Cont’d. from 11-28-2016 post-Presidential s/Election times, this post still relevant within “the First 100 days” while news coverage focuses on (a) natural and political disasters and terrorism and (b) depending on the news network or media outlet, a right vs. left political debate roughly framed around Republican v. Democrat.
The current crisis combo includes but is not limited to London terrorist attack on Parliament (Parliament went on lockdown, pedestrians were mowed down, people arrested within 24 hours) and in what form, if in any form, is the new, improved (or depending on your persuasion, defective) healthcare reform (USA) taking place. For more info, tune into any MSM news station, read the NYT, the WSJ (I do), local papers or news networks.
I admit to being highly stressed out by these situations and by my ongoing observation of the basic citizen’s inability or unwillingness to talk coherently about the things I am seeing fiscally, financially and as to some of the power players. I continued working over December, January, February and now March (i.e, over the new year, being undistracted by such things as any “family time,” or contact with my own family, or holiday celebrations as is true most years) on this blog, both individual posts and better documenting and organizing the blog itself (as to updating the Table of Contents, removing several “Sticky Posts,” upgrading the platform, reformatting some older posts for inclusion in a 2017 Retrospective — see “most recent posts” for example. I spent considerable time focused on things “Ohio.”
In this Q1, first quarter, 2017, I’m still highly stressed by the resistance of people to doing their own homework instead of finding which bandwagon to jump on, out of what may seem like endless choices, but often boils down to just a few big ones that are playing out their, in my opinion, staged battles in public. I don’t believe this bodes well for so-called “democracy” or for individual freedom in the USA or anywhere else.
In addition, this week: “The Broken Courts/Safe Child/BMCC” (etc.) crowd, (my label)** as they periodically do, are showing up in San Francisco tomorrow, at the California Judicial Council (bring your T-shirts and your stories, and tell your legislator you support this bill) (NO bill summary or link to it provided….). The call-out has been sounded*** to sell some more HOPE to protective parents — including HOPING to get 2 minutes of air time in a time slot of 30 minutes), while some of the more local among those calling-out, I guess continues to HOPE that my understanding of the same groups doesn’t ever contaminate the “rally, relate, and retell” group unity — or further challenge its existing leadership. Through documentation of exactly who it is (entity-wise).
**(Under this particular collective — loosely defined but discernible by who refers to whom where, and using the common, group-specific jargon). ***This time, with a more open promotion of groups I have been specifically exposing on this blog (including NCJFCJ, BWJP and others) as a major problem, and as to where they fit on the HHS-CADV and Special-Issue-Resource Center (DV funding), how this neatly blends with the Greenbook Initiative (Wingspread Conference), and so forth. This situation demands a formal written response to lawmakers (and cc’d to strategic others) from at least my conscience to at a minimum state:
“I represent the demographics of the people these say they represent. Given my dozen-years observation of some of the groups, and ten years of others, they do NOT represent me, my kids, or my kids’ best interests — or the public’s. They operate like a cult, or a racket — and possibly are. SO: where, my local and state and federal Congressional (etc.) representatives, senators, [and administrators], where do YOU stand on that enterprise?”
My understanding, obviously, does not include being impressed by group names, or even books sold over the years (particularly books failing to identify the HMRF funding*** until well after I “outed” the situation in 2014, and earlier, on this blog and off it) but does include identifying which among them has been filing tax returns larger than a Form 990-N postcard over the years, and at least one which to my recall has NEVER shown up incorporated in California, although its title includes the word “Inc.” and I know that it is involved in training custody evaluators and mediators as approved by the California Judicial Council. It also claims on the website to be a nonprofit, but isn’t showing up (that I can identify) as itself in places where incorporated nonprofits ought to show up. And hasn’t EVER (I’ve been aware of that group for nearly 8 years now).
(A review of the well-organized but obviously not quite current website under link the box (link) “Continuing Education Credits” shows the related entities actually approved providers including (next two images), depending on which profession is being trained — the IVAT at Alliant University and CAFI (Child Abuse Forensic Institute). (website says Pacific Grove & Napa, CA) Again, quality of information and organization is one thing, but “who’s the real entity in this mix of providers?” is another. IVAT as I’ve explained in other posts, is apparently a dba of Alliant University (now Alliant International University).
This website with a “NoCal” (Berkeley) address is utilizing for the legitimacy of credits at least in part another entity (using a dba or other fiscal agent) representing a San-Diego-based (primarily), i.e., “SoCal” University, with strong ties to a man from Texas, Robert Geffner, Ph.D. in its origins (“FVSAI”) and so forth. In fact I just looked for “CAFI” as a charity — it’s current, barely, and exists (barely) — see the Charitable Details notice $1K startup in 2001, then NOTHNG for seven more years at which time (FY2008) it starts admitting to its existence somehow — with $0.00 revenues and about $2K assets (unchanging) for several years, and not ONE tax return (why should they — no revenues, right??) shows up. After two delinquency notices in 2015, they finally clear it (apparently by sending in the annually-required RRFs), and continue, so far as we can tell, to “exist” so far as California is concerned.
1993 Initial 5 Directors of CAFI (from its Founding Dox) are all SF Bay Area (Scrn Shot 2017-03-24 at 5.41PM)
CAFI (on whom, apparently with IVAT) reliance for credits for training attorneys is cited (below images) I’ve seen the website before, realized it wasn’t exactly current, but this time looked a little harder, including locating an EIN#. The IRS says it IS still active for donations, has never shown a status revoked, but somehow only Form 990-Ns (post-cards) show for years 2008, 2009 and 2012 on the IRS website, while NONE show over a 15-year period at California Charitable Trusts Registry (which, if postcards were being filed, is still legit), but they weren’t sending in the RRS declaring annual revenues and if any of this was from government agencies (and if so, which ones).
“Note: Not all From 990-N (e-Postcard) filers qualify for exemption from federal income tax. To confirm an organization’s tax-exempt status, call Customer Account Services at (877) 829-5500.”
|1-3 of 3 results
||Results Per Page (25)
||« Prev | 1-3 | Next »
CAFI 1993-04 Founding Dox (1st directors all men from SFBayArea) from CalCharTr Registry and, EIN#680328915, CAFI (ChildAbuseForensicInstitute) a CJC-approved CE provider? REALLY? See CharDetails viewed Mar2017) works alongside ChildAbuseSolutns Inc (BK)
CAFI’s undeveloped website “links” show ONLY two — one for attorneys (DVLeap) and another for psychologists (“the Leadership Council)” and another page shows connections to California NOW 2002 Family Court Report (Helen Grieco, Rachel Allen). IF they read that, this entity knows about AFCC and the HHS fatherhood grants, as these came up in that report.
Seth L. Goldstein, Esq. (Law Offices of) are showing a historic interest in this area, and which boards or commissions (incl. advisory boards) he’s been on. I see he was advisory board to the California Chapter of NACC (relevant in that groups work over the years alongside “AFCC”
This “look-it-up” perspective of course estranges me from the personally loyal, emotionally bonded, and who have for years been “telling their stories” in support of the various groups premises and demands. So yes, I really am stressed out to have seen this develop over more than a decade in my “home turf” (N. California) as well as across the country, over time. They are ambulance chasers and self-promoters, and again, feature telling stories, seeking media attention, and above all, coaching their followers what is and is not important to notice. NOT analysis. And I will get to them shortly — but right now am as I just said, too stressed to compile a post on it for publication today.
The above paragraph does not mean I do not believe the stories of abuse of children, or children going to the custody of abusive parents over time, or needless family-court-related “roadkill.” But I am in complete earnest that the more fiascoes and disasters occur, the better it is for these professionals who seek to be on the training (T&TA) providers list, as are some of their colleagues whose policies, allegedly they protest and want overturned or I guess “trained” out of existence.
POST-PUBLICATION EXPANSION (SECTION) ON “HMRF” as “explained” through images from HHS.gov pages on the same: (This background color marks the section)
***Image refers to funding under a specific “CFDA” 93086 started in 2005 only, however plenty existed before. Unfortunately, Basic Search (TAGGS.HHS.Gov) database no longer goes back selectable before 2007, and Advanced Search by default eliminates the possibility of searching that CFDA# through checking it off where the available #s to select are indicated. You might try USDASpending.gov (goes back to 2000 only, data officially cited as inaccurate, particularly when it comes to grants…)
EXAMPLES of how even HHS obscures research on the grants and grantees while promoting their activities (5 images (arranged 2, then quotes on grantee “ICF”, then remaining 3) and 4 corresponding links to view them full-size):
(1) ACF’HHS’govofaprogramshealthy-marriage HomePage Screen Shot 2017-03-24 at 11.22AM (2) HMRF Detail level one (from home page) shows it is 5-yr funding, titles the breakdown (artificial as its just one CFDA# here) but NO link to grants database or help researching (Screen S (3) HMRF Hunt ‘n Click Maze, Level3 fineprint bottom link leads to pdf list,SidebarInfo Far Out of Date (Screen Shot 2017-03-24 at 11.55AM) (4) (HHS “download” link to the grantees list is “end of the line” for information on that Hunt’n Click trail. Going any further would be up to the reader — HHS is not about to help the readers, either see or evaluate these programs or grantees in any further detail. Apparently this is on a “Need to Know — and Public Doesn’t Really Need to Know” basis. But what they DO need more education in is healthy marriages, fatherhood.
Also note (from descriptions) that this grants stream is In discretionary, and may go to nonprofits or government units, universities, etc. Some grants obviously dwarf the others in size, so HHS “discretion” must include who are the best representatives. Further lookups (I’ve done plenty over time) of a 2015 in Oklahoma City (Public Strategies, Inc.) is that it continues to be a PR firm; of “ICF Incorporated, LLC” [Bloomberg.com on that company shows size of contracts — and HHS is using public funs to give it GRANTS?] [definitely a strange entity name — “Inc.” designates one kind of corporation and typically “LLCs” another, as to the IRS filing. This one is an “…. Inc., LLC.”] (“National Resource Center”) is that it is a multi-million-dollar global for-profit business who’s built its assets primarily through government contracts, where the “ICF” originally stood for “Inner City Fund.” The National Fatherhood Initiative (as a 501©3) has also used them or one of the offices (or related entities) as an independent contractor, meaning this entity got money both directly and indirectly for this cause from the public.
An old PRNewswire (see also history of this company) from 1998 when it was “ICF Kaiser” claims contracts dating back to 1982, and advertises a $10M one for the EPA shows what size entity is receiving HMRF GRANTS (gifts not contracts), diverted courtesy TANF Title IV-A (Temporary Aid for Needy Families) once “block grants to States” under this theory went into effect as a result of 1996 Welfare Reform:
ICF Incorporated Awarded $10M to Support EPA’s Office of Solid Waste
FAIRFAX, Va., Aug. 10  /PRNewswire/ — ICF Kaiser International, Inc. (NYSE: ICF) today announced that its Consulting Group subsidiary, ICF Incorporated, has been awarded a $10 million contract to support the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of Solid Waste. Under the four-year
contract, ICF Incorporated will provide a wide range of analytic and technical
support services for planning, implementing, and evaluating the RCRA hazardous
waste minimization and management program.
“ICF has held contracts with the Office of Solid Waste since 1982,” said James 0. Edwards, Chairman and CEO of ICF Kaiser. … “ICF has won several contracts in the environmental arena over the last 12 months totaling nearly $50 million,” said Edwards.
About the Company
Headquartered in Fairfax, Virginia, ICF Kaiser is one of the United States’ largest engineering, construction, program management, and consulting services companies. Its nearly 5,000 employees, located in 70 offices around the world, provide fully integrated capabilities to clients in four related market areas: environment, infrastructure, industry, and energy. ICF Kaiser reported gross revenue of more than $1.1 billion for the 12 months ended December 31, 1997. All references to ICF Kaiser indicate ICF Kaiser International, Inc. and any of its subsidiaries.
Company website viewed today: https://www.icf.com/who-we-are/about/our-history
…With a focus on solving energy challenges for United States federal agencies and for industry throughout the 1970s, ICF expanded into helping address the world’s environmental concerns in the 1980s and also began to build its engineering capabilities. In 1988, ICF acquired Kaiser Engineers, which had originated as the engineering unit of Henry J. Kaiser’s industrial empire and grew to rank among the largest engineering and construction companies in the world. The following year, the combined company went public and eventually traded stock on the New York Stock Exchange, operating as “ICF Kaiser,” with the consulting unit remaining largely intact.
In 1999, ICF Consulting ended its decade-long affiliation with Kaiser Engineers through a leveraged buyout, financed in part by the CM Equity Partners, LP, a New York City-based equity investment firm.
In 2006, ICF Consulting was renamed ICF International to reflect a growing geographic presence and increased scope of service offerings from advisory services to execution, implementation, and improvement. The firm also pursued an Initial Public Offering (IPO) and now is a publicly traded firm listed on the NASDAQ under the symbol ICFI. Today, the company is known simply as “ICF,” while still retaining its international presence.
(If you think that’s impressive (or wonder, as I do, why the US federal government should be GRANTING to it in addition to all the contracts, you should see its “ACQUISITIONS” page that public funds diverted from TANF, in part, have been (over the hears of HMRF funding involving this company or a subsidiary) in part facilitated. See next images (from that page), below which you’ll see just how VERY little HHS revealed about the sole grantee ($1.5M in 2015) for the National Center for Healthy Marriage and Relationship EDUCATION (not to be confused with also a large grant to the Oklahoma City “Public Strategies, Inc.” for a similar, but not identical resource center on Healthy Marriage….
ICF’com ACQUISITIONS (~In 2002, 2005, 2007, ICF Acquired (n) Companies~) Screen Shot 2017-03-24 at 1.16PM (and) ICF’com ACQUISITNS (~In 2009 (2), 2011(2), 2012 (1), 2014(3), ICF Acquired x Companies~) Screen Shot 2017-03-24 at 1.15PM
Partial Image #2 of 2 from 2-page download of 2015 HMRF grantees from HHS (ACF|OFA) website (“end of the line Hunt ‘n Click” link to both pages) showing ICF Incorporated, LLC’s $1.5M grant and New Pathways” (alpha by state) with $2K to one in LA (Southern) and one in (SF Bay Area, Northern) CA [Rubicon programs]
END, Post-Publication Section on “HMRF” and grantee “ICF Inc.”
On the blog, I am continuing to clean-up and publish various draft posts containing hard work and documentation (production of annotated images).
An upcoming theme about “Telling Stories, Selling Hope” is imminent, but I think this “macro” level post makes the point again — those stories will grab anyone’s attention and psyche, but identifying the storytellers in this age is AS important as the material being carried on the airwaves. Putting out this post illustrates the principles as well as being its own story.
By “identifying the storytellers” I mean finding that category — or lack of category, which is significant — under which the publication, the blog-site’s window frame revealing the funders, or some way to identify those funders — is critical, because these funders ARE organized into their own coordinated power blocs, with specific agenda which you will NOT be finding revealed that often on the story-telling websites, including the websites narrating “Who We Are,” company history and so forth. Sometimes, maybe — but not reliably. I concocted a personal one (it still basically works, although there could be more tags added) many years ago — starting with Public or Private?
From my FamilyCourtMatters.org DRAFT 2014 post, showing my previously-published chart prompting categories any ENTITY may fall under ~ Screen Shot 2017March15 at 5.40PM
Click here to read all that stuff (annotations and chart)! This actual post is still draft, but the chart showed up in prior posts, and this screenprint in a more recent one. It’s a matter of having some functional categories under which to mentally file groups A,B,C,D and to tell the difference between a project (program, initiative, etc.) of one or more ENTITIES and the ENTITIES themselves. Again, the concept is that public funding and private influence in the so-called public interest, should be traceable. Often, they aren’t — and that’s a primary point!
Moving on to the blog drafted last November: Below here, I won’t add much, except to identify whether related posts are yet published or not, and I see one or two places another screenprint of the website might help.///LGH 3/23/2017.
This post with case-sensitive, WordPress-generated shortlink ending “-57T” was basically written last fall:
Indicators that Both Left and Right Want Their Public Distracted, Occupied, and Entertained (engaging the Emotional versus Logical Processes) with Good Guy/Bad Guy Storytelling with Big Letters, Bright Colors and Pretty Pictures. Otherwise the Public might Actually Acquire the Basic Fiscal Literacy which underlies Good Judgment, and, in general, through Independent Action, Actually Communicate with Each Other to Achieve Economic Independence without Enslaving Others?
It emerged from an intermediary post on A Closer look at The Trade of the Century the Soros/Open Society Foundations (approximate title, still in draft.)
[Exact title and link, and I expect to publish right after this one:]
This post, which asks basically, “How Soros-Savvy Are You?” (and provides some remedies, if the answer is — we’ve been told who to suspect, but have no other significant details…)
(short-link ends “-573”) started 11/28/2016. The post is about 11,400 words (including all words in the many tax return tables shown there, as well as captions of all images). It shed some significant light on events and organizations in Baltimore (including one associated with the National Fatherhood Leaders’ Group I posted on recently) and on some nonprofit affiliations of the new US Secretary of Education, Betsy DeVos. However I think it packs a different kind of punch overall, on what to pay better attention to when discussing politics and major public institutions that need to be “transformed..”
Which itself emerged from 4th Quarter 2016 Review of Who’s Pushing Things “First 5” (and K12) Public School “Transformation” (Sticky Post added 11-20-2016) (wisas published 12/16/2016 as Pt 1 of 2 (pt. 2 was also published. See my TOC page under “2017” — the last 3 of 2016, including these two and the “ConnectEd” one below, were included).
Which emerged from another one which for short I’ll call the “ConnectEd | WestEd | US Dept of Ed” post and actually was published 11/18/2016. Exact title here:
ConnectED + MPR Associates Inc. + Gary Hoachlander, WestEd, and the US Dept. of Ed, with help from James Irvine Foundation,. (It is currently 16,000 words long, and a bit complex! Then again, so are the networks I am discussing and exposing…) This post was started 10/22/2016
A post on this blog may take at least a week to write. I do not specialize in just re-blogging, or compiling a pre-existing list of links that others have already reblogged. When I look things up, and I stay in “teaching” mode with hope that other adults, whether young or old, will understand
This “Indicators” post here actually has more in common with the ConnectEd and 4th Quarter Review subject matter than the “A closer look at …. Soros Open Society Foundations,” one although the Open Society Foundations — and “The Trade of the Century” certainly did come up in connection with the same topics.
At first I just looked at “Open Society Institute” as a single nonprofit. But that makes no sense when dealing with this phenomena. There is an obvious difference between billions and millions of dollars held by a single 990PF-filer. Let alone when there’s a US-based AND an international network of them. Starting to review the Open Society Institute AND related foundation entities (starting with identifying them as corporate entities and where the assets were being held), the difference in size is immediate — and relevant.
In making the point that we ought to start with distinguishing “monster” size entities from the more colorful, quotable, and organized by political stance smaller nonprofits often funded by the larger ones, I showed one from each side of the fence (as does, in part, the 4th Quarter Review 2016 post) and saw again how the Rightist “Discover the Networks” was doing little more to encourage financial literacy on the left by pointing the public to the tools used to look, than the Left itself was to reveal their own financials on the various websites involved.
Both claim to be exposing the other’s agenda and networks. My intention is to drive a wedge down the middle and posted financials from both sides, and do more of it on this post, to support my claim that — in reality– BOTH are “in on it” and playing Good Cop/Bad Cop with the public, to our collective harm.
I continue to believe that there are — or will be — some “ears to hear” this message although I am not personally conversant with enough to persuade me it will make a political difference. For one, I see who has been watching this site over time.
Now that that I’ve shown the immediate context, let me get to what inspired this post, especially after a closer look at some of the smaller, reporting nonprofits both left and right, pointing fingers and setting up colorful websites and multiple related organizations to demonize the other side of the aisle, and recommend how to solve the absymal state of the nation’s public schools (allegedly) while withholding accurate reporting on who, collectively, are the self-appointed, mutually fingerpointing or backslapping (in public at least) problem-solvers, the problem to of course involve redesign (with more investments) by the private sector.
No wonder both the Political Left and the Political Right wish to privately control, steer, and direct the public schools and partner with governments and state (and private) universities to recommend more and more investment in the infrastructure, with universal preschool, and attempts to turn schools into health and community centers.
Perhaps over time, we will all be reduced to the perceptive level of (the adult equivalent) of kindergartners, and not EVER even thinking about getting educated above our appointed station in life which — face it — for most people now is NOT to be challenging the existing elite (whether left, or right politically), or its thinking or operations.
Perhaps over time also, when we aspire to anything, it will be to Pick One from Column A (Republican) or One from Column B (Democrat), or if we wish to be thought somehow more free-thinking, go More Left or More Right. I mean, for whom to walk, talk, and think like on every major issue (health care, schools, vouchers, charters, prisons …. domestic violence, divorce, custody, the role of religious-exempt institutions in immigration and in running local communities), that when a person is approached on any typical issue, the kneejerk response will be left, or right (to a lesser or greater degree) — and be unable to have a neutral, fact-based discussion with someone on the opposite side of the fence.
Keeping any population illiterate, and language-deprived, except to a caste-level, is a symptom that one is dealing with colonization. What was illiterate in the 1800s and what is illiterate in the 21st century — including on what just happened in the 20th century — obviously is going to differ.
Among the ways of keeping people illiterate on their own bottom line, which is closely tied to their own freedom and safety (and that of their neighbors), are
- commandeering the technologies with which they might communicate over time (which obviously requires commandeering the resources to develop, share with some not others, or simply charge for use of the same),
- the old “divide and conquer” according to arbitrary issues. Disrupting “the social fabric” is a definite help.
DISTRACTION is a deliberate TIME-WASTER. What’s happening while one is distracted is that situations are often changing (including becoming more entrenched, or being dissolved).
There’s a difference between deliberate tactics to distract and waste others time, and a situation where people have become so self-conditioned as to do it to themselves because they have not figured out the satisfaction of independent learning, self-education, or quality time “fiddling around” or on self-assigned tasks.
There’s also a difference between tactics to encourage the waste of leisure time, and tactics to make sure individuals (children, or adults, or seniors — I am now one) are not privileged to even have real free time.
I speak as a number of seniors dealing with fiduciary abuse ,whether based on strangers obtaining control of their funds when they are competent to handle it, or relatives.
My time and ability to plan a different life or future has for years now has been clouded by the necessity of dealing with fiduciary abuse where there is no legitimate cause for having any fiduciary commandeering (what’s left of) my own living resources in the first place. [Footnote 1 at bottom of post]. I converse and discuss these issues enough with people in my community (and to a degree on-line) to understand this situation is common. It may look different depending on socioeconomic sector, but for older women (often out-living their male counterparts) it is an increasing concern. What’s more, adult women who have spent long periods in abusive relationships are already compromised as to their ability to properly earn and save for retirement.
- ~ Distracted From Self-Education on the Public/Private Collaborations common to both, and potential subsequent independent action to free themselves from economic abuse by both sides.
- ~ Distracted From EVER opening (let alone comparing over time) a Form 990, Utilizing a State Business Entities Search Site, or comprehending a government financial statement.
- ~ Distracted from an easily accessible, mostly free Common Measurement Standard for Both Sides.
- ~ While vaguely aware of “the Networks,” only looking at half of them with a critical eye.
- ~Failing to Distinguish Large from Small economically
- ~Failing to Observe and Understand Major Economic /Political Events over time.
- ~ Ignoring the significance (and ramifications) of the Public/Private sector collaborations that now characterize most governments and federal agencies within the United States of America.
Comes from long post title with shortlink (short enough to tweet): 4th Quarter 2016 Review of Who’s Pushing Things “First 5” (and K12) Public School “Transformation” (Sticky Post added 11-20-2016)
…which puts website like “Discover the Networks |A Guide to the Political Left” (a project of a small California-based nonprofit “David Horowitz Freedom Center”)
and “Sourcewatch,” a project of The Center for Media and Democracy [“CMD”], also a small progressive nonprofit dedicated to the opposite, and in its own words:
“CMD’s breakthrough investi-gations of the Koch Brothers, the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) and its American City County Exchange (ACCE), the State Policy Network (SPN), and numerous corporations and corporate-front groups). Like the David Horowitz Freedom Center, CMD has several projects, which may be reflected in on-line web pages: PRWatch.org, SourceWatch.org, AlecExposed.org, etc.”
The point being:
Discover the Networks (and similar nonprofits or on-line publications) are going to look at Soros and the Clinton Foundation and report on and condemn groups/activities considered Left or Progressive. The other side (and similar nonprofits or on-line publications)is of course going to point fingers at the Koch Brothers and others considered Right or Conservative. Both attempt to identify their own position as best for America (and by association, the world). Essentially, pointing fingers, mud-slinging, personalizing/demonizing perceived leadership of the other side, and telling one-sided stories while implying they are factual, neutral and objective.
- Which types of reporting, and in this case which of the above two nonprofits (David Horowitz Freedom Center with its “DTN” above + The Center for Media and Democracy, with Sourcewatch, PRWatch, AlecExposed, etc.), encourages or even helps readers acquire basic nonprofit, Form 990, or otherwise basic accounting and economic literacy on the nonprofit OR the government sector, and in the public interest?
- And since neither are doing this, why not? Why, if the originators of this type of reporting are so concerned about the magnitude of the opposite political party’s threat to stability, commonsense, or “America” would these not wish for their audiences a wide public better educated on economic and accounting literacy, instead of maintaining or acquiring the position of chief storyteller?
- Is the attempt to grab people’s heads and discretionary time to listen to storytelling (which any hearsay information is), and hopefully add to the contributions of said nonprofits doing the reporting, a genuine demonstration of civic interest? Or is all the reporting (on both sides) justifying the continued proliferation of the nonprofit sector, which is actually profitable for corporate wealth on BOTH sides of the political fence?
- In the field of education, specifically — these nonprofits I have been currently looking at, although clearly one is more Open Society Foundations / Soros-involved than the other political side — have organizations whose board membership (and in one instance I am talking, an ex-Governor) can be found on both progressive and conservative nonprofit focused on the same subject matter. Interesting….
I am showing these above next to –in juxtaposition to — another way of looking at things, which is to take that personal time deciphering (reading the lines and listening to what might not be said between the lines) and instead applying it, more and more, to reading the fine print of the actual filing instruments used by the organizations (a) reporting and (b) being reported on?
I had briefly looked at CMD when a third DC? organization, “Center for Immigration Studies” quoted SourceWatch in discussing the same individual I was interested in because of his board appointment on one of another string of nonprofits (and their founding family’s activities and original source of wealth) relating to the field of transforming public education. As I explained on that 4th Quarter 2016 Review of Who’s Pushing Things “First 5” (and K12) Public School “Transformation…” post. (<==Tax returns of all three are on this post)
When there are actual direct sources of any organization’s financials, certainly pretty good point of reference when these are either (1) nonprofits or (2) public-traded for-profits (for which SEC reports could be read, for example) — why have people’s head spinning Left / Right / Left / Right (link pingpong) and in the confusion, recommend they just pick one OR the other, while not looking at the background of both to compare? (Answer #1 — every on-line has a customer base and is soliciting support from somewhere; that’s a business practice where profit is a motive).
In other words, every reporting nonprofit has some sources — so, as most of them are reluctant to highlight how we could go get what their hired hands or sponsored fellows went and got — why not just go to at least those public, available on-line for free (or minimal cost even) sources ourselves, and in our own interest and put this in a format and language for comparison along some perspective — such as operational practices — that is common to both sides of the aisle (political persuasions, referring to the USA “left and right” or more globally, conservative vs. progressive, etc.)?
FROM LARGE TO SMALL, BY SECTOR, WITH A FEW NAMES — HOW CAN WE TELL WHAT’S REALLY OUT THERE?
Without SOME concept, how identify where any reporting organization (“on-line” or news outlet) fits in the mix? [After looking at the fine print of the orgs. in question, and if available, their tax returns].
Why not first look for the macro — the big kids on the block? and acknowledge that most smaller ones are owing their living to those “big kids on the block” in the first place?
For example, look at the BENTLEY INFRASTRUCTURE 500 (done yearly):
When the public and private ownership of hard asset infrastructure HAS been compared on the Bentley Infrastructure 500 list (searchable on this blog, I’ve quoted it several times, esp. after 2012), the biggest one, currently (last I looked at that list) was the federal government of the USA.
Bentley Infrastructure 500 for 2016 (no longer has USA as #1, but instead EXXON. However, notice they opted to split USA into Military ($199,xxx Million) and US Civilian ($185,xxx million) which, if combined — and both are controlled by the US Federal government — would still be #1. The assets referenced are in the trillions (Look at the chart, and add six zeros (“000,000”)…
Bentley Infrastructure 500 (2016) showing that the USA was split into “Military” and “Civilian” unlike in prior years, leaving Exxon Mobil as #1.
Other large ones include major providers of fuel oil, gas, telecommunications, or electricity, some of which in their home countries have been or are nationally (state) owned, and some are not.
Other large hard asset infrastructure owners (i.e., #s 11-500] are several of the larger coastal states — New York, California, Florida, Texas, and also Illinois (Chicago, remember, has access to the Great Lakes system).
Who is “Bentley.com” (not the car company, incidentally) and how would they have access to make these measurements? Well, I might like to know more (and they could be written and asked), but, they produce the software that helps support some of that infrastructure:
At its core, Bentley Systems is a software development company that supports the professional needs of those responsible for creating and managing the world’s infrastructure, including roadways, bridges, airports, skyscrapers, industrial and power plants as well as utility networks. Bentley delivers solutions for the entire lifecycle of the infrastructure asset, tailored to the needs of the various professions – the engineers, architects, planners, contractors, fabricators, IT managers, operators and maintenance engineers – who will work on and work with that asset over its lifetime. Comprised of integrated applications and services built on an open platform, each solution is designed to ensure that information flows between workflow processes and project team members to enable interoperability and collaboration.
READ MORE + – See more at: https://www.bentley.com/en/about-us#sthash.t3hYGXSv.dpuf
I don’t know how they determine ownership, but this profession, combined with the Executive Bios of the four Bentley Brothers and their Executive Staff (mostly, but not all, men), leads me to believe that the assessment might be somewhere close to reasonable — they are dealing (globally) as service providers across many sectors, and have been doing it since 1984. That, plus — look at the chart, and think about the scope of services provided — and what infrastructure is involved in delivering them, or accessing them (i.e., drilling for oil, dams, bridges, roads, pipelines, transmission sites for wifi, power stations and wires delivering water, electricity, removing sewage… you can imagine) — does it not make sense that Exxon, or Gazprom might be near the top? (See list link above).
Notice that you will not notice on the Bentley 500 list (the top 500 “biggest kids on the block”) ANY foundation or nonprofit listed. You will find the wealth behind many of the largest and longstanding foundations, however, which should also tell us that any power bloc talking about equalizing the playing field this late in the game, probably isn’t fully invested in doing so.
Another indicator these philanthropies and foundations (visible only with that closer look) may not be so fully invested in equalizing the playing field, and motivated by love and concern for their fellow man as the word PhilAnthropy,” literally, implies, is when some of the same, over time, repeatedly engage in dishonest business, or IRS filing practices. If they can’t be trusted reporting to the government on behalf of the public who is to be helped through the private re-direction of these same government (or public) institutions — how far can they be trusted in stating their intents, period? Is it really necessary to lie, steal (from the public, when it comes to cheating or engaging in attempts to hide naming where the money was spent (there are several tactics) on the 990 reporting guidelines, including continuing to report large grants to non-entities or entities with their corporate and/or EIN# status revoked — and so forth. Again, neither Discover the Networks nor ‘Center for Media and Democracy seems much interested in those factors, but fraud is absolutely an economic factor.
**When I refer to nonprofits or major foundations, I again am not referring to all employees, or even grantees (although by association, grantees are implicated), but the organization or corporation leadership — their boards. Then again, should not employees know what their employers are doing, or subcontractors, their clients?
in perspective of a few million versus a few billion dollars of assets (let alone that which they distribute to others in the form of grants, or receive from others within any “related organizations” network or outside it, in the form of contributions… along with other forms of revenue available when one is holding significant assets: either dividends and interest, or net gain from selling off some of the assets.
(See a Form 990 or 990PF for those obvious categories).
(which will be shown below here) regarding to whom we ought to be paying more attention. I threw in there for good measure, a Center for Immigration Studies (a small DC-based nonprofit) — all of them reporting on a single individual they associated primarily with “Center for Community Change” but I found interesting because of his addition (among other board members) stemming from my recent ConnectEd | MPR Associates + Gary Hoachlander | WestEd | US Dept. of Ed — with help from the James Irvine Foundation post” (my post titles are so long, I rarely remember them verbatim…I do remember writing them, however. That link is active!)
Overlapping Board Memberships not always revealed on organization websites: Gary Hoachlander
In the “ConnectEd” post, the Alliance for Excellent Education came up simply because I found Gary Hoachlander on it. While Alliance for Excellent Education quickly showed itself to have overt Open Society (Soros Fund enabled, but not solely Soros-funded) connections, ConnectEd gives not a clue (at least on top website levels) of the overlap.
For example (see that post for more details — or pursue them yourself on the 990s, Secretaries of State sites, and in the case of California Registry of Charitable Trusts. But in this case, I did include links to and images of those filings the above my post!)
Hoachlander’s MPR Associates had formerly been in Berkeley, CA, but moved across the continent (as I’m recalling it) around 2015, and now he was showing up on this other organization — everyone of course wanting to use the word “education” in the title, and no one wanting anything (of course) but excellence, achievement, and success for the public school system. (Hoachlander as current “Executive Staff” (President) out of only 3 (another having a WestEd affiliation), at ConnectEd” but as Board, he is showing as “ExOfficio” President, near the bottom. Neither bio blurb mentions the Alliance for Excellent Education, Inc. (or, MPR Associates).
ConnectEd…”Transforming Education through Linked Learning” banner
I seem to have found that separately through a web search:
Bloomberg.com, getting its information (says the website) from “S&P Global Intelligence” describes Hoachlander as President of ConnectEd and Board Chairman of MPR Associates in Berkeley (i.e., it may not be most current available) but makes no reference to Alliance4Ed. it does give some more insight on his particular areas of interest. This is “personId=116842134” as the url shows; the page has a bit more information than the summary, but it would appear to be a privately owned entity. The summary can only be updated (with proof of documents) by a company representative, and may be how this executive wishes himself to be viewed — with no reference to involvement with the Soros/Open-Society-Involved (and smaller) and networked Washington, D.C. nonprofit “Alliance for Excellent Education.”
Mr. Gary Hoachlander serves as president of ConnectEd: the California Center for College and Career. Mr. Hoachlander serves as the Chairman of MPR Associates, Inc. He is a nationally recognized expert on improving high schools and transitions to postsecondary education and career. He has focused especially on integrating challenging core academic instruction with demanding technical curriculum emphasizing authentic application to complex problems in the world of work.
**”Career and Technical Education” – Perhaps the term “liberal arts” education has fallen out of favor, but it seems to me that Career and Technical Education” historically referred to people whose prospects of getting to and through a liberal arts education were slim, and so should be diverted into a differently focused education.
What I have a problem with is attempting to turn an entire national school system (or nationally control the school-district-controlled school systems) towards this purpose.
Notice there is no particular link from the ALL4Ed home page to any category “People” — and Hoachlander (I just checked) is NOT listed under “leadership” as Board member, or Staff, or under Advisory Groups, which listings I just checked again. Here, his profile (again) from the above link, just under (scarlet background to company motto, “…make every child a graduate,” photo of a young woman and man with graduation tassels) navigation choices under “About/Leadership” from Alliance for Excellent Education (which website is “ALL4Ed.org” as above) showing the choices to click. The Advisory Groups (in that list of choices) simply leads to an important-sounding “President’s Policy Council,” although President” I would think in this context means President of this single non-profit only. However, the Board and Staff members do reveal the powerful connections, past or present, to the US Senate and well-known nonprofits (for example, Joan Huffer..CBPP and her current organization in Virginia), Department of Education, and others:
Gary Hoachlander page at “ALL4Ed.org” under “People” simply not accessible through main org. website page or sublinks. I found it in a web search on his name. Notice he right away acknowledges James Irvine Foundation started the California group, and his own MPR Associates. However, back at ConnectEd — MPR associates is NOT referenced (or his past or present connection to ALL4ed)…
Alliance for Excellent Education (Leadership, Gov. Board, Advisors) is a recommended look.
Here’s Daniel Leeds (below, white-haired man with yellow tie)
from that source, again, I first noticed his name focused on the tax return boards of directors: notice his first reference is to a nonprofit whose acronym would be NPESF (Nat’l Public Education Support Fund“)*** — and he is the Chair. Notice they also reference the Schott Foundation for Public Education and “Institute for Student Achievement.” These organizations I looked at some, near the top of “4th Quarter 2016 Review” post, and more on the spinoff, “Drill-Down” — on these particular organizations — to the same (link — active when post is done — is at the bottom of my 4th quarter post). (Sorry about all the blog navigation messages involved in getting this subject matter published!)
Daniel Leeds’ Parents (both are now deceased, Lilo I’m sad to say, just recently — September 2016, and Gerard in 2016).
Their “family publishing company” specializing in digital business and technology publications (“CMP Media”) was sold [not mentioned — to a British-owned, privately controlled company, now called UBM] for $920M in 1999, which may also have SOMETHING to do with the need to form multiple foundations around this time as well (or, pay those higher taxes!) (see Gerard Leeds obit above for some of that; I followed up separately on who was “UBM.”)
To left, Daniel Leeds’ blurb on “Alliance for Excellent Education” (I’ll just call it “ALL4ED” from here on out) nonprofit, whose tax returns I have perused and scrutinized (incl. related organizations, and from year to year), does NOT reference who NPESF is, although it sure sounds important.
This is “who” it is, from a fiscal point of view, from what I’ve seen so far, and in part (I’ve seen more than the next para reveals obviously!): All4Ed is a 501©3 based in Washington D.C. and from the start, exclusively run by the Leeds and/or Jobin-Leeds (brothers, and/or a wife or two over time). There was a 501©4 called “America Graduates” formed separately — at the same address and under Daniel Leeds. One year, around 2008, as I recall, “America Graduates” was simply liquified, and its assets poured into (what appears to be a pre-existing –but not for long) 501©4 called “NPESF” whose own stated purpose was to function as a pass-through for (originally called) League of Education Voters of America” later shortened to “Education Voters of America.” All in Washington, D.C. At the same street address (until it was later changed). I call all of that shifting, a shady operation. Why it became necessary is unclear. The original amount transferred over from America Graduates to NPSAEF (and passed through to the other group) was $783K. Apparently, they have thousands of dollars to move around with little trouble, as would make sense if one had already (as Gerard Leeds did, and his son or sons (Daniel and or Greg Jobin-Leeds, married to Maria Jobin-Leeds) did during the 1990s. Again, as I recall.
So, NPESF of course has a logo, a home-page, and an initiative — and this includes convening an “Education Funders Strategy Group” (of 30 organizations) for their united purpose. This is what I was talking about above (or possibly below) in recognizing the sectors, not just the actually related networks –and admitting, please — that the foundations ARE acting in unison with each other, have been doing this for decades, and will continue doing this, unless something or someone stops the process:
and a screen print of those coordinated Education Strategy Group Funders:
(That next image, a 2-column list of names, does show the whole posted list from the website).
Well, if something has fingerpainting photos of hands, photos of smiling children, a logo, bright primary colors, and grandiose proclamations — those are the good guys, RIGHT? ???
In addition to the self-organized and proclaimed “ESFG” of 30 (mostly, or ALL, foundations) to the left, there is on the same website — which doesn’t have, face it, much information on it yet — another self-organized group of “more than 6” (“over a half dozen”) foundations, plus other leaders, which met 2010-2015 (so it says) and already had a name change:
The Partnerhip for the Future of Learning, composed of over a half dozen foundations that includes NPESF, have come together based on their shared beliefs around the need to develop and advance a new, richer, and deeper education reform frame to support the transformation of U.S. education systems that is necessary to realize college, career, and citizenship readiness for all students.
OK, one thing NOT to be found easily on NPESF (or other Leeds-run entities, I learned) easily, is much reference to their business identity, EIN#, or a courteously posted recent Form 990, or Independently Audited Financial Statements (if the size requires — and some of these do…), but at least clues to where to look for yet more foundations they wish to take credit for, and perhaps some clues to for-profit business involvements:
Along with his wife, Sunita, Dan co-chairs The Enfranchisement Foundation, which focuses on breaking the cycles of poverty and intolerance in the United States as well as on women’s issues. Mr. Leeds is the President of Fulcrum Investments LLC, a private investment firm. **Until the sale of CMP Media in 1999, he was President of International Publishing and a member of the Office of the President. CMP, a leading media company, published titles such as InformationWeek, Computer Reseller News and Electronic Engineering Times. The company was cited as “One of the Best Companies to Work For” by Fortune Magazine and Working Women Magazine. [(this team bio found at NPESF.org)]
**Hardly surprising that he works for an investment firm. Where are people with family wealth to go if not at least a few members into this field? But who is “The Enfranchisement Foundation,” and since when?
One quick looks appears to indicate another, privately-controlled, Leeds(family)-run and Leeds-supported (though only $50K grant from the parents — the year I looked) which distributed $95K in small amounts to various places, while holding onto a few (relatively speaking to other foundations under discussion here, including the Soros / Open Society ones…) million of assets. Where the assets are being held, and the income from them obtained, should always be viewed.
Total results: 3. Search Again.
|The Enfranchisement Foundation
|The Enfranchisement Foundation
|The Enfranchisement Foundation
Back to the topic of “Left/Right 501©3s Exposing and Investigating the Other Political Party”
I’m not saying don’t read either DTN (Looks at the Left) or CMD (Exposes the Right) sites. However be aware of some of the limitations of information presented in narrative — versus show me the money, where’s that Form 990? format.
Telling stories without the most important exhibits keeps readers more dependent on story-telling, which I find questionable. And, all story-telling (including mine — which is why I say, go check out the tax returns on both sides of the political fence, and read your local government entity CAFR!) comes with some spin. We should want less, not more, spin when making good decisions and judgment about who or whether to follow certain information trails, who or whether to donate towards, or if “none of the above,” where to vote, where to put what. “A mind is a terrible thing to waste” still applies.
Example: On a Discover the Networks page about Nonprofits and foundations, which references 527 groups, they are accusing the “Shadow Party,” the left, and in general Soros / Democrats of “activities akin to money-laundering (sounds like, RICO),” and then claim that the Republicans had no choice but to engage in the same to “catch up”!! Several different links explain what are 527s, hard money vs. soft money in federal campaign contributions, how the McCain-Feingold (below, existed 2002-2010?) limitation eventually helped Soros’ network of 527s take Democrat money that might otherwise have gone directly to candidates, etc.
Influence of 527 Committees (DTN, 2011 article focused on Soros’ manipulations)
About Section 527 Committees
A “Section 527 Committee” is a tax-exempt entity organized under Section 527 of the Internal Revenue Code to raise money for political activities other than “express advocacy” for the election of a particular federal (i.e., House, Senate, or Presidential) candidate. (Express advocacy is considered to be the domain of political action committees, or PACs, whereas 527s are technically supposed to be independent of, and unaffiliated with, any candidate.) Most 527s are run by special-interest groups and are used for raising “soft money,” which they are permitted to collect from donors in unlimited amounts, and which they can subsequently funnel to the political party (not to the candidate) of their choice – also in amounts unbound by any legal limits.
The terms “soft money” and its counterpart, “hard money,” date back to the 1970s, when the financing of political campaigns was altered dramatically by the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1974 (FECA). …[reference to McCain-Feingold Act of 2002 limitations which did NOT address Section 527 Committees]…
Democrats took the lead in making extensive use of 527s — which are sometimes referred to as “stealth PACs” — as major fundraising vehicles with which to circumvent the constraints imposed by McCain-Feingold. … Indeed it was the Democrats — and George Soros in particular — who had been pushing McCain-Feingold for years. They knew the law’s loopholes and weaknesses intimately, and were ready to exploit them the moment the legislation was passed.
[exact link on this website, tba, unfortunately I didn’t copy it at time of quote]
Republicans disagreed. They charged that the Shadow Party was a criminal enterprise, whose activities were akin to money laundering. However, the Federal Election Commission (FEC) declined to rule on the matter until after the 2004 election. The Republicans were left with no choice but to try to play catch-up. Republicans began building their own 527 network. But the Democrats had the jump on them. It was the Democrats – and George Soros in particular – who had been pushing McCain-Feingold for years. They knew its loopholes and weaknesses intimately, and were ready to exploit them the moment the law was passed.
There is (on sale for $3.00) what is made to look like a 50+ page essay on the “Shadow Party” copyright the David Horowitz Freedom Center (that runs DTN), however, in reading through it, I noticed that the web-pages on the pdf are artificially short, sometimes only consisting of two (or sometimes less!) paragraphs and a few widely-spaced footnotes, many of them to Discoverthenetworks site. It is unique story-telling, very personalized, and at times — under the following childish and offensive cover (showing the current President of the United States as a puppet on strings wielded by an ugly-faced Soros) narrative without bibliography section either. I quoted one section (pp 11-12 overlap) indicating, again, what Soros thought of 2001 and further indicating that this author had not considered other possible interpretations of why those trade towers collapsed, which have been coming to light over the years at “Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth” website indicating the likelihood of planned demolition, covered by recent insurance contracts, and the explosive material potentially applied during (innocent on the workers’ part) re-spraying of the asbestos or acknowledge how many professionals (scientists, engineers and others) agree with them. Or, the testimony of one whistleblower involved on the initial report on the cause of 9/11/2001 destructions and building collapses (I have posted this year, see Table of Contents or search function).
That this alternate understanding of the attacks might also reflect negatively on the White House Administration at the time, which had just returned to Republican and President Bush control, should be obvious.
The pamphlet is dated 2011 (Presidential Election year, right?) which tells me there had been time to consider the alternatives on the World Trade Towers Situation:
The Shadow Party and the Shadow Government: George Soros and the Effort to Radically Change America (pamphlet)
By David Horowitz and John Perazzo
The image portion I captured doesn’t show the President’s feet, but the publication does –and they are suspended in mid-air attached to puppet strings. What kind of individual and entity puts out schlock like this, and why?
And there’s an entire page (plus related links) on “Open Society Foundations” which appears to be current as of about 2013 (at latest) and whose 17 footnotes are from just a few sources, and de-emphasize the use of FoundationCenter to actually post financials, which are simply listed under FN17, and not referenced or discussed at all in the article.
No reference to actually identifying not just grantees, but grantor foundations seems to exist on this page.
Even the Open Society Foundations page (admitted, it’s copyright 2016 at the bottom) at least lists the Offices and Programs — although I have to admit, it’s in VERY fine print at the VERY bottom. Simply listing these would have been a picture worth many words on “DiscoverTheNetworks”, but it does not appear, as my comment in the “speech bubble” below shows.
(Click here for full-sized OSF Office & Foundations image w/ my annotation)
Long post title with shortlink (short enough to tweet): 4th Quarter 2016 Review of Who’s Pushing Things “First 5” (and K12) Public School “Transformation” (Sticky Post added 11-20-2016)
About that post and separating the SMALLER reporting nonprofits on it from the LARGE foundations I’m referencing in this post (the differences is millions — usually under $10M, or at most $50M — versus billions — from $1 to $6B, but the investment platforms involved, far larger, as their Form 990PFs reveal):
I have typically quoted both sides of such sponsored websites while developing and (I like to think) refining some of my understanding of the domestic (USA) 501©3 and 501©4 sector. After all, why not let some of the warring political factions do some homework for me looking at nonprofits?
But, over time, and particularly at this time, I have found it far more intriguing and relevant to look closer to the top of the food chain and how these foundations handle their own networks of power — and where, when a record is available — did those investment platforms come from originally?– after seeing what is dangled in our faces as important news to consume.
Where I differ from many people is that I get to the “top” or center/basis of that food chain, or closer to it at any rate, through climbing up (or centrally) through individual strands of the local, or outside end of it.
Many years ago, I used the analogy of the “Giant Squid” and criticized people tangling repeatedly with the tips of the tentacles, and not having put in the time to figure out where head, directing the power was. (I have since found where some of the same were actually closer connected than was being feigned, through friendships and aligned organizations, to power structures they were allegedly there to fix). When one’s resources, energy, and time is limited, “tangling with the tentacles,” as an organizing strategy, seem stupid. When I do this with individual organizations, I do it as an intellectual exercise, remembering the other times I’ve done the same exercise with other organizations (see some of these 600+ posts for examples!), and what may be similar or different between the examples.
Meanwhile, time moves on, and so did so many of the organizations.
You cannot do this year after year without seeing patterns emerge. So? I talk about the patterns I have seen, but I talk about them differently than a journalist would. Journalists have jobs to do and product or services to advertise. As such there is ALWAYS a spin, and there is going to be withholding of key information — or the competitor journals (etc.) would be handling it first.
That my work well for competitive, corporate journalism — but it does not work necessarily for the public. The public, ALL of us — if there is to be an “us” — MUST know how our own government works, and is run — or we cannot consent, in any informed manner — to that government, and it becomes simply government by a combination of force and deceit. Not always so openly, but more subtly.
That pattern I am most concerned about — and I admit part of it may come from my background of having been personally burned first in marriage (domestic violence) then in family court and involving my own family line, and living in a significant (politically) nine-country metropolitan area in a large coastal state such as California, seeing the inbred relationships between the courts, law enforcement, fathers’ rights groups and supposedly woman-protecting at least, women’s rights (or domestic violence prevention based on VAWA funding which DOES have the word “Women” in it– right?) in their ongoing collaborations (collaborations such as represented, for example, by the Wingspread Conference of 2007, the Greenbook Initiative (pilot demonstration projects) of 2000-2007, or the 2003ff proliferation of the “Family Justice Center” (county-based) model — is dishonest representation of (1) who an entity is and (2) why it exists — what it’s doing.
Or of Esta Soler of Futures without Violence having sat on the board of CFFPP (an organization which was first legal domicile IL and having gotten revoked there, then moved to Wisconsin and with acknowledged connections to the Ford Foundation “Strengthening Fragile Families Initiative” (SFFI) and all the “fatherhood promo” that entails, not to mention the financial clout behind it.
Is that connection advertised on the former endabuse.org site, or the futurewithoutviolence.org site? We are talking, some seriously funded PR campaigns, and this organization also has donated to the NCJFCJ:
One of the best, and simplest to find, indicators for this is to see how they handle reporting on their own finances and their own identities.
We may be familiar with the concept of “robber barons” of turn of the 1800s into the 1900s, and families who ran corporations that made their original wealth thanks to wartime demands. Maybe some have started to grasp (I hope) how the close of World War II and restructuring /partitioning of Europe, rebuilding of Germany at the Allies’ expense, and in the USA, the ongoing development of economic inequities through proliferation of the “charitable” (tax-exempt) sector to attract money, as well as continuing expansion of government services, while the expansion of public awareness of how public funds were stashed and accounted for did NOT keep pace.
Maybe there has been some more thought (I hope) at why the heck are there so many regional-based 501©3 organizations whose membership are civil servants mixed with business leaders, and we are to take it on faith that the motives are altruistic — “just making government work more efficiently, my dears,” as claimed, and ignoring uncomfortable evidence that this is probably not why they were organized.
I have referenced, I know – and on that original Table of Contents Page and some on the 2016 one also — it is so important — groups such as NGA, the Council of Governments (which is a form of National Lieutenant Governors Association of America), the NCSL (National Center on State Legislators), NCSC (National Center for State Courts) and many more, including the one closest to my field of interest here — the NCJFCJ (and its affiliation — through conferencing at a minimum — with the AFCC), not to mention the NCJFCJ collaboration with domestic violence central-control organization, the future “Futures Without Violence” (but at the time “Family Violence Prevention Fund” in the Wingspread Conferences in Racine Wisconsin — a true international influence from the “S.C. Johnson, A Family Company” (adds still seen on TV along with various products).
Do we not yet realize that one step towards being fully, globally, internationalized — as profitable for the international corporations and individuals who run them — is first becoming nationalized (eradicating those state laws under which many of our fees and taxes occur, where we as residents must be tied by license (if driving), taxation (SS# or substitute), marriage or divorce and custody, and voting privileges, and whose elected legislators are supposed to represent our interests – – not their own, as tied to international investments they control, or are likely to on retiring from elected post?
And that part of becoming nationalized controlled NOT locally but from D.C. and the federal government, administered regionally (across state lines) is also having that federal government AND state governments AND those in power to seize or allocate assets, including homes, businesses (and receipts for them) and children, under county administration of state laws (for example, Child Support, or the family courts) become corrupted (corrupted financially — the word is bribery, kickbacks, extortion, etc. in exchange for political favors) simply through becoming so privatized that a common platform, understanding, or way to exercise public power, just no longer exists??
Typically, politically, Democrats and/or progressives are going to accuse the conservative “Right” of trying to privatize everything. They accusation sticks, because they have been. However, a look at the Soros/Open Society Foundations shows that they are hardly alone in the intent. Both are expert mudslingers and fear-mongers (accompanied by solutions-suggesters).
People who read this blog may be wondering why I am conducting such extended conversations on this material with the “blogosphere” and not working it harder on Twitter, Facebook, trying to get it on an on-line journal, or doing the conference circuit. One reason is, I also have a personal life and priorities, and for the past 15 years it has not been litigation free, nor do I feel the present situation to be a sustainable one. [Narrative removed here, you can imagine how much I might wish to post it, however….]
Within the last two years, this situation went from a relative (unprofessional) fiduciary who had me forced back onto Food Stamps (!) – and held there until I went public enough (with an on-line petition at Change.org) to “encourage” (her) to get off, to the same resources (?) being handled by so-called professional fiduciaries, plural, who have allowed me off Food Stamps — but within six months of taking control, shut down the accounts holding the assets (thereby cutting me off from receiving monthly statements of what was in them!), and within another half year or less, continued a situation forcing me out of my former long-term rental, and subsequently preventing me from getting into another long-term rental home, and continuing to withhold verified receipts of disbursements, tax returns on the entity, and in short violating professional fiduciary guidelines and I have no doubt probate law (unless there is hidden justification under probate law permitting ongoing collusion to extort, and receiving payments obtained under that collusion after having been repeatedly informed in writing to cut it out, and produce the evidence requested)