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

'A Different Kind of Attention Develops Sound Judgment' | 'Suppose I'm Right Here?…' (posted 3/23 & 3/5/2014). Over 680 posts, Public-Interest Investigative Blogging On These Matters Since 2009.

HiAP (HEALTH, not LAW*, in All Policies) Coordinated from Afar, Applied Locally, including throughout the USA. [Published Oct 24, 2017]

with one comment


Post title and shortlink: HiAP (HEALTH, not LAW*, in All Policies) Coordinated from Afar, Applied Locally, including throughout the USA. (case-sensitive shortlink ends “-7LY”) Published Oct. 24, 2017.  About 12,800 words. Tags, more than a dozen, added Oct. 27.

Two spinoff posts promised below (still in draft Oct. 27) are:

ICLEI in particular shows pre-planned globalism and tactics for it (with Canadian ownership from the start, and prominent connections to UNincorporated association in Europe, as I recall). ICLEI’s previous name is a big clue.  “EI” stands for Environmental Initiatives as I recall offhand.

[“Spinoff posts” are portions of drafts of this post which are felt to be significant enough for more attention under their own titles, and usually were nearly complete before moving them under their own titles.]


This post was written basically Oct. 14-16, and continues from a theme who has been promoting “Health as an Asset” globally (and some of the organizations involved) from an earlier post. Published without further work (now that “Governance: The Final Frontier” is done and has undergone the “post-publication review” (and extensive tags have been added). This one is published Oct. 24, 2017 (a Tuesday evening, my time zone) and will likely undergo a similar post-publication review (incl. added tags).


Why post-publication revisions:  As just one blog administrator, it helps sometimes to PUBLISH, then REFLECT/REVIEW MORE (which are activities with different modes and focus of attention).  If this were a subscription blog (currently it isn’t yet) of course that would be less acceptable, although even on-line MSM show “updates” after the original publish time.  I am also considering other timelines for the blog, urgencies to publish, responding sometimes to current events, such as government in motion,* outside the immediate scope of the blog and at times, when I publish after working on a specific post and its topics is just gut instinct.  I also maintain (again, a gut-level instinct) awareness of my personal limits on how much effort can be put into a single topic.


Source: WHO. Click image to enlarge. Notice at bottom: “Health is the driver” and at the top “Health requires…. all sectors work together…” and a collective set of conditions to re-organize society, throughout. (image is unusually long and looks like it might have been a hanging banner for a conference…)

Found in a list of resources at a CDC website:

Health in All Policies (HiAP): Framework for Country Action
Developed by the World Health Organization to serve as a “starter’s kit” for applying HiAP in decision-making and implementation at national and subnational levels, this framework can be easily adapted for use in different country contexts and at the regional and global levels.

! ! ! ! ! !

Notice the elements of WHO’s HiAP Banner for Worldwide Implementation, “How Does It Work?” Clean Energy | Housing | Urban Planning | Transport | Industry | Waste Mgmt | Local and Regional Authorities | Health MinistryMore Collaboration to Tackle Air Pollution.

[I’ve noticed that] Whatever the cause (Tobacco Control, HiAP, Environment, Peace, Equity, Sustainability) the push will alway be for more collaboration (coordination) of geopolitical jurisdictions, *government agencies, and between governments and private businesses (corporations) + corporate wealth.  All individuals are expected to understand that this is for their own good, regardless of where in the world they live, including in the USA.

*[i.e., focus on Local and Regional where in the USA, the States are primary levels of jursidiction on things not reserved to the federal government by the US Constitution],

This was also the request when the cause was to “prevent family violence” only then the preferred term was “coordinate” — Coordinated Community Response.” All terms will speak in collective (or “collectivist”) language. Individualism as a principle is throughout discouraged.  [Green font here just represents text added during post update Oct. 27]

In case the phrase or its acronym “HiAP” is unfamiliar, see the “infographic” to right, from the World Health Organization, also labeled as a tool for promoting HiAP at the Country level.  I’ll show it again below, larger.

Key concepts — consolidation of departments and agencies within government, and planned communities with not even a complete concept — just a single word “health” as the organizing factor.

Relevance to “FamilyCourtMatters” issues:

The immediately preceding post introduces my concerns about this topic, using “Big Tobacco” litigation (Public policy and economic impact)” under “health” rationale as compared with “Domestic Violence” (Child Abuse is related and parallel), something I had experienced and whose advocacy organization, both HHS and DOJ-funded, and others, I had researched (primarily posted on this blog).  After writing (but not publishing yet) that, I became engrossed in this aspect, especially after finding WHO citing to its involvement in a global treaty around tobacco (introduced 2003, signed by over 170 members or “signatories” – i.e., mostly countries — by 2005) as an example of why it should also lead setting the framework for HiAP — after all, it was experienced.

In that postSmoking Cessation/Tobacco Control Litigation I see is By Design GUARANTEED, (like Domestic Violence Prevention and Services) To Continue Incessantly. Meanwhile, a Wide Swath of Northern California Is Smoke-Filled and Lit Up, But Not by Tobacco. (October Local News and Blog Updates), (short-link ending “-7Lp”), which I plan to publish same day or within 24 hrs of this one,…

I discovered connections between major pharmaceutical (and other products) multinational corporation, its trust started only in 2007 (in Europe) but the company home base in New Jersey, USA — and meetings under the “Chatham House rule” (it said, “rules” but it seems there is only one — anonymity!) which is a connection to the Royal Institute of International Affairs (RIIA) in London. Which brings up the question, if we are to be globally aligned, and one country (the USA) doesn’t have a monarch, titles of nobility or a national (declared at least) religion, why would be be seeking to align one of our most expensive areas of public policy (i.e., “health”) with a country, formerly an empire, and to this day still characterized as a “kingdom” although with a queen instead?


If – hypothetically —  I were, from a position of authority (elected, appointed, or corporate, whether in the for-profit or not-for-profit sectors) to say over several years, and from a variety of platforms (each time referencing organizations or offices I held to underscore the authority of the message), such as a keynote speaker at a conference or university center, to say to Americans, that is U.S. Citizens, or (which is closer to the reality of networked organization communicating public policy themes), if I and my friends and colleagues… were, concurrently, repeatedly and openly, to say:

Hypothetical message/directive:

Everyone stop talking about legal rights and due process, justice as it relates to anything expressed in the U.S. Constitution, or state laws, as passed by the U.S. Congress or state legislatures (respectively), and instead, repeat after me:

“Health in All Policies”

…In fact, let’s not talk about laws at all — just policies, as enacted and implemented through the executive branch of governments, plural, of course in closest meaningful consultation with local, state, regional, national and international associations/NGOs working collaboratively. … From now on, when a conflict between law and policy comes up, policy wins every time.  When a geopolitical jurisdiction conflict comes up, regardless of the law, the argument, practice, or ideas originating in the larger body’s jurisdiction prevail and will become standard practice  — even if that’s not what either its or the smaller body’s law says (for example, federal vs. state).  From now on, right and wrong are no longer expressed in law, but in “policy.”

From now on, national sovereignty, and concern about it by any nation’s citizens, especially for the U.S.A. and its citizens = “bad.”  Global citizenship = “good, equitable, sustainable, fair and necessary for world peace (and the planet).**  And anyone who disagrees or protests is a lunatic/fringe element/conspiracy theorist, or _____(substitute other negative name-calling at will).  We allow freedom of expression, and value it — so they can talk, but we, the intelligent and reasonable, should not engage with such backwards nutcases.##

## The two sentences in blue weren’t in my original hypothetical, but after running across an OpEd and NY article using some of those terms (mocking the concept of “conspiracy theory” and applying certain labels to those in protest) — and having just been researching the organization being defended — I felt it appropriate to add.  A large part of public policy IS marketing it to the public; advertising, “PR.”  Part of PR is discrediting the competition, which here appears to be, using a different set of language, vocabulary and concepts to discuss common concerns….i.e., independence of thought, or reference to a different standard for reasoning and evaluation of public policy.  … Keep reading, I have examples….

From now on,  leave the complex thinking –including about your families and children’s educations, public schools, housing, transportation or energy infrastructure, etc.  — up to the experts, and go back to work funding them.  During your work, family, schooling or any leisure time, stay tuned in for any major changes in the current catechism…and what to think and talk about…”

**Interjection on the two-word phrase “Global citizenship” and logical corollaries:

In writing this, the phrase “global citizenship” slipped out so normally as a concept in common usage, that I didn’t at first consider how it implies but does not cite to a supreme or “sovereign” power over the entire planet.

Because the phrase and concept of “global citizenship” (unlike citizenship of known political States with their defined land and water masses) does not or cannot cite or refer to such a supreme or sovereign power with geographic/territorial authority over the whole planet (which I learned is key to the concept of “sovereign”) while also protesting allegiance to the same (warring nations, states, sovereign entities seeking to expand themselves) as the innate cause of war (and poverty, inequity, slavery and other human rights violations and social ills), the rationale for any means to achieve the concept of, and the ongoing use of the two-word phrase “global citizenship,” and corresponding allegiance to it, as a way of life or principle for assuming or assigning duties and responsibilities, however, fails.

Historically (especially post World War II) the call for global government by consensus as opposed to “national sovereignty” (which by definition comes with subjects or citizens attached…) comes from criticizing and attempting to distance all people (especially the more powerful, “developed” nations) from over-commitment to their own countries.  But, without an organized body politic which implies, historically, something “sovereign” and reigning supreme over all owned territories, there can’t be “citizenship.”


RELATED, PREVIOUSLY POSTED DISCUSSIONS: I’ve already blogged repeatedly over time about the concept of “functionalism” (David Mitrany, his involvement with the RIIA Royal Institute of International Affairs (US parallel might be the Council of Foreign Relations), (the RIIA, or “Chatham House” comes up again in the “Health as an Asset” context) and the incremental way of disemboweling, so to speak, or draining the innate power of governments — such as ours here, or the Brits, or the Germans, or the French, or the Spanish (the RIIA dating only to 1927, and it is in London) — by outsourcing it to trans-national bodies.  Or, within the USA, trans-state authorities, an early example of which would be the TVA (Tennessee Valley Authority) — as an example, of by persuasion, different states giving up some of their autonomy for a common geographic, regional good.

THIS ROUND, Fall 2017, having just used the word “global citizenship” almost without thinking, I went looking again for definition of “sovereign” and “citizen” and came across two Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (“SEP”) articles (one written in 2003, “substantively revised” 2016; the other in 2006, “substantively revised” 2017), which presented enough historical narrative to, I feel, communicate the concepts in a historic context well enough to explain my concerns.  (SEP “Citizenship” & “Sovereignty“)

From SEP on “Citizenship:”

Supporters of global democracy reject the conventional identification between demos, territory and citizenship. In their view, citizenship is not a set of practices and rights that need to be anchored in a particular demos defined by specific territorial boundaries. On the contrary, citizenship is ideally exercised in a multiplicity of ‘sites’, situated at different levels of governance: local, national, regional and global. Global democrats sketch a multilayered, global democratic order in which no single layer or site is dominant (Pogge 1992, 58, Young 2000, 266). This scheme {{scheme or sketch — which is it?}} implies a ‘vertical’ dispersal of power above and below existing sovereign states, which are stripped of their centrality. This would give less of an incentive for conflicts over power and wealth within and between states, “‘thereby reducing the incidence of war, poverty, and oppression’ and environmental degradation” (Kuper 2004, 30, quoting Pogge 1992, 102–105).  [[Citation: Leydet, Dominique, “Citizenship”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2017 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2017/entries/citizenship/]]

(I notice in the news, the word “democracy” is so often used as opposed to “republic” when referring to the USA also, and intents to help promote it internationally.  When I was young, in school, I do not remember pledging allegiance to the “democracy” of the United States of America, but to the “republic.”…Apparently “republic” along with “Republicans” (unless you’re one) is also a bad word…)

The SEP article on sovereignty spoke of a major turning point (at least in Europe) between religious wars and the concept of sovereign states as recent as 1647: “the Peace of Westphalia” (History.com reference) ending the Thirty Years’ War AND, separately (though obviously with religious overtones) an Eighty Years’ War between Spain and the Dutch. And of the role of Martin Luther and the Reformation in changing the concepts of temporal versus spiritual power at the time.

The SEP only came on-line in 2006; its’ About/History links are interesting. I’m including two screenprints (but small sized) here, just part of the same, to reference some of the grants and funding which helped make it happen.  I am off-ramping the discussion also (link below, near end of this section of post):

SEP Grants (NEH, NSF and others): Click image to enlarge

SEP funding – Click image to enlarge.

These articles and a consideration of the meanings of the two words “sovereign” (applied to “state,” or rulers of the states) and “citizenship” illuminate my post here, where I’m complaining as a United States citizen about being “ruled from afar,” not with my consent and not under representative government, by, basically, the World Health Organization WHO (and the WHO works with the UN), and about how reframing all government agencies at all levels under the concept of “health” diminishes the deterrent power of law to stop criminal, that is harmful and dangerous activities including murder, terrorism and terroristic threats to murder or kidnap, too much of which I know personally about also, within the USA and as the penal codes of the states refer to the individual states, within (for me), California.

Think about it: If there is an external body politic setting national policy for one of the most powerful countries in the world, with the approval and consent of its elected leadership, and incrementally switching loyalties from the national to the global (after having to swear allegiance to the Constitution when taking office!), then I feel we have a significant conflict of interest — and specifically with this named policy.

On-line Etymology Dictionary (which has changed its format since I last viewed — I like this one less (allows for less browsing of related words per page) — sovereign and sovereignty.  Notice centuries in which the usage apparently began (the website italicizes foreign words, I haven’t here after they were somehow deleted in transit):

sovereign (adj.)

early 14c., “great, superior, supreme,” from Old French soverain “highest, supreme, chief,” from Vulgar Latin *superanus “chief, principal” (source also of Spanish soberano, Italian soprano), from Latin super “over” (from PIE root *uper “over”). Spelling influenced by folk-etymology association with reign. Milton spelled it sovran, as though from Italian sovrano. Of remedies or medicines, “potent in a high degree,” from late 14c.

sovereign (n.) [<=same link]

late 13c., “superior, ruler, master,” from Old French soverain “sovereign, lord, ruler,” noun use of adjective meaning “highest, supreme, chief” (see sovereign (adj.)). Meaning “gold coin worth 22s 6d” first recorded late 15c.; value changed 1817 to 1 pound.

sovereignty (n.)

mid-14c., “pre-eminence,” from Anglo-French sovereynete, Old French souverainete, from soverain (see sovereign (adj.)). Meaning “authority, rule, supremacy of power or rank” is recorded from late 14c.; sense of “existence as an independent state” is from 1715.

And “citizen” or “citizenship” you can also read; the latter, only dates from about 1610:  “status, rights, privileges, and responsibilities of a citizen,” 1610s, from citizen + -ship.” The concept was coming about during the Reformation and times of religious and, with the religious of course, territorial wars in Europe. 

Regarding “sovereignty” and “citizens” — The quotations from Stanford Encyclopedia of Philsophy (and a few other places) and my related discussion (sic) I’ve moved to a new post: Changing (the) World, Changing (the) Words: Sovereignty, Circumscribing Sovereignty versus Global ‘Citizenship’ (the Unmentionable: then who is the Global ‘Sovereign’?). References: (case-sensitive short-link ending “-7MB” draft post started Oct. 14, 2017).

Another related one coming up soon: Before HiAP there was Agenda 21. A closer look at ICLEI-Local Governments for Sustainability USA, Inc. (1991ff, Boston MA legal domicile) (“-7N2,” post started 10/14/2017). {NOW HAS BEEN PUBLISHED…}

Similar means, different labeling. I spent a day to a day and a half transfixed on this information which again confirms my ongoing concerns about the speed and efficiency with which nonprofit entities can out-pace individuals dealing with their LOCAL situations and governments, when it comes to saturating countries with ideas originating at the global level.  The “Sovereignty/Citizenship” post mostly from its references provides a clarification of usage of the vocabulary to express ideas whose origins have a history closely linked with the history of modern states — and the United States of America.) might.

“Sovereign” means acting on its own and not really answerable to others; supreme and the like.  Where this can get complicated is that the government HERE is supposed to be answerable to its people, under the U.S. Constitution. On what basis does one resist a dictatorship, kingship, or oligarchy, other than that one doesn’t like it?  This country allegedly is NOT based on the divine right of kings (or queens) and doesn’t have a national religion.

We should be concerned because of the economic responsibilities (as related to protections) of being citizens of the USA and to determine whether or not we are dealing with an attempted substitute unifying religious concept calling itself secular.  The track record on upsides and downsides of religion and religious conflict (typically closely tied to a power including territorial struggle, as well as for control of the sexual activities, class status and reproductive process of women as breeders of future followers, workers, and contributors to the regime, religion, cause, etc.) membership, not to mention arbitrarily designating who are the faithful and who, the infidels with corresponding separate but NOT equal class status — ALL of which typically gets back to finances and power — and the religious beliefs unifying people in that struggle.

 

Continuing my and my highly-placed, powerfully-connected colleagues’ hypothetical quote:


We need want your spare time as volunteers and spare dollars donated voluntarily to on pre-approved causes (not to worry, it’s tax-deductible) — but you need NOT engage in debates, or bother with your “to-the-contrary” opinions expressed from any podium or platform, that is, any podium or platform we either do not already control, or could not easily out-finance, out-maneuver, and get to back down through campaigns to discredit the act of disagreement itself, or simply outlast through long-established economic dominance and revenue streams.

Hypothetically, still — In this situation, if it were written down and voiced in such strong words, probably, because of my position (as just described before the quote), dissemination and replication among colleagues and people further down on the wealth or office hierarchy, and ability to present this message by way of convincing media (graphics) for ease of distribution..[i.e., longstanding relationships with public relations firms, or the ability to hire some where I may not have had them already– although not having such relationships is unlikely in anyone already In a position of power and influence…] .would still happen, BUT at the risk of possible popular backlash — calling out protests, which could then although they could be characterized as alt-right, fringe, extremist, “hate” or other negative-value-ridden characterizations, would still expose the existence of the agenda to too many people and pose risk — until all infrastructures and control of implementation is in place and what people think of any policy, i.e., popular approval or disapproval, simply no longer matters.

Hypotheticals, “what-ifs,” are speculation. HiAP, “Health in All Policies,” was not communicated in such words,  But without question it has been communicated, popularized, and implemented.

So why not look at the reality of how it was communicated, and accept that at this point, without significant interruption, if cause were found and acted on for major interruption, it will continue to be implemented (and, in application, what it means in regards to the “unmentionables” I brought up above).  That’s primarily what this post is for.

This post shows where/who it (appears to have) come from and how it was communicated, and how and by whom planned for implementation “at the Country Level,” in a manner leaving the public who belatedly catches on to figure out which parts of the above hypothetical message were strategically omitted, avoiding more open confrontation on the “erosion of sovereignty and rule of law within nations, especially the U.S.A.,” while the concept is further disseminated and its institutionalization, the infrastructure, established for exercise at the country level, worldwide.  [I think in long sentences; no apologies!]

I am reporting as someone still, within the last half-year only, learning, but can still see how fast it was spread and with what synchronicity among NGOs, US Federal Agencies, associations whose membership is aimed at federal and state-level public health departments, i.e., places of financial power and influence (APHA.org, NACCHO.org), and — where else — in a state proud of its reputation for leading the pack in progressive policies (regardless of qualities) and leaving no quarter, or no stone unturned, for conservatives…

…a State, who, despite its large homeless population, still boasts about the size of its economy compared to, say, Brazil, and about whom, not too long ago, talk of “CalExit” to follow “Brexit” was being promoted, “the Golden State.”  …Although the color “gold” these days better describes of its forests, grasslands, and even urban areas, being on fire….


NACCHO, like APHA, Another 501©3s with Civil Servant Membership* Seeking to Influence Health Policy Nationwide:  

  • (*only voting members are active members, which is defined on the tax return as “health Department” at the city and county level or, if a state is implementing at that levels, the state health department too.)

Associations like this ease the transition from representative legislation, to coordinated implementation (bypassing the legislative process in principle…) across state lines representing, individually, targeted FUNCTIONAL DECISIONMAKERS BY CATEGORY (here, it’s HO — “Health Officers”) at whatever the TARGETED LEVEL OF GOVERNMENT (Here, it’s City and County).  Full organization title, below.

These organizations collectively are — they really seem to function as —  a type of “shadow government” basically below basic public consciousness, while the public is otherwise engaged by news headlines, recurring crises — many of which affect them personally and take major time to handle (for example, fires hurricanes, poverty, no safe drinking water (Flint, MI — Puerto Rico!!), shooting massacres at concerts (Las Vegas), theatres or other public places (including public schools), international news, ongoing fears from all of the above, and for relief from the obvious alarms these raise, also entertained and distracted — all for profit to the media providing both news and entertainment — as to their existence, one reason I keep calling attention to them on this blog. The associations also give their membership a sense of purpose or calling, presumably.

As I said above, the mentality is “leave the thinking to us…” when what we ought to be thinking deeply about, and ALL understand is how government operates — fiscally and financially, not to mention, how the nonprofit sector operates also.

APHA in its documents notes how one of its private-sector purposes is to strengthen health departments at the state level, as well as policymaking and public education.  I realize we need health departments.  But I ALSO realize that a private advertising wealth in the mid-1990s campaigned to expand them according to private purposes, and I do question some of those purposes based on (a) the means and (b) the results. (Lasker syndicates, NIH doubling the funds, attempting to set special privilege status for the National Cancer Institute, and so forth; recent 2017 blogging…)

Implementing Health in All Policies at the Local Level: Experiences from Local Health Departments
Developed by the National Association of County and City Health Officials  (NACCHO) with funding from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, this webinar discusses successful HiAP implementation strategies of three U.S. cities—Houston, Baltimore, and San Diego. For additional resources, visit the NACCHO’s webpage on Health in All Policies.

(I just dropped by the website and noticed a plan to reduce the size of the board by eliminating “at large” members):

The NACCHO Board of Directors is proposing changes to the organization’s bylaws to primarily reduce the number of At-large seats and therefore the size of the Board. Please find below links to the proposed bylaws changes, Frequently Asked Questions, and a Summary slide deck outlining the changes. Active members of NACCHO have until December 1 to provide comments on the changes, and will receive an email from NACCHO providing a link for members to submit comments. If you are an active member and have not received the email or would like more information to become an active member, please contact contact@naccho.org.

A “Circle of Circles” logo (with “Tobacco Control” on top left, that image below here and with orange borders to the right) hardly surprising on the website.  Membership is called “health departments” and over 3,000 claimed across the country.

“Circle of circles” (“Petri dish” icon) from NACCHO.

The statement “NACCHO comprises…health departments” reverses grammar (it’s common, but it’s still wrong) for the verb “comprises.”  It can’t be said in reverse that “the health departments comprise NACCHO” because that’s not true, but I believe that’s closer to the meaning of the word “comprise.” Also, technically speaking, the NACCHO membership are people in positions of authority over health departments — not the departments themselves, which by definition (i.e., “department” of something else) are subsidiary to a (City or County) government entity and are not each their own independent government entity. Go read any CAFR containing a health department, at this or at state level, and look for the organization chart near the front.

I went looking for backup on whether “comprise” is a transitive (takes a direct object) or intransitive (does not take a direct object, so would need the preposition “of” with it for an INdirect object).  While this seems simple enough to me (and is easier to see in some other languages where cases change more than English does), I see that (a) many dictionary sources don’t indicate “v.t.” or “v.i” any more (for verb transitive or verb intransitive), and instead try to explain it in examples — while giving conflicting types of examples (mixing both styles — with or without “of.”) The word comes from the past participle of “comprehend.” I just looked at four or five respectable (or at least well-known) on-line dictionaries, including OED which I THOUGHT used to indicate whether a verb was transitive or intransitive.  For example, a common synonym (? or listed as on) is “consists of.”  Notice how “the “of” naturally follows the word “consists” which indicates it’s INtransitive.  (Does no one learn to diagram sentences according to their parts in school any more?).

http://www.etymonline.com/word/comprise

Unbelievable.   If definitions can’t be stated in clear terms but ONLY examples, than the source defining something apparently lacks identifying details.  This came up (if you remember that far back) when I looked throughout a website (based at Harvard!!) “pgED.org” (where the “pg” seems to stand for “personal genetics”) which seemingly couldn’t get a concise definition of “epigenome…” Although in that instance, I think the circuitous speaking had a PR purpose (keeping people on the website longer clicking around for answers, and for promotion of services — they want people to volunteer (give informed consent to obtain) their personal genetic information for the cause.  Later on this page, another summary of HiAP (or its implementation strategies) uses the verb “progressing” as if it were transitive — which it isn’t.

Before annoyed readers start throwing spitballs and wadded paper (or simply tune out or walk out), I’ll cut this point short except to notice, it apparently grammar and usage makes a difference when it comes to patents — and can make the difference between whether infringement has or has not taken place, how the word “comprises” is used.  Not that they answer the direct/indirect usage issue:

URL visible on image / click to enlarge. This gives a first example using “comprise” with a direct object, then proceeds to give several more examples without one.

click to enlarge (change in historic usage)

Living Dictionary Online (Click to enlarge). References “Linking verb” + “transitive”

Patent Lens says grammar details matter..Click here for the page.  “Some applications use open-ended terms such as “comprising” or “which comprises”.  This means that the claim encompasses all the elements listed, but may also include additional, unnamed elements.”  or “consisting of” for includes only those elements listed…..”Some applications used “closed-ended” claim language, such as the phrase consisting of. The phrase “consisting of” means that the composition (or device, or method) has the recited elements (or steps) and no more.”

There seem to be questions of both meaning and usage argued (both sides) around the internet. It’s not just a matter of whether it’s used with or without a direct object, but when used in the passive, whether it’s “the whole is comprised of the parts” or vice versa.  Good grief.  This website (“stack exchange“) on says they refuse to answer because the question is so basic — its transitive. A comment on there links to more comments on “blow-hard” linguists (guess I’m one…) who are “always right”.  Seems to me there are better ways to describe an organization than to use terms which are being fought over and whose usage is unclear to so many!

Discover what makes NACCHO the organization it is today.

The National Association of County and City Health Officials (NACCHO) was founded in the 1960’s. Since its inception, NACCHO has sought to improve the public’s health while adhering to a set of core values: equity, excellence, participation, respect, integrity, leadership, science & innovation.

Today, NACCHO comprises nearly 3,000 local health departments across the United States. Together, we form an organization focused on being a leader, partner, catalyst, and voice for change for local health departments around the nation.

Aren’t local health departments supposed to express the voice of the people as spoken through their (state, or local) legislatures? Of course with federal funding, pass-through or otherwise.

 

Back to the “National Association of County and City Health Officers”…

Apparently NACCHO comes with (or at least is promoting) its own related (?only a tax return or financial statement would know for sure) a “Foundation for Public Health” which presumbly is a single, not multiple 501©3 with a legal domicile somewhere in the US.  See rectangular image.  I also see NACHHO is posting “Annual Reports” if you try hard enough to find them (down a few menu levels) — but no tax returns.  The web style seems to be substituting very large pictures with little info to (distract from?) lack of actual verbal — or financial — content:

(NACCHO Annual Reports page, top. All show, not much info there.)

NACCHO annual repts page, bottom (plus some of sidebar). Interesting it says “2015-& 2016” because latest tax returns I found were for an earlier year.

Briefly (it takes only a few moments to look; a few more to take and upload the screenprints, and I’m sure, not too long to read. I even posted NACCHO tax returns, which is more than they did….The smaller images with blue borders refer to the new foundation.

Org. Website references to EIN# 472127796 (not shown on its or NACCHO’s websites) Fndtn for Public Health, created only in 2015 by NACCHO (EIN#621246663) which is sole member of it and direct controlling entity.

Org. Website references to EIN# 472127796 (not shown on its or NACCHO’s websites) Fndtn for Public Health, created only in 2015 by NACCHO (EIN#621246663) which is sole member of it and direct controlling entity.

Org. Website references to EIN# 472127796 (not shown on its or NACCHO’s websites) Fndtn for Public Health, created only in 2015 by NACCHO (EIN#621246663) which is sole member of it and direct controlling entity.

Org. Website references to EIN# 472127796 (not shown on its or NACCHO’s websites) Fndtn for Public Health, created only in 2015 by NACCHO (EIN#621246663) which is sole member of it and direct controlling entity. Notice WHO “international health policy internship” in Switzerland.

 

What is the mission of The Foundation for the Public’s Health?

We link the humanitarian aspirations of donors with critical needs in public health.

What is the relationship between The Foundation and NACCHO?

The Foundation is a legally separate entity from NACCHO. The Foundation is an established 501(c)(3) organization with its own board and its management structure. NACCHO is The Foundation’s sole member, which grants NACCHO’s Board of Directors certain rights, such as the right to approve long-term plans and the right to approve and remove members of The Foundation’s Board of Trustees.

Predictably, “Foundation for the Public’s Health IS a spinoff AND officially “related” (Sched-R reported) entity from NACCHO which, while not accumulating huge assets, is [NACCHO is] still primarily government-supported, and taking in over $20M a year (most of it gov’t supported).  Its major expenses (I looked at the latest year shown — which is only FY2014; FY2015 not uploaded here yet) apart from salaries ($10M+) were “Other Expenses” ($13M) and if you look at Pt. IX, the Statement of Expenses, nearly or about 1/6th are “Line 11g” i.e., Professional services, non-employees.. ($3.8M of $24.3M+). Not to mention also $1.1M on Occupancy and $1.4M on Travel” plus under Line 24e (Ln.24 near bottom of Expenses page is “Other”), over $3M on “MRC Sponsor Fees” meaning – ???? Who knows? I see that they declined to post the salaries on the form provided.

Most of these “Line 11g” expenses, which if over 1/10th (again, the proportion here is high) must be reported on a Schedule O) were going to “Business Consulting” — i.e., mostly unidentified others.  Some may be among the Part VIIB independent subcontractors paid over $100K (that year).

Part VIIB has room for five entries, anything over that is not shown the public.  They reported 9 total.  I’ll post an image below this next table of tax returns for NACCHO.  I’d post one for the Foundation for Public’s Health — but there seems to be none.  It filed a postcard Form 990-N for FY2014 only, (so where’s for FY2015? It’s now over one year (1 ¼ yrs) past fiscal year-end for 2015) per the IRS, declaring income under $50K. Of this, the Form 990 for NACCHO says $14K+ came as its only grant for the year — to its related entity.  Both are in Washington, D.C.


Total results: 3Search Again.

ORGANIZATION NAME ST YR FORM PP TOTAL ASSETS EIN
National Association of County and City Health Officials DC 2015 990 50 $8,382,723.00 52-1426663
National Association of County and City Health Officials DC 2014 990 37 $7,416,156.00 52-1426663
National Association of County and City Health Officials DC 2013 990 35 $7,057,469.00 52-1426663

990-N Postcard 2014 (the only one shown so far); EIN# 472127796 Fndtn for Public Health, created “in 2015” by NACCHO (EIN#621246663)

Form 990 FY2014 NACCHO (EIN#621246663) shows avoidance of filling in Pt VIIA here (showing officer & highest paid employee salaries

Form 990 FY2014 NACCHO (EIN#621246663) Showing Pt VIIB Indep Contractors — note the main type of services used, and that PHI (Public Health Institute of Oakland, CA (significant player in HiAP California, as is known by others involved)

Form 990 FY2014 NACCHO (EIN#621246663) Showing Sched O detail to its (about 1/6th of total expenses) “Line 11g Other” expenses (non-employees) not in the usual categories itemized on Form990 form — “Business Consulting.”

 

 

HiAP, “Health in All Policies” as an organizing principle for government agencies at all levels, and for regulation and legislation affecting them — and ultimately, the taxpayers who support them — is being promoted without the fine print on the consequences to the rule of law, due process, or anything much. It’s all positive promotions, and, unlike drugs which under the Food, Drug, and Cosmetics Act (Title 21 U.S.C.) are controlled as to their advertising, not even a fast-spoken, or very fine print, disclaimer as to potential negative side effects on individuals. Looks like there’s no “FDA” for the World Health Organization, or UN……just as there is no SEC (“Securities Exchange Commission”) for the government entities.

Who knows, sooner later maybe the real crimes will be disagreeing with policies or practices which aren’t even expressed in the law yet. In effect, this crime will be called non-aligned thinking, i.e., “thought crimes,” or independent thought.

“Health as an Asset,” “Thought Leadership” at ABIS,* and Rutgers’ New, more Globalist Image:

In the post (in draft early Oct. 2017) from which this came, another public/private membership group (“academy,” – the “Academy for Business in Society”) based in Brussels, but involving a large corporation based in New Jersey, in fact, (although the trust named after it was based in Europe) had a conference involving — what else — “thought leadership.”

In 2010-2011, ABIS, Rutgers University** and the Johnson & Johnson Corporate Citizenship Trust agreed to convene a series of thought leadership meetings around the advancement of health related decision-making in the global context. Over time, this became commonly known as “Advancing Health Decision-Making”, and has recently evolved its name to “Health as an Asset”.  [https://www.abis-global.org/projects/health-as-an-asset]

Forest Whitaker with UN logo shown at Rutgers IIP website.

Excellent acting, noble causes, notable accomplish-ments. All I miss, is as posted at this public, (NJ state university) website any reference, regarding a US citizen, to the United States of America, or any commitment to its constitution, rules or laws, inbetween receiving honors from the UN, UNESCO, Boston University and a Knighthood from the French Government and pushing “Sustainable Development Goals” both through UNESCO — and through the nonprofit named after him in California….Mentioned here after I noticed the ABIS (Academy of Business In Society) — a Brussels-based entity, with the J&J Citizenship Trust (also based abroad, although J&J isn’t) conferencing 2010-2011 with or at Rutgers..

I remember Rutgers’ UNESCO declarations (from earlier FamilyCourtMatters posts)

**Rutgers is “the state university of New Jersey” (it is part of the public university system funded by the state of NJ).   FamilyCourtMatters.org here,  in 2016 reported on its volunteering to become an international UNESCO outpost by way of its International Institute for Peace ([<==website] associated with the well-known actor Forest Whitaker [<==IIP website, “People”] and an “Edward Charles” foundation (which initially sponsored …) and a name-changing nonprofit, now the Whitaker Peace and Development Initiative [website] based on the other side of the country, i.e., California, which I’d discovered tracking something else in Northern California).

[Related post titles from my Table of Contents given, below in table format, from July & August 2016]

Rutgers is well-known, but not exactly among the prominent national state universities, so perhaps going more global would help its image? And being in Newark NJ and not far from NYC, it’s definitely (so it says) one of the most diverse “national state universities” whatever that means….

But the ABIS “thought-leaders” comes under “Health as an Asset” not “Health in all Policies” so I’m discussing and following up on it [which gets “verrrry interesting…”] elsewhere.

However, if there are self-declared thought-leaders, then who is commanded to follow, that is, to quit thinking, period, and join the cult?  (I’d say “quit thinking independently,” but that without independence, how would it even qualify as thinking?), and on what basis should anyone be relegated without his/her knowledge, to “thought-follower” by far-away organizations in international relationships?  In reality these are attempts to relegate large groups of people by demographics, “en masse” to thought-follower status.

And what if no one is following voluntarily –at what point can people be forced to, if they are not accepted into the “thought-leaders” social spheres or round-tables?

I believe the answer is, indirectly, gradually — incrementally — and through popularizing positive-sounding phrases, acronyms, or promotional sound-bytes — like “Health in All Policies” —  which distract from such an agenda.

(Post titles referencing Rutgers, the WPDI, IIP, and sponsoring foundation. I found several posts from July & August, 2016; it made a serious impression on me:

Post#
(Yr 2016)
2016 Posts (only), in Chrono Order. Publish Date
32 Re-Organizing The World through International Institutes, Strategies, Dialogues, Peacemaking and Programs Targeting Fragile Families, Communities — and Countries…* July 22, 2016
33 UNESCO’s IIP@Rutgers|”Partners” + ISD and the Strong Cities Network (Reorganizing the World through International Strategic Institutes, cont’d.) July 22, 2016
34 Do You Know Your Social Science PolicySpeak? Can You Name Some University Centers|Key Professionals |BIG Foundation Sponsors|Related Networked Nonprofits| and A Basic Timeline Since at least The Moynihan Report? July 26, 2016

and, same year, but in August, and continued references to Rutgers in its efforts to go more “global” and to the International Institute of Peace, although not always the primary topic of the post:

Post#
(Yr 2016)
2016 Posts (only), in Chrono Order. Publish Date
40 What is an NGO?  Is the International Institute for Peace, that UNESCO affiliate at Rutgers an “NGO”?  In fact, What is Rutgers? (See State of NJ’s–and Rutgers’ — CAFRs) August 22, 2016
41 Agenda 21, Lawsuit AGAINST| Fiscal Agents FOR |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) August 23, 2016
42 Case in Point, NEVER skip the Business 501(c)3  Entity Lookups, and Watch the “Fiscal Agent” organizations! (UNESCO, Edward Charles Foundation, Fiscal Agent to “FreedomAdvocates” and, apparently, the Stars (post begun 7/3/2016) August 25, 2016
43 Politics, Governors, Attorney-Generals and The Port Authority of NY/NJ (The Downside of Public/Private Partnerships) – SeeAlso “NextCity,” and another UNESCO “Name It and Claim it” Project in Detroit* Sept. 5, 2016

This foundation is where I discovered the Whitaker Institute, and from there, the Rutgers/UNESCO-affiliated institute.  As readers know well by now (and about anyone else I know — friends near and far, casual strangers) I have a “read the 990s” policy when understanding a group comes up.  What led to me looking up this group was the administrator of Red Herring Alert in Minnesota (at a time we were conversing regularly as a result of the Grazzini-Rucki runaway teens — found teens – reunification ordered — multiple felony count criminal cases instituted — jail the mother, jail anyone who may have supported the mother, etc. — situation (as reflected in earlier 2016 posts).  Apparently she’d picked up the term “Agenda 21” to what I was describing in different words, and urged me to contact the Rosa Koire of “Behind the Green Mask” and “Democrats Against Agenda 21,” who was living within driving distance.  Two nonprofits were involved, so I looked them both up.

One of them (not Rosa Koire’s) was utilizing Edward Charles Foundation for a fiscal agent, which led to the realization that the lawsuit and the tag-teaming AGAINST that cause might very well be, instead, fund-raising FOR the cause.  Not the first time such things have happened in politics… The foundation is based in Beverly Hills and at first had just two officers (unpaid); it was started by ” in excess of 2%” contributions (a designation on “Schedule of Support” pages) and, like another group (come to think of it) I’ve blogged extensively, “Inquiring Systems, Inc.” specializing in being a fiscal agent for miscellaneous projects.

But I wouldn’t have known without looking at the tax returns.

A fresh search for the Form 990s. The fiscal year ends June, so the latest tax return shown there is only FY2014…It’s been around since only 2009…

Misc. “Edward Charles Foundation” Form 990 “Officers and Directors” page. Kent E. Seton (entertainment lawyer? I DNR exactly) is paid $100K for about half-time. I don’t want to duplicate effort — see existing post for more info (the tax returns do not make sense; have internal inconsistencies, and as I recall and from a very brief (skimmed) look again today, don’t “smell” right…).

 

Post “#43” for 2016 in the Table of Contents excerpts above came from my attempts at the time to locate in a NJ CAFR (“Comprehensive Annual Financial Report”–the format designated for government entities– if you’re new to this blog…) involving Rutgers, any reference (i.e., fiscal accountability for) this IIP as an institute.  Prominent reference to the Port Authority of NY/NJ came up.  Those who remember some of the background of the World Trade Towers and 9/11/2001 will probably also remember that this Port Authority (spanning two states) was dealing with that property.  “Good stuff to know.”

These same posts from my TOC in image format, and some detail from (I believe it’s #33) one of them on Rutgers’ GAIA promotion (two of each).  Just so you know, when I may sound like I’m talking off the top of my head (in that quip about Rutgers going for a more global image as a university), many times (I like to think most times) usually I’m not, but instead remembering something previously researched.

I don’t always go back and look it up, but this time, I did. “For your viewing convenience…”

Excerpts from one of the above regarding Rutgers center started in 2010-2011, about the same time as the International Institute for Peace; these are my writing except where marked as a quote (within the red borders):

(excerpt from my FamilyCourtMatters post, summer 2016, re: UNESCO — portion in blue refers to the International Institute for Peace)

(Excerpt from 2016 FamilyCourtMatters post)



Again, THIS post title & shortlink:Post title and shortlink: HiAP (HEALTH, not LAW*, in All Policies) Coordinated from Afar, Applied Locally, including throughout the USA. (case-sensitive shortlink ends “-7LY”) (shortlink will prevail while title may have different versions over time).

*by “Law” in the title, (an alternate word might be “Justice” but it’s so over-used as to become meaningless, and “not the Rule of LAW, and “Due Process” or “representative government” (etc.) have too many words. I’ll explain more below..


“HiAP” talk is a dodge for talking openly about the problems WHO (the World Health Organization) seems to have with respecting national boundaries and constitutions, and representative government, specifically within the USA.  I.e., the health paradigm as leverage to transform government structures (at ALL levels) is more likely to be consented to, or considered “good” than talking openly about intents to simply alter government, but without going to the people in the various countries and admitting this agenda, so citizens might say yes or no via their elected representatives to the recommended changes.

WHO while known by name and reputation in general is far off, and so lofty and far-reaching an organization (and has been around so long), who is going to challenge, or even investigate, its operations?

I barely did, until I caught wind of the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control  as a WHO-mediated treaty not too long ago, and started considering whether we really want to trade national sovereignty, representative government, and/or rule of law for something much more vague, and which had already been — it seems — decided by bodies in which we have no direct representation, nor are we encouraged to. By this time I had already become somewhat jaundiced (more than skeptical) about the Tobacco Control legislation and what happened with the funds generated from it, within the USA, as my posts reflect. Again, I read tax returns, which, having seen what’s on so many of them, accounts for much of the “jaundiced” stance. I could see from this “Convention” that signatories to it as a treaty, were obliged to promulgate certain kinds of legislation at the national, regional and local levels — meaning within the member states, as in the USA as a member of WHO…. or they were in violation of an international treaty!

I reported this recently, and I reported “HiAP,” several months earlier when I first ran across it (belatedly for when it actually started in California — 2010) and now see from another WHO “Framework for promoting HiAP at the Country Level” that this Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (2005) is cited as evidence of successful HiAP implementation in the US.  The document (a simplified statement for communication/public relations purposes obviously) is dated January 2014 — that’s over three, and nearly four years ago.

Here’s an annotated screenshot.  The source url is visible within the screenshot:

Then again, that’s the general purpose of international NGOs with regional leadership plans for the planet.


And the USA is the largest contributor to WHO.

Assessed contributions 

Assessed contributions are the dues countries pay in order to be a member of the Organization. The amount each Member State must pay is calculated relative to the country’s wealth and population.

Voluntary contributions

WHO’s Programme Budget is financed through a mix of assessed and voluntary contributions. Voluntary contributions can come from Member States (in addition to their assessed contribution) or from other partners. In recent years, voluntary contributions have accounted for more than three quarters of the Organization’s financing.

Assessed contributions have declined as an overall percentage of the Programme Budget and have, for several years, accounted for less than one quarter of the Organization’s financing. The balance is mobilized through voluntary contributions.

However, assessed contributions remain a key source of financing for the Organization, providing a level of predictability, helping to minimize dependence on a narrow donor base, and allowing resources to be aligned to the Programme Budget.

WHO assessed contributions are due and payable as of 1 January from all WHO Member States and Associate Members (currently 194 Member States and 2 Associate Members). Where the total annual assessed contribution for a Member State is USD 200,000 or greater, that Member’s contributions are assessed half in United States dollar and half in Swiss francs, otherwise, contributions are assessed in United States dollars only. WHO accepts Voluntary Supplementary Assessed Contributions (VAC).

Member States that wish to contribute to VAC are encouraged to do so and advised to make payments to the bank accounts included in the invoice indicating ‘Supplementary AC’ in the payment advice.

I’d read about the USA as the primary funder of WHO elsewhere and went to document it from its own website.

WHO kindly provided its Sept 30, 2017 AC (Assessed Contributions) statement of accounts of member countries in pdf format, which anyone (with a large enough magnifying glass) might be able to read, in spreadsheet form.  The US is shown on page 8 of 9 (bottom) of this spreadsheet squished to 11X8″ page format (or so it appears).  I can’t even read the column headings as presented.  If we then zoomed in to read the column headings, they couldn’t be viewed all at once.

I did not shrink the image at all in uploading, and this is the largest size image the post will hold… I used a built-in magnifying tool to get as much info. as was annotated, but no overview of (basic comparative look at) the numbers is possible from what WHO provided there with the naked eye.  Individual member assessments may be seen better — but this eliminates the element of single-view comparison.

Another (2017) chart shows relative percents; I’ve annotated to show that the USA (by contrast with ANY other member state) pays, assessed amounts (which doesn’t include potential paid Voluntary contributions  (this time assessment) 22% of the total.  Next largest contributor — Japan.

WHO document (source url on the image), this is one page of several, showing total for time period (see doc’t title). Click image to enlarge.

So HiAP the acronym, referring to “Health in All Policies” the “sound-bite,” epitomizes the intent to substitute governing paradigms (principles) from how they are now written, expressed in law, applicable by jurisdiction, and encoded in practices which for their authority must refer to law and least as to laws appropriating funding for them, that is, from a place where basis for authority can be identified TO underneath the broad-based banner of “health,” and in this manner undermining and discouraging talk, particularly in one of the more powerful countries in the world, the USA, of our own organizing principles of government.

I can see the appeal of taking a six-letter word in English (“h.e.a.l.t.h.”) to simply substitute for and replace key concepts underlying the existence of this country and expressing its interest in some of the key concepts of life itself — among which liberty is a BIG deal.  “Out of sight, out of mind…” seems to be the general idea.  Rather than argue that we can’t afford them, a replacement concept is put forward.


My Soapbox Moment, this time, will be at the bottom of the post..but I hope will make better sense of the position I’m taking on HiAP, and why sounding an alert on it.

“Health In All Policies” (“HiAP”):  

Health in All Policies (HiAP) is an approach to public policies across sectors that systematically takes into account the health implications of decisions, seeks synergies, and avoids harmful health impacts in order to improve population health and health equity. It improves accountability of policymakers for health impacts at all levels of policy-making. It includes an emphasis on the consequences of public policies on health systems, determinants of health and well-being. [Eighth Global Conference on Health promotion, Helsinki (Finland), 2013]

Now there’s a “Global Network for HiAP” launched in May 2017, in at least a few countries, for the purpose of institutionalizing this approach:

From a WHO page… Notice that “Universal Health Coverage” is half the equation, mentioned the other half “Sustainable Development Goals” which would have more innate “curb appeal.” Also notice that the verb “progressing” which doesn’t take a direct object (it’s an INtransitive verb) has been used improperly. That’s grammatically aggressive (questionable), don’t you think?

 

I looked at “Health in All Policies” “Health as an Asset” and “Health as a Human Right.”  

The HiAP was so blatantly coordinated from WHO + the EU on down, I’m showing it here on a separate page.  What was found under “Health as an Asset” is also fascinating, and that info I’ve left on the originating post (Oct. 11, 2017).

I first encountered and tracked HiAP back to the first reference (Finland presidency of the European Union in 2006) fairly quickly followed by an Executive Order (2010) by California Governor Jerry Brown, when looking at the Center for Cities and Schools at UC Berkeley in a series of posts this past spring.

This is progressive undermining of local AND national rule of law, pushing for regional (within nations as large as the USA especially — which is contrary to our Constitution — and global regions) through coordinated public relations campaigns at some of the highest power levels around.

This time around, I found HiAP reference in many places (shown on this post) and by many organizations — it seems to have been a chord struck (by whom — it seems, WHO, the World Health Organization, which should be understood in its relationship to the UN also) and sympathetic vibrations / overtones harmoniously organized such that any different tune, note, or priorities would seem to be going against the whole.

As promoted (and I have been looking at HOW and THROUGH WHOM it’s been promoted), this sounds more like dressing up an ignobleand illicit purpose — one world government, global control over local populations and taxation WITHOUT representation — with a vague, over-reaching and in many ways subjective (could be interpreted many different ways) concept such as “health” to replace what some of us may still remember — as an organizing principle for government to which founders of the USA consented – “ALL men (generic) endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, among which [“including but not limited to…”] are LIFE, LIBERTY and the PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS — substitutes this definition of “Health,”for “Life” (the words are not identical although if health sinks to low, there is no life left)  eliminates the other two concepts  (liberty, and in effect, choice).  As to health, it also sticks the public with the bill for a global infrastructure, while making such decisions in places the average person has no real input into.

Declaration of Independence Rough draft (Brackets = added, in final; italics = not in final),  National Archives Version: (Transcript, only first paragraphs + certain extra points quoted. I added paragraphing for easier reading, however…).  Also found, with other documents on another source (American History from Revolution to Reconstruction and beyond) (pre-World War I) with further tabs to documents and periods of US history, actually a project from a professor at the University of Groningen in the Netherlands, starting with a scanned booklet from “American Information Agency” http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/documents/1776-1785/the-final-text-of-the-declaration-of-independence-july-4-1776.php

Describing European-(The Netherlands-)based project where I also found the final text of the Declaration of Independence, although the surrounding quote was copied from the US national archives (on-line version; link provided above).

[I added the paragraphs and any other emphases…]

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,

–That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

–Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

(4th point): He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

Selections from other points, starting with the tenth point:

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:…

 


Wikipedia dates introducing the phrase “Health in All Policies” to the 2006 Finish Presidency of the EU but says it was “in the spirit of the (Ottawa) declaration of Alma-Ata, which took place in the capital of Kazakhstan. Well, it says:

First used in Europe during the Finnish presidency of the European Union (EU), in 2006, with the aim of collaborating across sectors to achieve common goals. It is a strategy to include health considerations in policy making across different sectors that influence health, such as transportation, agriculture, land use, housing, public safety, and education.[1][2] It reaffirms public health’s essential role in addressing policy and structural factors affecting health, as articulated by the Ten Essential Public Health Services,[3] and it has been promoted as an opportunity for the public health sector to engage a broader array of partners.[1]

Overview[editThe 1978 World Health Organization (WHO) declaration of Alma-Ata was the first formal acknowledgment of the importance of intersectoral action for health.[4] The spirit of Alma-Ata was carried forward in the Ottawa Charter for Health Promotion (adopted in Ottawa in 1986), which discussed “healthy public policies” as a key area for health promotion.[5]

I missed that 1978 conference, probably because of where it was held — in a city then under USSR control, in fact under such control until 1997.  (3 images from Wiki; but the quote is on Ottawa Charter, 1986):

Declar. of Almaty in Kazakhstan at 1978 International Conf. on Primary Health Care.[Wiki]

Declar. of Almaty in Kazakhstan at 1978 International Conf. on Primary Health Care.[Wiki]

Declar. of Almaty in Kazakhstan at 1978 International Conf. on Primary Health Care.[Wiki]. Note: New International Economic Order (link active on wiki site) was to replace the Bretton Woods one, which prioritized developed countries, like the U.S. 1970s…Notice (orange lines near bottom of image) “HEALTH EQUITY was to be used as a concept to better equalize (become less “unacceptable”) politically, socially and economically. It’s really a political platform, using “health inequity” as the pivot point or leverage.

The Ottawa Charter for Health Promotion is the name of an international agreement signed at the First International Conference on Health Promotion, organized by the World Health Organization (WHO) and held in OttawaCanada, in November 1986.[1]It launched a series of actions among international organizations, national governments and local communities to achieve the goal of “Health For All” by the year 2000 and beyond through better health promotion. … The thirtieth WHO World Health Assembly, held in 1977, had highlighted the importance of promoting health so that all the international citizens had an “economically productive” level of health by the year 2000. Further, a localised European taskforce developed a strategy for health promotion in the WHOEuropean Region.    ||| ….

[Still Quoting from Ottawa Charter Wiki] The basic strategies for health promotionwere prioritized as:

  • Advocate: Health is a resource for social and developmental means, thus the dimensions that affect these factors must be changed to encourage health.
  • Enable:Health equity must be reached where individuals must become empowered to control the determinants that affect their health, such that they are able to reach the highest attainable quality of life.
  • Mediate: Health promotion cannot be achieved by the health sector alone; rather its success will depend onthe collaboration of all sectors of government (social, economic, etc.) as well as independent organizations (media, industry, etc.)

Isn’t that always the goal?  Consolidate, centralize sectors, including public and private.

HiAP is built on the rationale that health is determined by multiple factors outside the direct control of the health care sector, such as education, income, and the conditions in which people live, work, and play.[2][6] Decisions made in other sectors can positively or negatively affect the determinants of health.[1]HiAP is an approach to policy making in which decision-makers in other sectors routinely consider health outcomes, including benefits, harms, and health related-costs.[1]

HiAP has also been described as an essential component of primary health care.[7]

Wiki goes on to list progress on implementation made by various countries.  Look at the entry for France — focus on Cancer:

With the goal of implementing a global strategy to fight cancer, France launched the Cancer Plan in 2003. One of its main objectives was to reduce cancer mortality by 20% in 5 years, by establishing goals that involved the participation of multiple sectors.[2] Evaluation of the plan in 2008 revealed that although progress was made in some areas, several of the goals were not met. Among the weaknesses of the plan, was the lack of consideration of social inequalities and access to health care and an ineffective coordination of patient care.[15] To address the deficiencies of the 2003 plan and continue with its implementation, the French Government launched the Cancer Plan 2009-2013 in November 2009.[16]

For USA – Federal (ref. to the Affordable Care Act) and State (California — only — is mentioned, and this was started by Executive Order, too) and for ‘Local’ only SF and Los Angeles are mentioned.  Well, that’s Wiki — and that’s California.  Shown in two separate images:

It is being put into effect, too. HiAP from WHO:

2013 Helsinki statement on HiAP as a framework for country action:

Click image to enlarge, or here for the website (as of upload date).

Who Infographic (found nearby)

Source: WHO Training Manual for HiAP “Infographic.” Click image to enlarge. Notice at bottom: “Health is the driver” and at the top “Health requires…. all sectors work together…” and a collective set of conditions, to re-organize society, throughout. (image is unusually long and looks like it might have been a hanging banner for a conference…

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

HiAP from the American Public Health Association (formed in 1872 and promotes: pressing government to accept science-based policies, and public education on what’s healthy.

(APHA.org)

I notice HiAP is providing coaching for governments (along this line) and in featuring it, cited to California and the Public Health Institute (a major, LARGE 501©3 in the SF Bay Area, in fact as I recall, Oakland).

I have more than one image for APHA.  Have probably posted on it before:

APHA on HiAP, annotated. click image to enlarge.

APHA reveals its longstanding (globalist) WHO and PAHO tendencies, and org. in all 50 states — and 4 Regions (N&S California, NY Metro + D.C.) for more leverage..

I’m looking in 2017, but APHA finds no memorable events to report since passage of Affordable Care Act… (All downhill from here with a Republican in the White House??…).Notice 1990s, Tobacco” and “Clinton health reform plan”

APHA memorable events viewed Oct. 2017. See 1995, 1999, and 2010.

HiAP promotion from HHS/CDC (i.e., US federal agency): I’ll start with the circular logo (although their webpage doesn’t).  The “Circle” theme shows up repeatedly in federal agency program descriptions:

CDC’s website, HiAP page (BIG graphic, SMALL print and (not shown) links to other organizations / entities promoting the same.

On CDC’s HiAP page, opposite “Resources.” Notice “Tobacco-Free Living” is at the top. Read the various labels…

“Silly me” for picking this information one entity at a time off basic Google search — because the US DHHS CDC website on HiAP (which I was getting to, in search-results order from large to small (global to local) promotion) — simply put many of the links on its website in explanation — “everyone’s doing it, so are we.  It must be good — (peer pressure, basically):

 

Resources:

 

Health in All Policies Resource Center

The Health in All Policies Resource Center provides resources and tools that support a collaborative approach to health promotion that recognizes the importance of including health considerations when making policy decisions.

Health in All Policies: A Guide for State and Local Governments
Developed by the American Public Health Association , the Public Health Institute , and the California Department of Public Health  with funding from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, this guide is geared towards state and local government leaders who want to use cross-sector collaboration to promote healthy environments. For additional resources, visit the American Public Health Association’s webpage on Health in All Policies.

Health in All Policies: Strategies to Promote Innovative Leadership
Developed by Association of State and Territorial Health Officials  with funding from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, this toolkit is intended to help public health leaders promote HiAP as an approach to policymaking and program development.

Health in All Policies (HiAP): Framework for Country Action
Developed by the World Health Organization to serve as a “starter’s kit” for applying HiAP in decision-making and implementation at national and subnational levels, this framework can be easily adapted for use in different country contexts and at the regional and global levels.

Implementing Health in All Policies at the Local Level: Experiences from Local Health Departments
Developed by the National Association of County and City Health Officials  (NACCHO) with funding from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, this webinar discusses successful HiAP implementation strategies of three U.S. cities—Houston, Baltimore, and San Diego. For additional resources, visit the NACCHO’s webpage on Health in All Policies.

Resource Center for Evidence-Based Prevention and Cross-Sector Approaches

{{“HiAP” is part of this context}} Developed by the National Association of County and City Health Officials  {{NACCHO}} with funding from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, this resource center serves as a “one-stop-shop” for population-based public health tools and resources including the National Prevention Strategy, the Community Guide, Healthy People 2020, and Health in all Policies and offers guidance for integrating the resources into a uniform approach for achieving health and wellness.

National Prevention Strategy Implementation Toolkit
Developed by the Association of State and Territorial Health Officials  with funding from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, this toolkit provides state and territorial leadership teams with examples of how states and their partners are already working towards achieving the vision and recommendations of the National Prevention Strategy.

 

“SOAPBOX MOMENT” content: Why “Health” as an organizing principle is dangerous to one’s health, and to limits by way of law on governmental tyranny.  For one, HEALTH Departments are part of government entities that the public is to subsidize.

Our subsidizing ANYTHING governmental should come with accountability, and the ability to track usage, as well as a voluntary, not grudging, provision of user interfaces where this accountability may happen.

Significantly, the US DOJ doesn’t have one.  Significantly, the one the US DHHS has (TAGGS) is impressive, at first glance, until one realizes how inoperable it is –and it doesn’t pre-date 1994 or 1995, when many of the major organizations setting current policy were being set up.  For tax returns, most databases I’ve seen barely go back to 1999 or 2000.  With significant policy having been driven into the private nonprofit realm MUCH earlier (but even more extensively so 1996 forward) this means that research would have to be done piecemeal.

