to local, non-governmental partners like Hayat.

HAYAT is thereby responsible for Berlin and East Germany as well as for the international, highly security relevant cases. …

During the first contact, HAYAT experts will conduct an analysis and risk assessment of the respective situation to determine the counseling demand and to answer the most important questions in the beginning: Is the relative in danger of becoming (violently) radicalized? Or is it a harmless case of conversion to Islam?

Once the counselor gained a clear picture of the concrete situation, an individual counseling process and step by step plan will be designed, including various measures to prevent further radicalization or to stop and reverse the process.

The counseling is conducted systemic, situational, problem- and solution-oriented. Our services are free, confidential and available in German, English and Arabic.

Hayat is financed by the Federal Office for Immigration and Refugee Affairs


The last few posts pushed my limits of recall also, but I’ll tell you something — when you have for a lifetime, in some profession, been required to exercise and push the limits of disciplined detail, and perfecting it with practice…  when you care enough, have the motivation, you will find the time to develop the discipline.  One benefit of discipline includes efficiency — habit builds speed, and speed can increase the range of information covered, which increases the perspective (expanse, scope, information processed).

But without attention to detail and and awareness of the need to filter, label, and a system of USEFUL definitions, you just have no real basis of comparison outside “feeling” or the experiential.   Those definitions are also needed to communicate to people without this level of curiosity what the information signifies, what else it relates to….

(I DID mention I’ve made a living as a pianist before, right?  And have also studied Bible as to some basic Greek, history of the various translations and from different perspectives.  As well as through force learned about domestic violence laws and how the family courts respond to them.  So?  When I FIRST became aware of the importance of nonprofits, I started reading and comparing tax returns (for one– it’s also interesting), and SEVERAL years ago (within the six years of this blog) I published a post determining that the basic “labels” we (commoners) ought to be applying UP FRONT when dealing with any cause-oriented organization was:

  • Was it public or private entity.  If Private, was it for-profit or not-for-profit.  Was it even an entity, or a “hybrid” (which I later learned would be a “project” or “program” of some entity).

I charted this out with examples at least twice (look for post “What’s in a Name?” for one of them).

I learned about grants databases such as TAGGS (for HHS), about where they do not even seem to exist, not to mention a variety of state-level databases for secretary of states, some more useful than others (some virtually a mess) — and several of which have completely shifted service providers and changed formats since I began reporting (Georgia, Arizona, Pennsylvania, among them).  I’ve spent a lot of time on Minnesota’s which is a real pain in the neck, not that useful, and provides so far as I can see NO pdf images.

Pennsylvania as a Commonwealth barely requires organizations to register — it’s not required annually but so far as I can determine, only once a decade — on years ending in “1” such as 2001, 2011 etc., unless there’s been a new organization or certain types of change.  If that doesn’t attract crooked organizations, I don’t know what else would.

Texas — I can’t even navigate or penetrate — and there are plenty of Family Court-relevant and Domestic-violence relevant organizations in Texas.

I am aware that even those databases which show at least US-based 501©3s — such as 990finder.foundationcenter.org — or “Citizenaudit.org” or “Guidestar.org” (My first exposure and now one I basically never use) — each have their own characteristics (strengths and weaknesses) and that most of them come with substantial disclaimers.

So?  Recently I have become acutely aware of the exposure to international NGOs and am now writing on that, too.  I’m not “far afield” — it just came up on the context.

FOOTNOTE — the JOM report of 2001:

The following article appears in the journal JOM, 53 (12) (2001), pp. 8-11.Editor’s Note: For a more complete. updated analysis of the World Trade Center towers collapse, read “The Role of Metallurgy in the NIST Investigation of the World Trade Center Towers Collapse” in the December 2007 issue.

Figure 1

Figure 1. Flames and debris exploded from the World Trade Center south tower immediately after the airplane’s impact. The black smoke indicates a fuel-rich fire (Getty Images).

Figure 2

Figure 2. As the heat of the fire intensified, the joints on the most severely burned floors gave way, causing the perimeter wall columns to bow outward and the floors above them to fall. The buildings collapsed within ten seconds, hitting bottom with an estimated speed of 200 km/h (Getty Images).

Written by Let's Get Honest|She Looks It Up

August 9, 2016 at 7:19 pm

Posted in 1996 TANF PRWORA (cat. added 11/2011)

Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s

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

%d bloggers like this: