“CONNECTIVE TISSUE:”  I published this post 8/22/2016, cleaned it up some over the next two days, adding two images (at the bottom) and am adding these ShortLinks to Supporting and Related Posts published 8/23 and (within the hour) 8/24).  The titles are long, but the links (“urls”) are short and can be easily copied for tweeting or other messaging.  Same idea as “tinyurl.com”

Published 8/23/2016:  Agenda 21 Lawsuit AGAINST| FISCAL AGENTS |The Strange Case of Edward Charles Foundation (Inc. 2009 in California as a Delaware Org.) | Whitaker Peace and Development Initiative (Inc. December 2011 in California; First Revenues ($1.4M) not acknowledged until 2013)

Being published 8/24/2016: “Case in Point, NEVER skip the Business 501(c)3  Entity Lookups, and Watch the “Fiscal Agent” organizations! (Edward Charles Foundation, Fiscal Agent to “FreedomAdvocates” and, apparently, the Stars (post begun 7/3/2016)” <==<== This post looks more at Edward Charles Foundation and at Freedom Advocates tax returns, and shows a different name used by the latter for the IRS filing than at the State level, as well as that Freedom Advocates only filed in 2006 and 2008, that I can see.  ECF is how I found out about the Whitaker Initiative for short, in part looking for its contributions to “Peace Foundation” business entity, not found).  Meanwhile, the original incarnation (name) for the Whitaker Institute showed a website “peacearth.org” (no longer valid), while a Form 990-N, which has a blank for “website” in 2012 showed “none.” Odd, for an organization talking about the media campaigns it is running overseas and as part of original articles of incorporation statement of intended activities.

Although any of these posts should stand alone if a reader follows up on the links, or understands “looking it up,” they are strengthened in association with each other.

PREVIEW to THIS POST:

This one situation is beyond “tricky.” I saw again, and show readers that if you won’t look it up, you just may not know “squat” about which direction finances are flowing, or who you are dealing with on-line.

Seeing this particular scenarios is a good dose of understanding the importance of follow-through;  as I’ve been saying on this blog and to individuals privately and in public for years now, FINDING that BUSINESS ENTITY and looking at its fiscal profile is a more than worthwhile investment of your time.  Before the cause-oriented arguing, choose to do the accounting-and corporate-filings- oriented lookups.

Again, BEFORE argumentation about the causes — do the basic accounting lookups (it’s NOT THAT HARD!!!). Acquire something substantial which you have personally, factually verified BEFORE emotional, financial, and personal involvement in anyone soliciting for the cause, in fact in the process of deciding whether to get involved — or not get involved.

In this process you also develop a useful, “lowest common denominator” comparative language and system of classification with which to compare similar organizing principles across dissimilar subject matter, and get out of some verbal pro/con ruts which have been previously set up to keep the public distracted, running in circles and imagining that they are engaged in genuine debate, when the language has already been limited for them to conceal those networks of power and speak about them openly.

Or, if it’s just more exciting and you can’t do without personal, experiential gratification in the way of public attention, fun, and socializing — continue going for rides in cars with fiscal strangers and see what happens…maybe you’ll be hijacked, and maybe not; there is constant recruiting taking place for causes and for groups supporting those causes.  THIS one is a real wake-up call.

Found at “GlobalizationOfCalifornia.com” upload “2014/03/donate-to-lawsuit” viewed 8-12-2016. Notice the fine print underneath “DONATE” logo.

The fine print on that logo led to an important “find.”

<===

From looking at the Secretary of State filings (California) street address, I also, again, saw another example of tax-exempt, state-wide foundation (the California Endowment) throwing its fiscal weight around in the form of real estate leasing or ownership, while being LESS than forth-coming on its tax returns.  Symptom of that situation exemplified in this logo — and I’ll bet a similar situation is happening throughout the country, “your neighborhood too.” I’ve seen it in Berkeley, California (also involving an institute referenced on Forest Whitaker’s organization’s page as “Advisory”), and in Texas.  The practice is to continue expanding the reach and assets-acquisition of the nonprofit sector, and sponsoring like-minded organizations, all the time, tax-exempt..which most of the INDIVIDUALS the organizations are supposed to be helping are not.  

Recognize the archetype, please!

Discussed in this post, I included some of my comments with the next logo:

Those are just a sampler.  I have some tongue-in-cheek about the “articifial womb” (how close is it?  How obsolete will mothers become as even biological breeders (we’re already being phased out in US Social policy as active parents who stand up to abuse, and are confident, articulate, educated, and don’t shut up or go away when we don’t get straight answers, or buy the half-assed excuses when expected to).  That was kind of just playing around.

I also wanted to know about the history of the corporation (upcoming post) and cited from a blog RibbonFarm which led to more historical info from someone who seems able to translate it into plain English without losing credibility through over-broad summary.

I do also post from the NJ CAFR in looking for this Rutgers Institute /UNESCO outpost as a budget item, or entity item.  Didn’t find it yet, but did see what else is there.

Any CAFR is likely to have great information on the public entities (what business, exactly, is our lovely state IN)? Such as, for NJ, the NY/NJ Port Authority, and its State University System, for example.   Anyone who wants to complain about lack of justice in the courts or about the legal system, ought to first familiarize themselves with the ECONOMIC systems in the form of these financial statements of the various entities, and learn how to read them.  They have tables of contents and while long, are certainly not in a foreign, impossible-to-decipher jargon.  They really are aimed at the average reader — just with a whole lot of numbers involved.  

INTRO and UPCOMING POST SCHEDULE:

I started this post about August 11, 2016.  I am publishing it August 22, along with a series of others which I have been working on, to “clear the deck” for a while, as my personal matters are anything but clear.  I put too much effort into the drafts to withhold them for formatting imperfections, or until they can all be broken into shorter posts and verbally/electronically, for navigation purposes, connected with each other, at all joints and junctures.

Some of these posts may be more thoroughly “baked” than others (to change analogies from seafaring and construction to the kitchen), but all are substantial, informative, detailed, well-linked, and still thoughtful.  

I am taking on a larger scope of topics (international countering violent extremism) however, still using similar drill-down / look-it-up procedures that anyone willing to take the time could do.  One difference is, however that I’ve been doing it for years now, and so have considerable information in the mental database (name recognition) which makes the process a little faster than if it’s a new process.

For example, in one of these it sank home that a major database I use, “990finder.foundationcenter.org” is itself helping speed-disseminate documents, for example, in the social science research arena (fatherhood, specifically) and provide access to the platform through its IssueLab.  Meanwhile, people, individuals that is, without access to these and not functioning in either the academic institution, or as nonprofits, have lesser access to this data, and must “hunt and peck” it from disparate sources — which is FYI “slow slogging” (yes I know I went from ocean to kitchen to snowshoe points of reference).  While the individuals are compiling their understanding, the networks are accelerating their connections and electronic/financial capacity to self-replicate.

Through writing this post I also became aware of Devex.com as an entity providing a major development global database involving collaborations with USAID and/or the State Department (I’m not yet clear on how USAID does or doesn’t relate agency-wise to the Department of State:

USAID AND DEVEX ANNOUNCE LAUNCH OF DEVEX IMPACT STRATEGIC ADVISORY COUNCIL

For Immediate Release | Wednesday, June 5, 2013 | USAID Press Office

Washington, DC— On June 3, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and Devex announced the launch of the Devex Impact(link is external) Strategic Advisory Council. The Council guides the development of the Devex Impact website to increase its utility as a collaborative platform for corporations, NGOs, foundations, donors and other private sector actors working on public-private partnerships for development.

Devex Impact is a collaborative effort between Devex and USAID that brings together USAID’s leadership and expertise in building public-private partnerships for development with Devex’s unique capabilities and reach as the world’s largest development network that connects over 500,000 professionals and thousands of donors, companies, and NGOs.

Founding members of the Strategic Advisory Council include the Australian Agency for International Development (AusAID), The Boeing Company, Business for Social Responsibility (BSR), Chevron, the United Kingdom’s Department for International Development (DFID), ExxonMobil, GAVI Alliance, IBM, KPMG, and Orange.

“As an Agency that specializes in public-private partnerships for development, USAID is proud to be a founding member of the Devex Impact Strategic Advisory Council,” stated USAID Deputy Administrator Donald Steinberg at the inaugural meeting of the Devex Impact Strategic Advisory Council.

If you want to know what Forest Whitaker and his organization in SoCal has to do with Devex, keep reading this post.  I also have imminent separate, simple post showing the complete (so far as provided by the state of California) uploaded charitable registration documents — which includes links to IRS statements, and some founding articles — on the same. This was no easy thing to put in post form, which indicates how important the topic was.  If published, I will link to it here.

SHORT UPDATE TO THIS POST:

Publishing it now as Agenda 21 Lawsuit AGAINST| FISCAL AGENTS |The Strange Case of Edward Charles Foundation (Inc. 2009 in California as a Delaware Org.) | Whitaker Peace and Development Initiative (Inc. December 2011 in California; First Revenues ($1.4M) not acknowledged until 2013)

Edward Charles Foundation was in part sponsoring the organization (fine-print, first logo above) and “DemocratsUnitedAGAINSTAgenda21” in this case turned out to be soliciting FOR it through that foundation.  I found and added to this post that the FTC recently (2014-2016) also sued the chosen registered agent for the Whitaker P&D Initiative, and a monetary judgment of $105,000,000 — that’s MILLION dollars was issued this past February by a Nevada District U.S. Judge.  The defendants were charged under several 15 U.S.C. acts, including EFTA, ROSCA, and Telemarketing Act, all of which seemed to do with abuse of consumer, telemarketing, and electronic access, as well as product claims.  You’ll see if you read that post.  In it I also look at the programming of WPDI (as stated on their website).  Definitely an informative post!! (so far, shorter than this one by about one-third, too, and less complex material).   Whitaker’s name was also on several, still-active corporations, not mentioned in the FTC lawsuit, out of the same street address as maintained now by that registered agent in Encino, CA.

I was already aware through shared street address of the situation on 1000 N. Alameda Street, Los Angeles and the California Endowment’s role in this.

FYI, some tax-exempt foundations are so “flush” they have (for years) been able to invest in real estate (either directly or through a “related” organization).  Philanthropy wants its sector strengthened, so nonprofits get free or reduced rent for office space and/or conference spaces to further build their networks, while the public, whose interest would be served better by ACCOUNTABILITY for CONNECTING THE DOTS OF PUBLIC MONEY, in that regard, gets screwed.  Period.  But for noble causes, like world peace, yeah, UN/UNESCO-style.

We’re beginning to discover just how much what’s called “PEACE” is actually often “DEVELOPMENT” (but appending “Peace” to the collective concept is an easier sell) and that an accelerating — in some its own organizational words — trend of taking the “developed” country, the United States of America, and turning it into one “Un-developed” and hence ripe for international “Re-Development” is the goal, while the undocumented, untraced 501©3s and their Big-Brother friends — and less than upfront ways — are becoming a major issue.

RE: “undocumented”

I know the phrase “undocumented aliens” meaning people is much more popular in the press here, but I’m here to remind us again at length and in as much detail as (or more than) I think most people will stomach from a “non-expert” such as a single writer — you’d better watch out for the undocumented cash flow between institutes and institutions in the USA for starters.

Did you know that a US Department of Justice-Administered grant cannot even be searched by grant #on the USDOJ website? 

I looked again yesterday, seeking these grants mentioned in my last post — this section was looking at footer information on the website bwjp.org with reference to “BWJP” (Battered Women’s Justice Project) having a well-known name in this area, but not becoming a spin-off nonprofit until 2013, after years of being a project posing as a (corporate) “person” on website shared between organizations in two different states — MN and PA:

I’m incredulous of this prevailing circumstance, but that’s just how it is.  Go check yourself and please, feel free to comment back here, especially if you did find something a person with a GED, high school diploma and moderate competency in English (and/or the ability to find almost anything on FaceBook) might actually find on THIS federal agency website indicating it wants the public to know and have some role in actively monitoring, how their public funds are being administered. Feel free also to do this for any other of the many parts of the Department of Justice, particularly under the Office of Justice Programs, which tend to be administering grants distributions associated with those programs.

This post branches off of previous one, called:  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?

That represents the full name of ONE post.  Obviously someone is going through a “thorough” phase in naming posts these days… Anyhow, a running start to this post is near the top of that one under the section title “NGOs…” Please start there….

After this one, which so far is a mercifully much shorter post, I have:

NGO v. “Corporation.” Whose idea was “corporation” originally and FOR WHOM/SINCE WHEN?  The Dutch, the Portuguese, the Brits –and their East India Companies? (started 8/6/2016)

In the process of looking up what may or may not actually be an “NGO” — I felt it worthwhile to look closely at a single state CAFR, New Jersey’s for International Institute for Peace co-founded in 2011 by Aldo Civico and Forest Whitaker.

How the Rutgers Institute came up in the first place:

Well-known and respected actor Forest Whitaker has lent his name (and UNESCO has lent ITS name) to both the Rutgers Institute in New Jersey, and a specific Southern California 501©3 bearing (not originally, but now) the famous actor’s name.   This SoCal 501©3 was originally named as a supporting foundation for the institute.   

California Connection to the UN “Agenda 21” factor:

Two groups in Northern California protesting Agenda 21 had filed a lawsuit AGAINST ABAG (regional government organization) for its promotion of  regional plan “One BayArea.”  By “group” I mean small set of individuals who chose a group name, briefly incorporating and maybe once or twice filing a tax return, after which this (one of the two names used in said lawsuit ABAG protesting its version of Agenda 21 named “One Bay Area” ) said “send your donations for our litigation to Such and Such Foundation.

More exact or more current labels can be searched — here’s a description at “PlanBayArea.org“:

Plan Bay Area 2040 is a roadmap to help Bay Area cities and counties plan for transportation needs and preserve the character of our diverse communities while adapting to the challenges of future population growth.

Plan Bay Area 2040 is a state-mandated, integrated long-range transportation, land-use and housing plan that will support a growing economy, provide more housing and transportation choices and reduce transportation-related pollution in the nine-county San Francisco Bay Area. It builds on earlier efforts to develop an efficient transportation network and grow in a financially and environmentally responsible way. It is a work in progress that will be updated every four years to reflect new priorities. By planning now, we** will create a Bay Area we will be proud to leave to future generations.

Plan Bay Area 2040 is the strategic update to Plan Bay Area 2013. On July 18, 2013, the Plan 2013 was jointly approved by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) Executive Board and by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC). Plan Bay Area 2013 includes the region’s Sustainable Communities Strategy and the 2040 Regional Transportation Plan and represents the next iteration of a planning process that has been in place for decades.

The “we” involved — certain agencies, not “the people and their elected representatives working through the legislature.”  Tracking down exactly who is the agencies and where, if anywhere, individuals hold any rights under the “integrated transportation, land-use and housing” long-range plan laid out by the roadmap, is another matter.  On that website, the list of participating agencies says that the state gave “joint responsibility” to the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) and Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), who then work with others.  I have gone down that rabbit hole (identity-seeking), but for purposes of this post am simply identifying what the two groups in N. Calif. were protesting.

The point here is that one of the groups from “NoCal” protesting this Plan vocally, locally, and on-line (and apparently also by way of litigation) — in other words they were ANTI-PlanBayArea (and as an essentially a typical Agenda 21 Regional takeover)  — on their website was telling supporters to send donations for their litigation to a fiscal agent 501©3 on “SoCal” which a single day’s look at the tax returns showed was endorsing through funding (both fiscal agent distributions and grants to) a number of obviously progressive and PRO-Regionalization groups.  Such as the Whitaker Peace & Development Initiative.

The point here, and when I communicated this privately, is that follow-through to at least the level of IRS Form 990s and Business Registrations (NOT a major life task) easily takes an initial reading that scratches the surface of credibility.  The group in northern California was (are) not who they claimed to be, or they would not have chosen a fiscal agent funding the cause they claim to be opposing.

No wonder also, while using the group names on the website, in presentations locally (having a group name also tends to lend a sense of credibility for speakers, merited or not), the business and tax filing track records of the same groups (as I recall it was both of them) were less than, well, noble.

NoCal Group Names:  One as I recall was called Freedom Advocates and the other, Post Sustainability Institute, whose leader Rosa Koire was also marketing her book “Behind the Green Mask,” published Sept. 2011?, and for sale (new and used looks like) at Amazon, Infowars (promotional), a website “BehindtheGreenMask.com” and “DemocratsAgainstUnAgenda21” among other places on-line. Image and links below:

The heavy-handed image is obviously playing up on the fear factor with the environmental (image of skull over trees with a cracking US flag on the ground) and would have obvious appeal towards some conservative Republicans:

About Us page references “Post Sustainability Institute” as a 501©4. Bottom of most pages: “NOTE: This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License. Articles may be republished as long as attribution bio is included and all links remain intact. 2010-2016 COPYRIGHT ROSA KOIRE”

From the link Appeal in Agenda 21 lawsuit:

Read this link for what appears to be factual, and good descriptions of the situation – however, I’m quoting to look at the groups filing and make a note of how people are asked to contribute to the cause of stopping this UN Agenda. I posted the whole page, taking out the bolding (everything tends to be in BIG, LARGE LETTERS on the website), any bold/font-color/highlighting emphases in this quote are now mine.

Rosa Koire of The Post Sustainability Institute and Democrats Against U.N. Agenda 21 and Michael Shaw of FreedomAdvocates.org and Globalization of California.com (the “Plaintiffs and Appellants”) filed the Opening Brief in the Appeal in their state court case against the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). The lawsuit seeks the negation of ABAG’s One Bay Area(OBA) $300 billion dollar plan to remake the San Francisco Bay Area. The One Bay Area/Plan Bay Area program is the prototype Agenda 21 restructure of local government to change how Americans are expected to live. For information on ABAG and the OBA Plan, see a List of Resources here.
The necessary funds were raised thanks to many participants who contributed or pledged donations. Those contributions, plus last minute funds from an anonymous major contributor have enabled this litigation to continue. Well done all!

---

As the battle continues, be forewarned that additional funds will be necessary, as the case will need to proceed beyond the California Appellate Court. Certainly the case will be presented to the State and/or Federal Supreme Court by the losing party, and we must be ready! For information on methods for contributing funds toward the lawsuit, click here.*** You can make a donation now, or pledge to contribute small or large amounts in the future.
As described elsewhere (see List of Resources), ABAG is an extra constitutional layer of government. It is unelected and unaccountable. It is a Council of Governments (COG), a national format designed to “transform” America. ABAG has planned to direct over $300 billion to the One Bay Area/Plan Bay Area ‘smart growth’ program. California will be lost to the world’s ‘new order’ if this lawsuit is not successful. California state’s commitment to ABAG’s One Bay Area Plan will lead to:

• the restriction of individual mobility
• the control of and limitations on single family housing
• a gigantic commitment to a high concentration of stack and pack housing

If ABAG gets what it wants, Southern California will be subjected to a similar plan primarily though the COGs ‘SCAG’ (Southern California Association of Governments) and ‘SANDAG’ (San Diego Association of Governments). And as California goes, so goes the nation…

***  There’s a lot of truth in that paragraph, as to the cause.   I agree, having seen from a different angle also (lack of legal and fiscal accountability to individuals living in the area; the individuals living in the area seem to have NO legal rights under these organizations or quasi-organization agreements.  Again, the theme here is who gets to “Develop” an entire metropolitan area, and how.

However, my established habit of, when reading about an organization’s political or “cause-based” position, to ALSO, UP-FRONT look for the corporate and charitable (esp. in California where there’s a fairly workable database registry of charitable trusts) and for those IRS forms led me a long time ago to check out where money was to be sent.  I’m taking you through this (in part) right now to emphasize what you must be prepared to find in fact-checking the filings of ANY groups promoting pro or con ANY major cause:

Click-through from above leads to a website “Globalization of California” and this image:

Found at “GlobalizationOfCalifornia.com” upload “2014/03/donate-to-lawsuit” viewed 8-12-2016. Notice the fine print underneath “DONATE” logo.

Underneath “all contributions processed by Edward Charles Foundation” is a statement you can, however, mail it to “Freedom Advocates” (no Inc., or LLC suffix provided) at a certain PO Box.

Several of the people involved above are lawyers (Rosa Koire is, and a law firm has been hired), and reasonably know where is the dividing line behind “just barely true,” i.e., technically speaking, MAYBE, but in essence, NOT.  Point being, we’d better also know where that dividing line is.

You can also make a tax deductible contribution by mail. Make checks out to ‘Freedom Advocates’ and send to:
Freedom Advocates
P.O. Box 3330
Freedom, CA  95019

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

1. Regionalism challenged: Time to take legal action – October 13, 2015[…] more on the Lawsuit against ABAG’s One Bay Area Plan, including information on how to Donate to the Legal Fund, see […]

If this had been phrased in one sentence:

You can also make a tax deductible contribution by mail. Makeby making checks out to ‘Freedom Advocates’ and sending to:  (followed by same address)

This would be a direct claim that sending checks made out to “Freedom Advocates” to this address would be (would effect) making a tax-deductible contribution.  However, instead it’s written to imply that a tax-deductible contribution takes place, in two separate statements, as you see above.

Kepler.sos.ca.gov and you’ll see that “FREEDOM ADVOCATES” incorporated in 2004 (current registered agent Michael Shaw, in Aptos — not “Freedom” — California) is status FTB Suspended. Michael Shaw’s photo is shown presenting under this name at the clickthrough site:

Results of search for ” FREEDOM ADVOCATES ” returned 4 entity records.

The “Edward Charles Foundation” however was only incorporated in 2009.

With this address (and notice it’s a Delaware legal domicile corporation with a Beverly Hills address):

Whereas the “Whitaker Peace and Development Initiative” which was ALSO using Edward Charles for a fiscal agent (one of my first clues that something was seriously “off” in this equation) only incorporated in 2011, and while it doesn’t display same mailing address, at an earlier point, it did:

Results of search for ” WHITAKER PEACE AND DEVELOPMENT ” returned 1 entity record.

** not to get lost in a stack of corporation names, but I searched this Los Angeles street address, to find out its at a central transportation hub in a Conference Center labeled California Endowment’s “Center for Healthy Communities” and that this center is offering free meeting places for certain types of organizations.  I found this description at same street address, #240 “Community Partners.”

Community Partners®

1000. N. Alameda Street
Suite 240
Los Angeles, CA  90012

COMMON PRACTICE:  A BIG tax-exempt foundation owns (or controls) the property and offers it to nonprofits whose agenda it agrees with for free or reduced cost, is common practice (I’ve seen it in other areas of California and other states) to push “COMMUNITY” (and regionalism) and accelerate money going to nonprofits, as opposed to money NOT going to nonprofits being returned to work people’s paychecks, especially low-income working families, through better tracking and accountability for federal appropriations to the states, to regional control centers (such as HHS provides) and to favorite “Community Foundations” named after the metropolitan regions, as I have been talking and blogging about for a while now (at least a year off-line also).

Here, it looks like the BIG foundation involved in the control of the real estate may be The California Endowment.  For their size, well, it looks like $3.6B (as in “billion”) Total Gross Assets, last few years:

(Search Again)

Well, this being a PRIVATE foundation (form 990PF) its Revenues and Expenses are Part I, and its Balance Sheet (with reference to any attached schedules), Part II.

If Big vs. Small numbers have any meaning for you (that is, billions vs. millions vs. hundred-thousands)…. and if you have yet “got” the concept that private foundations, not being charities, record what % of their holdings is actually distributed  (often the percentage can be very low, while the amount by normal-people-standards is quite high), the please look at pages 1 and 2 images (for full-size, click on the return above) of the most recent (Fiscal Year 2013) return.  After which, I”m going to show in what form they presented where their $1.9Billion of “Other Investments” (see Part II for Public, Private, Other line item amounts) is actually being held.

Unfortunately right now my “images” cuts off the top, the bottom “Total $$” and Line#s of the left margins.  But their Descriptions and the $$ amounts do still show, and I’m posting to show relative size of information in the middle. You can also see by EIN# it’s the same group’s 990PF.

Calif Endowmt Year 2013 (pp1 Anal of Rev & Exp ONLY) Form 990-PF, EIN#95-4523232

(Full tax return: California Endowment; the image I see cuts off Line 25 and bottom rows, which for Form 990-PFs, show the rest of “Expenses,” and that “Line 25 Contributions” figure).

For general comparison only; this image cuts off very bottom, top and left margins including Line#s; click on full-length tax return link to see full form details top, left, and bottom.

Part I, self-explanatory, pretty much.  You can see sources and sizes of revenue.  They are showing a $465K loss under “rents” but on the next page, I don’t see they are holding any mortgage liability.  So were those rents in the form of sub-leases?

DNK — and not the largest amounts, so not my main concern.  However, where are the assets being held, and what are the main liabilities? In other words, what are they doing with their investment platform, while distributing a SMALL percentage to others?

On Page 2, Part II, (Line#s 10a,b,c would show)  US State and Gov’t obligations (attach schedule), Investmts — Corporate stock (attach schedule) and Investmts — Corporate bonds (attach schedule).  Year-end amounts copied from that page, those three lines are (right-aligned for better comparison of amounts) show that the giant’s portion ($1.24B) is under 10b, Corporate Stock:

**Amount increased from $3M, i.e., significant change, however not significant compared to other assets.

Lines 11 & 12 are blank.  In other words, no investments shown in land or mortgages:

The other largest amount on the Balance Sheet (page 2, Part II) is under Line 13, Investments – other (attach schedule ), Line 14 (Land, Buildings & Equipmt. after Depreciation) and Line 15 “Other” which is labeled “Describe” with a blank line, i.e., they didn’t describe it at least here.

Line 15 Other assets (describe _________)

Those YE amounts for Lines 13, 14, and 15 then look like this:

So it’s a pretty fair summary to say that out of $3.6 Billion (Gross) assets held, that year — and it’s Year 2013, not 14, 15, or this year — over $3.1B ($1.24B + $1.99) is held in Corporate Stocks and “Other Investments.”  A look at the balance sheet will also show a LARGE amount of cash — $126M, and under LIABILITIES (bottom half of Balance Sheet), a major change in Year-End “Other” liabilities, unexplained.  It went from $99M down to $16M, a decrease of about $83M.

http://www.communitypartners.org/directions. Notice registering (trademarking?) of a two REALLY common words — “community” and “partners.”

Notice that motto… ACCELERATING past the grassroots commentary and evaluation part is a lot easier when big organizations serve as fiscal agents for others, a nice umbrella tree of shade, clouding the financial trail in multiple ways, not just for smaller, sincerely in need of a fiscal agent groups, but also for well-connected larger ones that aren’t ready to really go public with their financials… (remember the one in Greater New Haven, Connecticut?)….

Street and Suite# is only slightly different from Whitaker P&D Initiative above.  Directions Page features the great transportation hub they are near:

Public Transit

Community Partners is easy to reach on public transportation.

Located in The California Endowment‘s Center for Healthy Communities, our offices are within two blocks from Union Station, a major regional transportation hub serviced by Amtrak, Metrolink, Metro’s Red and Gold lines, MTA buses and downtown DASH buses. Plan your trip on the Metropolitan Transportation Authority‘s website.

Community Partners® is also a 501©3 and I looked at its return, of course, on first seeing this.

Picking common word names (as opposed to unique) means more to wade through when looking them up.  Looks like this one dates back to 1990.  Here’s just one page of NINE pages (Calif. only shows 10 results/page) of search results showing this organization.  Also notice when you see a duplicate name in close date proximity, one dissolved and one active — there’s always a back story on why.  Also, this type of term is likely to be dealing with HHS or HUD  or other federal + state, i.e., public funding.  If the one organization goes belly-up (“Dissolved” means intentional, or “SOS/FTB Suspended,” not so much, BUT the organization could intentionally let that happen), then the financial trail gets that much more complex.  It also might indicate shell corporations and “moving the money” for tax evasion (Nonprofits with employees still have to contribute to those employees, right?):

Results of search for ” COMMUNITY PARTNERS ” returned 59 entity records.

Clicking on “Center for Healthy Communities”

Click on the trackback, and you’ll find more very interesting (and relevant) information, articles, but again, contributions for “Freedom Advocates” promoting “Unalienable Rights” will still be processed through “Edward Charles Foundation.”  See bottom of the page — I posted text, then logo, but they appear side by side. Notice “Support Freedom Advocates” is in very large font and “our fiscal sponsor the Edward Charles Foundation” in very small font.

;

Support Freedom Advocates

You can make a tax deductible contribution to Freedom Advocates through our fiscal sponsor, the Edward Charles Foundation. To make a donation online, click the button below. You can also make a tax deductible contribution by mail. Make checks out to ‘Freedom Advocates’ and send to: Freedom Advocates, P.O. Box 3330, Freedom, CA 95019. Thank you!

FreedomAdvocates.org/…uploads/2015/04/YouCanHelp..

By IRS Organization Search (link provided above) I plugged in the zip code 95019, for “Freedom, CA” and found only 11 organizations (not including this “FreedomAdvocates”) eligible to receive tax-deductible contributions in that zip code:

On looking at such-and-such foundation (the name most recently being “Edward Charles Foundation”) I found clear evidence of funding Agenda-21-friendly “stuff.”  In fact, the registered agent for Edward Charles Foundation (If I can recite this by memory) being Kent E. Seton, of Seton & Associates, was also the original incorporator of what now goes by Whitaker Peace and Development Institute — and all this happened within just a few years.

I have been working on this in separate posts, so will not repeat much of it here.  YOU, however, are welcome to do the same work using some of the same tools I’ve been posting up here for years: A state-level business entities search (California’s), a state-level charitable registry search (California’s), a 990finder (the one I use or any other one that gets the job done) and as it comes up, checking IRS Publication 78 (Search by EIN# or organization name for tax-deductible contributions valid, revoked, or just filing a Form 990-N postcard; be sure to read disclaimers by IRS).  Or, to find ANY of those, do a simple Google or other word-search of the terms.

In fact as I recall the EIN# used for Freedom Advocates didn’t match the organization name held on it by the IRS.

In case you’re wondering, that’s how my attention came to first, WPDI.org and its organizational purpose and connections with a White House project? or endorsed project of the PCAH (President’s Commission on Arts and Humanities), namely “Turning It Around Schools.”   I am now wondering whether the former “fatherhood” program in Kentucky aimed at fathers who were incarcerated for nonpayment of child support arrears ALSO called “Turning It Around” (essentially, a get out of jail free, for now — or not exactly free.  “We have these fatherhood classes you must take….”).  I posted on it long ago, but the state family courts updated their websites long ago, making it not quite so easy to track.

• The words “Peace” and “Development” in association with each other primarily refer to “Development” which should be understood as a form of business promotion.  They are not exactly separable in current public/private terminology.  Peace in association with “Development” sells a lot better than just “Development” by itself, obviously, which might have exploitation connotations, and often enough, properly so…  Just quick example:

WPDI.org (colorful website) – under “Tools” the actual link is labeled “Resources” http://wpdi.org/resources, with four options, the first one, obviously, being important (advertised/prioritized) — “Global Peacemaker Network” (+ “Authenticated News” “Peace & Conflict” and “Blog”).  You may notice that ALL of the above involve on-line, electronic deliverables, i.e., News, on websites.  So, catch the language introducing about 17 pages of “Resources” (laced heavily with UN/ UNESCO material and WPDI promotions) under categories such as “Mind, Body and Spirit” or “Technology and Peacebuilding” or “Conflict Analysis and Prevention” (one label per project, no particular sort order (chrono as added?) or categorization by source, size, reliability, geography, etc.  They are just “there” on the website:

The Whitaker Peace & Development Initiative (WPDI) is proud to create the Global Peacemaker Network, an online platform for students, teachers, conflict resolution and peacebuilding professionals, policy makers and global citizens. This network is an open source virtual space with information about Peacebuilding and Community Building acting as a social network utilizing technology, education, vocational tools , global resource mapping along with security and development topics from around world – from Conflict Resolution Education materials for teachers to the impact of technology and natural resources in global security. We welcome you to view the Resource Library below and contribute a resource.

It’s also hosted by this 501©3 which, as I learned, both used Edward Charles Foundation (under a former name) as a fiscal agent while also taking direct grants from the same. A website, however poorly organized, justifies the existence of the nonprofit, and related cashflows:  donations to it (it’s actually characterized as a supporting organization of the Rutgers Institute, originally by similar name with the word “Foundation” appended– a whole lotta namechanges taking place in these parts) and distributions FROM it.   As this post will (towards the bottom) show, connecting the dots as “Received” finances to the Rutgers International Institute of Peace from private, outside sources, is no simple task. Without connected dots, neither can the support be verified. “Oh well….”….

Here’s just one resource featuring an about 4-minute video interview between Forest Whitaker and ___ of DevEx.com, looks like possibly in some airport — and promoting, obviously DevEx.com.

Forest Whitaker: Work Together As A Unit To Resolve Global Problems 

PEACE EDUCATION FOR YOUTH

Forest Whitaker talks with Devex President and Editor-in-Chief Raj Kumar about the ecosystem of partnerships that helped him build the Whitaker Peace and Reconciliation Initiative. READ MORE

“Read More” is a bit of a euphemism, although the accompanying youtube (which has little writing other than the company name of the other man in the picture)  has a few more words to its label:

For more international development news, visit: http://www.devex.com

Subscribe to the Devex YouTube channel: http://www.youtube.com/subscription_c…

• Category News & Politics

• License Standard YouTube License

Devex is the media platform for the global development community.

A social enterprise, we connect and inform 700,000+ development, health, humanitarian, and sustainability professionals through news, business intelligence, and funding & career opportunities so you can do more good for more people. We invite you to join us.

© Copyright 2000-2015 | Devex User Agreement | Privacy Statement

“Our Members” … (and on the other side of the page) 1,000 funding agencies , companies, and NGOs in 100 countries.” 

USAID is the lead U.S. Government agency that works to end extreme global poverty and enable resilient, democratic societies to realize their potential. It was established under the aegis of President John. F. Kennedy in 1961. USAID’s mission is to advance broad-based economic growth, democracy and human progress in developing countries. To do so, it partners with developing nations around the world and other actors, making innovative use of science, technology and human capital to bring the most profound results to the greatest number of people. The Agency is building on its legacy as one of the world’s premier development agencies and making new progress toward its ultimate goal: creating the conditions where U.S. assistance is no longer needed. USAID implements funding from 12 foreign assistance accounts. The overall FY 2015 President’s Request for these accounts is $20.1billion of which $9.7 billion is in core USAID accounts: Development Assistance, Global Health Programs, International Disaster Assistance, Food for Peace Title II, Transition Initiatives, Complex Crises Fund, and USAID Operations.  …. [[AND]]

USAID carries out U.S. foreign policy by promoting broad-scale human progress at the same time it expands stable, free societies, creates markets and trade partners for the United States, and fosters good will abroad. Spending less than 1 percent of the total federal budget,** USAID works in over 100 countries in the following areas:   Agriculture and Food Security / Democracy, Human Rights and Governance / Economic Growth and Trade / Education / Ending Extreme Poverty / Environment and Global Climate Change / Gender Equality and Women’s Empowerment / Global Health / Water and Sanitation / Working in Crises and Conflict

The Second Continental Congress created the office of Secretary of Foreign Affairs to head the Department of Foreign Affairs on January 13, 1781. Later that year, on July 27, President George Washington signed a law authorizing the executive department. On September 15 of the same year, the Department and Secretary of Foreign Affairs were renamed the Department and Secretary of State.

The title Secretary of State is of British origin. This title was given to senior members of the King’s cabinet.

Secretary of State is one of the highest offices a non-national can obtain in the United States government. To date, two non-nationals have served in the position. Henry Kissinger (1973 – 1977) was born in Germany, while Madeleine Albright (1997 – 2001) was born in Czechoslovakia. While in office both of them would have been excluded from the Presidential Line of Succession.

In recent decades the post has seen a lot of historical “firsts”. Albright was the first female Secretary of State. Her successor, Colin Powell, was the first African-American Secretary, while his successor Condoleezza Rice was the first African-American woman to hold the post. In 2009 another woman, Hillary Rodham Clinton took the post.

1. James Addison Baker (1989-1992)
2. Lawrence Sidney Eagleburger (1992-1993)
3. Warren Minor Christopher (1993-1997)
4. Madeleine Korbel Albright (1997-2001) (see also former Secretary Albright’s Archive site)
5. Colin Luther Powell (2001-2005)  (see also former Secretary Powell’s Archive site)
6. Condoleezza Rice (2005-2009) (see also former Secretary Rice’s Archive site)
7. Hillary Rodham Clinton (2009-2013) (see also Secretary Clinton’s Archive site)

USAID AND DEVEX ANNOUNCE LAUNCH OF DEVEX IMPACT STRATEGIC ADVISORY COUNCIL

For Immediate Release | Wednesday, June 5, 2013 | USAID Press Office

Washington, DC— On June 3, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and Devex announced the launch of the Devex Impact(link is external)Strategic Advisory Council. The Council guides the development of the Devex Impact website to increase its utility as a collaborative platform for corporations, NGOs, foundations, donors and other private sector actors working on public-private partnerships for development.

Devex Impact is a collaborative effort between Devex and USAID that brings together USAID’s leadership and expertise in building public-private partnerships for development with Devex’s unique capabilities and reach as the world’s largest development network that connects over 500,000 professionals and thousands of donors, companies, and NGOs.

Founding members of the Strategic Advisory Council include the Australian Agency for International Development (AusAID), The Boeing Company, Business for Social Responsibility (BSR), Chevron, the United Kingdom’s Department for International Development (DFID), ExxonMobil, GAVI Alliance, IBM, KPMG, and Orange.

“As an Agency that specializes in public-private partnerships for development, USAID is proud to be a founding member of the Devex Impact Strategic Advisory Council,” stated USAID Deputy Administrator Donald Steinberg at the inaugural meeting of the Devex Impact Strategic Advisory Council.

“Improving the Devex Impact user experience is one of our top priorities,” stated Raj Kumar, President and Editor-in-Chief of Devex. “That is why we look forward to working with such an esteemed group of companies, donors and development organizations to ensure Devex Impact provides the practical information development professional’s need to make an impact.”

Together, USAID and Devex are making the latest partnership information, news and tools available to companies, donors, recipient governments, implementers, NGOs, and professionals working at the intersection of business and global development.

About USAID

The American people, through the U.S. Agency for International Development, have provided economic and humanitarian assistance worldwide for over 50 years. USAID’s Global Development Alliance (GDA) is an innovative public-private partnership model that leverages the assets, experience, financial resources, and market access of private sector partners to solve complex problems facing government, business, and communities. For more information, please visit www.usaid.gov.

From History of USAID (their website) I am reminded that “development” often comes after devastation — in this case, World War II — that during this time there was available to any US President a powerful reorganization (of the Executive Branch) tool called “Reorganization Authority” — which was finally retired in 1981 under Regan, but may have been re-instituted since about 2012 (I did post link from a CRS report showing President Obama had asked for this). Between that and the Executive Order privilege, we see that President John F. Kennedy created USAID (from existing parts not before this united into a single agency) by Executive Order in 1961.

Early International Development Efforts

The modern-day concept of international development assistance took shape after World War II ended in 1945. George C. Marshall, the Secretary of State from 1947 to 1949 provided significant financial and technical assistance to Europe after the war. Famously known as the Marshall Plan, this was a successful effort that allowed Europe to rebuild its infrastructure, strengthen its economy, and stabilize the region.

International Aid Becomes Foreign Policy

Building on the success of the Marshall Plan, President Harry S. Truman proposed an international development assistance program in 1949. The 1950 Point Four Program focused on two goals:

• Creating markets for the United States by reducing poverty and increasing production in developing countries
• Diminishing the threat of communism by helping countries prosper under capitalism

From 1952 to 1961, programs supporting technical assistance and capital projects continued as the primary form of U.S. aid, and were a key component of U.S. foreign policy.

During this time, government leaders established various precursor organizations to USAID, including the:

• Mutual Security Agency
• Foreign Operations Administration
• International Cooperation Administration

International Aid in the 1960s: An Agency is Born

In 1961, President Kennedy signed the Foreign Assistance Act into law and created USAID by executive order. Once USAID got to work, international development assistance opportunities grew tremendously. The time during the Kennedy and Johnson administrations became known as the “decade of development.”

International Aid in the 1970s: A Shift to Basic Human Needs

In the 1970s, the USAID began to shift its focus away from technical and capital assistance programs. Instead, U.S. development assistance stressed a “basic human needs” approach, which focused on:

• Food and nutrition
• Population planning
• Health
• Education
• Human resources development

International Aid in the 1980s: A Turn to Free Markets

In the 1980s, foreign assistance sought to stabilize currencies and financial systems.

It also promoted market-based principles to restructure developing countries’ policies and institutions. …

In this decade, development activities were increasingly channeled through private voluntary organizations (PVOs), and aid shifted from individual projects to large programs.

International Aid in the 1990s: Sustainability and Democracy…

International Aid in the 2000s: War and Rebuilding

The 2000s, brought more evolution for USAID and foreign assistance with government officials once again calling for reform of how the agency conducts business. With the Afghanistan and Iraq wars in full swing, USAID was called on to help those two countries rebuild government, infrastructure, civil society and basic services such as health care and education. The Agency began rebuilding with an eye to getting the most bang out of its funding allocations. It also began an aggressive campaign to reach out to new partner organizations – including the private sector and foundations – to extend the reach of foreign assistance

 

Gayle E. Smith was sworn into office as the seventeenth Administrator of USAID on December 2, 2015. As a long-time leader in President Obama’s Administration, she has helped shape and guide America’s international development policy for the past seven years, including by elevating development as a vital component of the national security agenda

. . . . Administrator Smith is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and has served on the boards of Oxfam America, the Africa America Institute, ASSET, USA for Africa, and the National Security Network. She has also consulted for a range of NGOs, foundations, and governmental organizations including UNICEF, the World Bank, Dutch Interchurch Aid, Norwegian Church Relief, and the Canadian Council for International Cooperation.

She also served on the policy and advisory boards of DATA, the Acumen Fund, and the Global Fairness Initiative, and was the Working Group Chair on Global Poverty for the Clinton Global Initiative from 2005 to 2007.

She received a B.A. from the University of Colorado at Boulder

So far as I know, that is not itself an NGO, but by association with UNESCO, it’s doing a good imitation of one.

This takes a while.

 I recently found and like Venkatash Rao’s (RibbonFarm blog) “money metaphors” and graphs, summaries about some things so basic we just don’t think about it, much.  From a 2009 post on “Fools and their Money Metaphors,” here are two graphs and one paragraph in which he says, thanks to the Nanny State and “autopilot” most people only active manage, perhaps 20% of their money, and the average “high-water mark” (for that management money — which typically has to last for a MONTH until the next set of bills) is around $5,000 — expressed here:

 

From “Fools and their Money Metaphors,” 3/2/2009 by Venkatesh Rao in “Ribbonfarm” blog.

The first clue that put me on the track of this idea was this bit from The Organization Man [Wm. Whyte, 1956] (I haven’t yet blogged about this part in my ongoing series about the book):[Organization men] have little sense of capital. The benevolent economy has insulated them from having to manage large personal sums…

Whyte’s point was that those of us who have gotten our finances onto the ammortization autopilot thanks to paycheck deductions even for big sums like annual income taxes and house purchases, have simply never learned how to think about large quantities of money at a personal level. Thanks to the Nanny State and the Nanny Corporation, our financial horizon is the month, and through autopilot math, 80% of the cash flow that we are aware of in our lives passes by like clockwork: we watch it, but don’t actively manage it. The remaining 20%, we do manage consciously. This gives us the basic financial calibration point:

• High water mark: the largest amount of personal money you’ve ever dealt with

 

 

Where as the middle class startup entrepreneur, it may look more like this:

From 3/2/2009 post ‘Fools and their Money Metaphors” in “RibbonFarm” blog, by V. Rao.

For the entrepreneurial mindset, the same money is viewed with metaphors of building material and “time to deadline.” Thinking of  money as time to a deadline, or non-renewable fuel (for example, time to build up a certain capital position, or time to burn it down at a particular burn rate) or as building material (“this is what it would take to buy a McDonald’s franchise”), leads to a very different view of the same levels of money:

---

I deliberately have NOT been calling nonprofits “NGOs” — in part because I  am looking for vocabulary attached to identifiable meaning, with regard to financing and cash flow.

Again, financing and Cash flow in public entities is a private and important matter for all citizens supporting that public entity.

There doesn’t seem to be a whole lot of interest in this subject matter except as it happens to trespass across a favorite cause, or resonates with a favorite media person, politically aligned left or right.

It seems to me that people I attempt to talk with about this “cause” of justice, due process, and balance of powers as being compromised by lack of economic balance of power — and THAT being a factor of who gets to stockpile the wealth– and from there, pointing out that this wealth is circulating back and forth among powerful government and powerful private (corporate — although typically expressed as tax-exempt foundations) wealth) are more into “causes” with focus on “outcomes” and less into “means” — unless the focus is on enacting specific “strategies” or “practices” (evidence-based practices, anyone??) at which point it becomes clear, the hidden cause is still control of the market — for fun, fame, and profit — the talk falls mostly (not 100%) on deaf  or otherwise distracted ears.

Some ears are more into story-telling, I get it (but don’t hang out there long).  I don’t see that story-telling as a life strategy leads to being dealt with as an adult by those to whom such stories are told. It IS good for journalism, when journalists are interested, or what one is telling about intersects with something to be obtained by writer, or publisher, from airing that story, or series.

Stories have frameworks and viewpoints; there are always more than one.  IF there is to be a common understanding of this country, the framework of comprehending its economic structures and what is built with them, is a good place to start — and that requires distinguishing public from private, and seeing how they intersect.  That requires applying proper labels, and identifying where NO label identifying with an account balance (or government fund) is actually possible, as a problem when it comes to centers at universities, whether the profile is high or low to those outside the universities.

Life is full of “distractions” but personal life energies are a resource, and why would it not be important to know, if for example, one is swimming to stay afloat, swimming for the fun of it, or swimming somewhere with a destination (for many people, this means — a few strokes ahead of the bill-collectors) or to some perception of a place of solvency, or solid ground to stand on when they are too old, injured, or simply spent, to keep afloat, from getting eaten, and or simply drowning for lack of what it takes to remain clothed, fed, and housed long enough to stay continuously alive.   

When the methods start getting trademarks (which have to be owned by — guess what — some person.  Could it be a “Corporate person”).

There is the “balance of power” issue, and while I can’t speak for all countries, I can speak for expectations in the USA — we don’t like the hypocrisy about freedom, liberty and civil/human rights given what’s been taking place in THIS century, as set up (I found through exploring this), the last half of the last century, and a whole lot of this intended to keep women their place when they were determined to make new places to function.

In addition, last I checked, to being a reproductive essential for the human race, so far.

Next two articles are just asides, search results for “artificial womb”  regarding USA’s historic, long-standing, problems with “women” who are functioning both as mothers AND in expectation of simultaneously being considered full-status citizens under their state and the US Constitutions, entitled to the same due process, whether or not we actually see it in action.   And for some years now, I’ve been documenting just how effective the Social Services Sector is in making sure our biological makeup trumps character, behavior, merit, evidence, or the facts — when it comes to raising children.  I think that’s more of a comment on the country than on women….

It seems that many men currently in power have problems with women in power who don’t just share it, but change how it’s exercised.  Some concessions have been made, but there are still provinces where women can be pushed back to Genesis 1 (after “the Fall” and as if “Redemption” hadn’t happened yet) and attempts made to persuade most of the population that MOTHERS should still be controlled, defined, delimited, delineated, and if possible, blamed for social chaos.

Even though we have powerful women in the Senate, one contending for the Presidency (with a shot at winning, for a change), judges, lawyers, and we’ve even “inflitrated” most of the Ivy League institutions that kept us out of them from the Articles of Confederation until the 1970s and 1980s, and probably only after we’d finally (1924 FIRST time) won the right to vote, in a separate Amendment to the Constitution from the one outlawing slavery in the previous century and allowing African American males, at least theoretically, to vote.

This has rocked some of the religious institutions so far, but last I looked, the Catholic Church, and the Jesuits have stood firm, as well as Orthodox religions of more than one faith, and most of the board members of Focus on the Family, and many supporting evangelical or conservative protestant churches in America that seem to support it.

FOCUS on the FAMILY is a 501©3 public charity (tax-exempt nonprofit), home base Colorado Springs, with quite a few “on the side” (disregarded entity) business operations — like many state and other governments — many having to do with the print and on-line media fields, and its tax return “Program Purpose Accomplishments” that the $88M this year was spent as you can see, deal with the intent to establish of its followers’ (and potentially, converts’) mating, marriage, birth and reproduction, child-raising, and values-establishment habits:

“Focus on the Family shares the Gospel of Jesus Christ while promoting biblical family values”

(Code ) (Expenses $ 30,079,094 including grants of $ 951,995 ) (Revenue $ 2,144,597

Parenting – Equipping parents to raise spiritually and emotionally healthy children, as we help parents navigate through family crises, protect their children from harmful influences and raise them with a thriving faith

(Code ) (Expenses $ 16,809,395 including grants of $ 275,390 ) (Revenue $ 1,325,698

Evangelism and Discipleship – Evangelize and represent the Gospel, so that those who have not heard the message of salvation are introduced to Jesus Christ and invited to become part of His family, Christians are bolstered in their daily walk, strengthened in their Biblical worldview, and Christ is magnified in the culture

(Code ) (Expenses $ 6,259,084 including grants of $ 736,493 ) (Revenue $ 197,561 )

Advocacy for Children – Stand up for children who cannot speak for themselves, as we help save the lives of preborn babies, support new parents, and find forever, loving families for orphaned children  {= religious description of “evangelization through adoption,” I also posted on this 2014 or earlier}

(Code ) (Expenses $ 4,152,156 including grants of $ 43,212 ) (Revenue $ 83,710

Citizenship and Engaging the Culture – Equip people and families to engage the culture for Christ, as we inspire families to live out Biblical citizenship, and transform the culture for Christ

Sounds like domesticating the breeding stock to me….More than twice the funds spent on the parenting than on the evangelization.  But it’s not filed as a religious organization in form, just in content.  Now here are the board setting decisionmaking for the above agenda (and at least some of them signing paychecks).

I would print an image, but it’s very fine print on the tax return, and my “image-maker” is cutting off the narrow margins.  Look at Part VIIA for the list (VIIB also shows the 50 subcontractors).  Seems to me that on all two pages, not one of the salaried “Key personnel” is female, although there are some women actually on the board.  That’s Focus on the Family …..

Total results: 3. Search Again.
(Click on the column headers to sort.)

Artificial wombs: The coming era of motherless births?David Warmflash | June 12, 2015 | Genetic Literacy Project

Scientifically, it’s called ectogenesis, a term coined by J.B.S. Haldane in 1924. A hugely influential science popularizer, Haldane did for his generation what Carl Sagan did later in the century….Describing ectogenesis as pregnancy occurring in an artificial environment, from fertilization to birth, Haldane predicted that by 2074 this would account for more than 70 percent of human births.

His prediction may yet be on target.

In discussing the idea in his workDaedalus–a reference to the inventor in Greek mythology who, through his inventions, strived to bring humans to the level of the gods–Haldane was diving into issues of his time, namely eugenics and the first widespread debates over contraception and population control.  

Several paragraphs later, regarding “how close is this looking?”

Still, the capability to push back the limit is around the corner. One of the two developing key technologies is the artificial amniotic fluid filled environment that has continued to develop with laboratory animal models since the work with goats in the 1990s. The other area is embryo transfer. Not only can a developing mammal be transferred from the uterus of its own mother to that of a surrogate, but gradually investigators are reproducing the endometrium–the cell layer of the uterus that contains and nourishes the pregnancy–as a cell culture, or an in vitro model. The convergence of these technologies will make it possible to transfer a developing human into a system that includes the placenta and umbilical cord and supplies all consumables (oxygen and food), and removes all waste, directly through the blood.

Thus, survival and continuing development would not depend on the lungs and other organs being ready yet to do their job. Applying such a system to fetus delivered in the middle of pregnancy would constitute real partial ectogenesis.

More recent article in Telegraph.UK under, obviously, “Science.”

‘Artificial womb’ breakthrough sparks row over how long human embryos should be kept in lab.

By Sarah Knapton, Telegraph.UK, Science Editor, May 4, 2016.

Scientists have kept embryos alive in the lab for 13 days CREDIT: UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE (in Telegraph.UK, May 4, 2016)

An ethical debate over how long human embryos can be grown in a lab has erupted after Cambridge University announced it had allowed fertilised eggs to mature for 13 days – just one day short of the legal limit.

In groundbreaking research, scientists invented a thick soup of nutrients which mimics conditions in the womb, and keeps an embryo alive for days longer than it could previously survive without being implanted into a mother.

Currently UK law bans laboratories for growing embryos for longer than 14 days because after two weeks ….. [Professor Zernika-Goetz led the research]

Embryo at Day 11 | Photo: Cambridge University

The two week limit was first established in the Warnock Report which was published in 1984, and concluded that it was ethical to conduct research on human embryos until day 14 of their development. It was enshrined in law in the 1991 Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act. But until now the legal restriction has been largely theoretical as no one had the technical means to keep embryos alive in the laboratory beyond a week.

In a paper published in the journal Nature, Cambridge University showed that it is possible to force the embryo to attach to a culture material, and begin dividing into groups of cells which will eventually form the foetus, placenta and yolk sac, just like in the womb.

Several more experts quoted in that article, and at the bottom, a single sentence:  “The embryos used in the study were donated by IVF patients.”  To Read the Rest…

Over here there is a history of talking about INDIVIDUAL people’s rights, and not just rights by demographic sectors — such as race or gender — which are easier to fall in and out of favor than are easier for individuals to simply “up and change” on their own.

My concern is about the behavior of government institutions through which I must walk seeking something (including defending against loss or damages, or simply seeking protection from criminal activity of others.

For example, over at IIP.Rutgers.Edu, “Partners” page, with this being a UNESCO institute:

https://www.newark.rutgers.edu/news/international-institute-peace-rutgers-university-newark-now-affiliated-unesco (an 11/22/2011 announcement posted at a Rutgers website), As a reminder where this apparently came from:

• In 2010 Aldo Civico came to Rutgers.  (“Civico, a cultural anthropologist specializing in urban political violence, came to Rutgers in 2010, following careers in journalism and conflict resolution that brought him to hot spots such as Colombia. “)
• In May, 2011, Newark had a “Newark International Peace Summit”  (“The International Institute for Peace at Rutgers was launched last May during the international Newark Peace Education Summit,…”)
• Separately, some time in 2011 actor Forest Whitaker gave a speech at the UN in NYC and in June, 2011, was named UNESCO goodwill ambassador (“Academy Award-winning actor Whitaker was inspired to work to curb youth violence by his experience of growing up South Central Los Angeles.  He was named a UNESCO goodwill ambassador in June 2011. After delivering a speech at the UN High Panel for Peace in New York, Whitaker forged his message for peace. Soon after, he found synergy with Civico’s plans of launching a peace institute; the two decided to collaborate and to co-found the International Institute for Peace.”)

But in what form does it exist as part of Rutgers University, which (with 10 other public colleges and universities) is a component unit of the State of New Jersey?

The International Institute for Peace (IIP) at Rutgers University, Newark is a UNESCO Category II organization dedicated to peacebuilding, conflict transformation through nonviolent struggle, and the promotion of peace education and a culture of peace. The IIP builds partnerships locally and globally by working with grassroots organizations, youth leaders, activists, journalists, educators and researchers to promote peacebuilding, nonviolent conflict transformation, and just and sustainable peace. The IIP promotes research on issues of peace and conflict as well as education about peacebuilding and nonviolent struggle.

State of NJ CAFR for FYE June 30, 2015 (=%22fiscal year 2014) — Title Page

<===How might anyone find this Institute for International Peace among Rutgers’ Operations? I just scrolled through the whole thing, but it doesn’t list that level of detail.

Rutgers is a state university, and the State of New Jersey which operates several state universities and colleges, produces a yearly CAFR describing its hierarchy.  I just got my hands on the 2015 New Jersey CAFRwith the goal of looking to see if any UNESCO institute line item might show up, as referenced above.  And for general learning…

Org Chart (p.10) from Transmittl Ltr to State of NJ CAFR, FYE June 30, 2015 (=Fiscal Yr 2014) (<=click to see full-size image)

Page 3 of the “Transmittal Letter” talks about Colleges and Universities and “Component Units” from which I gather that the “MDA” (Management Discussion and Analysis) isn’t going to talk much about the “component units.”

COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES  [the 2015 New Jersey CAFR, Transmittal Letter, page 3]

As of July 1, 2015, the higher education system in New Jersey includes three public research universities, eight State colleges and universities, 19 community colleges, 15 independent four-year colleges and universities, 11 proprietary institutions with degree-granting authority, 22 Talmudic institutions and theological seminaries, and one independent two-year religious college. In November 2012, New Jersey voters approved the $750 million “Building our Future Bond Act” (P.L. 2012, c.141), and in April 2013, the State announced reauthorization of four additional higher education funding programs – the Higher Education Capital Improvement Fund (CIF); the Higher Education Facilities Trust Fund (HEFT); the Higher Education Technology Infrastructure Fund (HETI); and the Higher Education Equipment Leasing Fund (ELF). Together, these five programs will provide more than $1.3 billion for the renewal of New Jersey’s higher education infrastructure. In November 2015, an additional round of funding from the Building our Future Bond Act and the CIF was announced. The remaining balance of the Building our Future Bond Act, $34.3 million, and an additional $146.0 million in CIF bond funds will be awarded during Fiscal Year 2017.

COMPONENT UNITS

In accordance with the requirements of GASB Statement No. 14, The Financial Reporting Entity, this CAFR for fiscal year ended June 30, 2015, includes the accounts of 21 public authorities and 11 {{3 public research universities + 8 State colleges & universities = 11 total}}** State public colleges and universities. Public authorities are legal, separate entities that are not operating departments of the State. Governing boards are vested with the power to independently manage and set policies for the organization. Each component unit is established for a specific purpose for the benefit of the State’s citizenry.GASB Statement No. 14 provides that the State’s financial statements should emphasize the primary government and permit financial statement users to distinguish between the primary government and its component units. As a result, the transmittal letter, Management’s Discussion and Analysis, and the financial statements focus on the primary government of the State and its activities, although information pertaining to the component units is presented. For additional information, please see Note 19 – Component Units.

**Listed in Notes to the Financial Statements (towards the back), FYI:

This gets more interesting – Independent Auditor’s Letter (part of any CAFR):

Our responsibility is to express opinions on these financial statements based on our audit. We did not audit the financial statements of the pensions and other employee benefits trust funds and the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey**which represent 92 percent of the assets and 46 percent of the revenues (including additions to fiduciary net assets) of the aggregate remaining fund information, and 100 percent of the information disclosed in Note 2-F of the basic financial statements, respectively. …

In addition, we did not audit the financial statements of the discretely presented component units. Our opinion on the aggregate discretely presented component units is based solely upon audit reports prepared by other auditors and furnished to us. …

The financial statements of the pensions and other employee benefits trust funds, and two discretely presented component units, the Higher Education Student Assistance Authority and the Casino Reinvestment Development Authority, were not audited in accordance with Government Auditing Standards.

The Port Authority of NY and NJ makes an appearance in the post from which THIS was extracted — because its involvement in the ownership of the World Trade Center Towers — you may have heard of these — which were leased in 2001 just in time to witness a sudden demolishment, and the people inside them, a few thousand live people turned dead in less than one day on US soil — by someone who had just taken out a $9Billion insurance policy on the same, and paid a fraction of it in downpayment, “coincidentally” before terrorists from abroad (??) did this horrible deed. This “appearance” by the Port Authority of NY and NJ in my post arose from the Sept. 2015 launch of “Strong Cities Network” by a US Attorney General citing to that event as terror raining down from on high.

Skipping ahead in that NJ CAFR to Notes to the Financial Statements, Note 2.F. “Joint Ventures” (page 63), I would like (us) to read about this particular Joint Venture with New York, in terms of a State’s accounting for it.  Notice the street address of this “authority”!

F. Joint Ventures

The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey

4 World Trade Center
150 Greenwich Street, 23rd Floor
New York, NY 10007 http://www.panynj.gov

Joint ventures are independently constituted entities generally created by two or more governments for a specific purpose such as contracting and maintaining an interstate bridge. Pursuant to current financial reporting standards, the State does not record its equity in joint ventures. The only significant joint venture in which the State of New Jersey participates is the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. Individually published financial statements may be obtained by writing the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey at the above mentioned address. Other joint ventures are immaterial.

The Port Authority is a municipal corporate instrumentality of the States of New York and New Jersey created by compact between the two states in 1921 with the consent of the Congress of the United States. It is authorized and directed to plan, develop, and operate terminals and other facilities of transportation and commerce, and to advance projects in the general fields of transportation, economic development, and world trade that contribute to promoting and protecting the commerce and economy of the Port District, defined in the compact, which comprises an area of about 1,500 square miles in both states, centering about New York Harbor. The Governor of each State appoints six of the twelve members of the governing Board of Commissioners, subject to confirmation by the respective State Senate. Each Governor has from time to time exercised the statutory power to veto the actions of the commissioners from their state.

The commissioners serve six-year overlapping terms as public officials without compensation. They establish Authority policy, appoint an Executive Director to implement it, and also appoint a General Counsel to act as legal advisor to the Board and to the Executive Director. The Authority undertakes only those projects authorized by the two states.

The compact envisions the Port Authority as being financially self-sustaining and, as such, it must obtain the funds necessary for the construction or acquisition of facilities upon the basis of its own credit, its reserve funds, and its future revenues. The Authority has neither the power to pledge the credit of either state or any municipality nor to levy taxes or assessments.

Consolidated financial statements for the Port Authority (including the Passenger Facility Charges Program) for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014 disclosed the following (expressed in millions):

[The next page says that as of 12/31/2014, it has $14.7 Billion of assets]

There is still a credibility issue with that statement and with people who take it at face value 15 years later.

From that CAFR — and I’m putting this in here just to indicate (and just for this one state) how pooled investments of various government entities can be used — rather than the same assets being left in the hands of private individuals (by not taxing them so much!) for private individuals in the state to invest as they saw fit. It has, as you can see, many participants to the pool, and many options with what to do with those investments!

http://www.state.nj.us/treasury/omb/publications/15cafr/pdf/fullcafr2015.pdf Note G “ASSETS”:
1. Cash Deposits encompass the State’s cash on deposit with financial institutions and several cash equivalents, including certificates of deposit. All deposits, including cash equivalents that are subject to federal or state depository insurance, generally are classified as deposits. Only investments with an original maturity of three months or less are considered to be cash equivalents. See Note 3 for details.

2. Investments

Statutes of the State of New Jersey and regulations of the State Investment Council authorize the Division of Investment to invest inglobal equities; non-convertible preferred stocks, covered call and put options; futures contracts; obligations of the U.S. Treasury, government agencies, corporations, international governments and agencies; global diversified credit investments; interest rate swap transactions; state and municipal general obligations; public authority revenue obligations; collateralized notes and mortgages; commercial paper; certificates of deposit; repurchase agreements; money market funds; private equity funds; real estate funds; other real assets; and absolute return strategy funds. Investee institutions and organizations are prescribed by the statutes and regulations based on such criteria as minimum capital, dividend paying history, credit history, and other evaluation factors.

In addition to the amounts invested directly, most of the funds included herein participate in the State of New Jersey Cash Management Fund wherein amounts also contributed by other units of government are combined into a large scale investment program. The Pension Trust Funds also participate in a Common Pension Trust Fund pool whereby amounts contributed by the various Pension Trust Funds are combined for the purpose of investment.

That is “hecka” lot of investment options for the State (of NJ)!! Then I see (Note G.3) it can also loan out to “custodian” bank institutions and hold collateral on its loans (i.e., securities”) thereby actually holding (temporarily owning in exchange for having lent out the money) TO others….

3. Securities Lending Collateral
The Pension Trust Funds participate in securities lending programs with their custodian banks, whereby securities are loaned to brokers and, in return, the Pension Trust Funds have rights to the collateral received. All of the securities held in the Common Pension Trust Fund investment pool are eligible for the securities lending program. Collateral received may consist of cash, irrevocable bank letters of credit, or U.S. Treasury obligations having a market value equal to or exceeding 102 percent (U.S. dollar denominated) or 105 percent (non-U.S. dollar denominated) of the value of the loaned securities at the time the loan is made.

Also, while we’re here (at the NJ CAFR for year 2015, “Notes to Financial Statements”, Note G, “Assets” by category:  There’s Category “4.” (Receivables) and then category 5., let’s not forget “capital assets” — and here’s  that list:

4. Receivables  [[page 58 of the CAFR]]

Receivables in the State’s governmental, fiduciary, and proprietary funds, component units – authorities, and component units – college and university funds are stated net of allowances for uncollectible amounts and primarily consist of federal grants, taxes, assessments, loans, interest and dividends, contributions due from employers and members to the respective pension funds, mortgages, and other receivables. See Note 6 for details.

5. Capital Assets (defined)… ….

a. All land, including parks, forests, easements, development rights, highways, and right-of-ways.
b. Infrastructure assets such as roads, bridges, and dams.
c. All general government buildings, including hospital, care, and correctional facilities.
d. Land improvements, equipment, software, and motor vehicles used in general operations with a unit cost of at least $25,000, $20,000, $100,000, and $30,000 respectively. For the purpose of reporting, equipment and software are consolidated into one category.
e. Capital assets in the process of construction.

Nevertheless, for the record, in “International Institute for Peace” at Rutgers (above) we have here now since 2011 an official UNESCO organization (NGO??) at a college run by the State of New Jersey, which by definition is a part of government under the USA.

We catch the purposes listed, but I want to look at the operational structures.

…for example, the first “partner” listed, CANVASOPEDIA, calls itself both a “nonprofit” and a “nongovernment” organization.  Center for Applied Nonviolent Action and Strategies (CANVAS) first main message, displayed in white letters over the first, large photo, next to a cartoon of a dictator and the “start” button for a video, is this self-description:

WELCOME.  The Centre for Applied Nonviolent Action and Strategies (CANVAS) is a non-profit, non-governmental, international network, oriented to educational work related to strategic nonviolent conflict.

Guess that wouldn’t even be an “NGO” but an “NGN”??? From my perspective of funding, this is less than helpful.  Being “non-government” doesn’t necessarily mean not wholly dependent upon some (or several) governments for financing.  The word “network” is not a legal term under most nationalities, either.  The emphasis here is on subject matter and not on using specific terms that identify sources of financing and cash flow….