UNIVERSITY CENTERS, including UNIVERSITY CENTERS that spawn nonprofit after nonprofit, and those that never bother to — these are funded by the US Public’s work and life energies in a major way — yet we can’t track funding to and from them in any reasonable way, and would have to hire people to do it thoroughly, or organize an army of volunteers — while the federal government is itself intent on commandeering volunteer time through “CNCS” an “Teach for America” and other ways which continue to subsidize the nonprofit sector not just with tax-exemption, but also with volunteers.

These untrackable areas are where policy is being set to further burden and in my opinion, oppress individuals, locally, depriving them of bona fide representative government and knowledge of how to stay clear of violating laws when, as to the family courts especially, the “law” is based on relationship and child development theories….. infused with “Federal Designer Family” beliefs/religion dating at least back to the 1960s and probably in an intent to counter (not expand) the Civil Rights Acts.



I have personal experience in dealing with “health” (as in healthy relationships, etc.) as the dominant concept when the immediate and obvious danger locally is living with violence, threats of violence, threats to commit crimes, commission of crimes going unprosecuted, and attempting to navigate a life around the same.  Some of this narrated in my recent “About Holidays/Personal Backdrop” post.

This was driven in good part by private 501©3s (nonprofits) working with university schools of social work — as to domestic violence.  The Greenbook, the Greenbook Initiative, with its many participants, and key players given high respect (though not having been elected by those whose life-and-death options the policies were guaranteed to negatively impact BY SUBSTITUTING behavioral health models for simple accountability under the law to cease from engaging in criminal or misdemeanor assaults or battering (or other forms of violence for which laws in the state penal codes against it exist).

For years I have read about, studied, and tracked funding for the involved parties (NCJFCJ, FVPF now “Futures,” PCADV, DAIP, “BWJP” (non-entity, then filed), CFFPP, AFCC, and the even larger private foundations spurring the conferences (Wingspread Conference in Racine, Wisconsin).  I have over time and many different posts explained (on the blog) how the “gray areas” between state and federal, and between public and private parties, continually exonerate government entities — and private parties (whether professionals or nonprofits run by the same, or professional services companies also) — from accountability for the latest roadkill, or driving people onto or back onto welfare, or simply back into abusive, controlling relationships with the same partner (or new “handlers”) when it comes to the family courts.

Individually, it seems ex-lawyers, or current ones, will not discuss (at least with me!) even the existence of trade organizations such as the AFCC, OR take into account in their advocacy efforts, seriously and consistently, gender-based federal grants for fathers, let alone the handling of the same.  Or take into account how VAWA-based entities aren’t ensuring that at the local level, women even know about the gender-based “Fatherhood.gov” “HMRF” etc. grants, university centers to preside, like “midwives” over their use and for technical assistance and training in the “right way” to respond to criminal behavior among family members or romantic partners, including marriage partners.

This “does not compute!” response might be overcome, I suppose, if I did enough crowdfunding and went on a conference circuit — but the fact is, I have ongoing legal issues, unresolved, to get to a place of freedom and have had to deal with this throughout the time of this blogging. I’m not independently wealthy OR have an income stream to produce more than monthly expenses.  I DID, formerly, but after years of disrupted income (and no credit either — since the DV marriage), and having in the last few years realized this type of fight is going into my “senior years” without pause from the “family court” venue — I cannot make those rounds, or get “in your face” with organizations whose tax returns I’ve read, whose personnel time and again have responded with (a) no response (on-line, or telephone) or (b) “we just do consulting or technical assistance.

That these individuals refusal to discuss, acknowledge the influence of, or deal with at all, some of the above issues certainly doesn’t make that influence disappear.  It actually makes it more effective for the ability to operate so distant from and as a “basic operating system” not visible to the users at the “software” or user interface level –meaning, when people have a case before the courts, or approach some advocacy group (local nonprofit) for help with a case before the courts.


This system increasingly makes funding impossible to track, and invites racketeering to establish itself in the highest level of governments within the state, and in the interactions between federal and state entities JUST underneath one country.  Where a law is clear “Don’t do this — here’s the sentence” — this entire system is so UNclear it leave discretionary judgments throughout the judicial system, based not on facts, but on psyschology, social science, and other belief systems which cannot give an answer to WHY an act in one court is a crime, but in another, it’s a referral opportunity — meaning, a financial opportunity for those getting the referral, and an expense for either or both parents — as a practice.

Searching my desktop (vs. this blog) shows that in May/June 2017, having discovered this HiAP, I was deeply concerned about it.  One of those folders involves a nonprofit “Prevention Institute” in Oakland, California, which was promoting HiAP policies and (says folder label) working alongside the very large PHI (Public Health Institute, also in Oakland and often-cited as partnering with the State of California “Strategic Growth Council” in HiAP matters. That PHI is doing so is mentioned also on the American Public Health Association (APHA.org) website, too.  It’s credited in the state HiAP “FAQs” sheet too.

FY2001, Violence Prevention under (HHS) CDC (EIN#943282858)

Prevent’n Institute, EIN# 943282858 FY2001, and look who’s here (Research! America)…

Prevent’n Institute in Oakland, CA, EIN# 943282858, FY2001 Form 990 detail: Notice federal agencies combining “to move State gov’t away from isolated efforts to a broader service orientation… to “support prevention practitioners in addressing local problems (which allegedly produces) “HEALTHIER, safer and MORE SUSTAINABLE communities.” etc.

A previously (early May, 2017) annotated page from Prevention Institute  has my comments on how the phrase “preventing injury before it occurs” in re: domestic violence, is both grandiose — and ridiculous.

I’ll include the other image showing their page on HiAP.  I also noted from their tax return “Schedule A of support” t hat $10M out of $18M contributions were by persons “in excess of 2%” (of total contribs for the year).  That’s 5/9ths, or over half.  The website (vs. Form 990) also names many of those foundation contributors from inside AND outside the state:

EIN# 943282858: Look at growth in total assets over time; see tax returns (and, this being a Calif. organization, if available at its RRF reporting sources of government funding) to see why — whether increased contributions, increased program service revenues, reduced expenses, or all of the above.  I already recall this entity isn’t exactly a grant-making one, so the subcontractors would be interesting.  Except compared to so many other organizations, it’s just not that large, I probably won’t do those lookups:

Total results: 3Search Again.

ORGANIZATION NAME ST YR FORM PP TOTAL ASSETS EIN
Prevention Institute CA 2015 990 33 $12,705,888.00 94-3282858
Prevention Institute CA 2014 990 32 $10,567,946.00 94-3282858
Prevention Institute CA 2013 990 31 $8,628,204.00 94-3282858

(I actually did just look back, but am going to keep my mouth somewhat shut this time, except that it is spending more than half its expenses (most years) on salaries, while its Exec. Director (Larry Cohen’s) pay nearly doubled, from $128K in 2004 to (bottom row) $225K in 2012 (eight years), while in alternate years (recently) overspending (spending more than it takes in) by large amounts, like (FY2012) $812K.  Or so the tax return says.  Gov’t funding can be seen in Part VIII for returns after 2007, and on page 1, as part of summary, for returns before then.  FY2004 return (towards the end — Program Service Activities totaling $999.5K (almost $1M) expenses are not broken down (as IRS return asked) but described without showing expenses for each.  This also refers to an Alameda County Blueprint for Violence Prevention they were involved in.

OK — I went back as far as FY2002 (amended return time-stamped May 2004).  Look at the final pages of this one to see named agencies supporting a variety of programs, including an interesting reference to Research! America, and more evidnece of the attempts to put prevention of Violence against WOMEN under the CDC and health issues, while setting up an institute for Men and Boys separately, and more.

 

Prevention Institute, FY2004, last page (detail belongs on IRS form proper, one of two pages like this one) referencing violence and healthcare. Note this is before passage of Affordable Care Act.

Prevention Institute FY2012? program service revenues (and priorities) shown. Collaboration cross-sectors, population level, (yada, yada…) language.

Annotations are from May, 2017. Bottom half of the same page shown below. Notice this shows several years of support, summarized by source or kind.

(See annotations on image just above)

Website, refers to HiAP but doesn’t say much else about it.

See annotations… Compare to Schedule A of support (top half of page) contributors over 2% were 10M of 18M total (down to that line-item total on the schedule). This type of listing, without further details is more to impress viewers than for transparency. Real transparency would post corresponding tax returns from the granting organizations, or similar information, giving years and amounts over time. Any paid administrative assistant could obtain and compile this info– the public should not have to, though….

I took and annotated this screenprint May, 2017, but am including it in a post due for publication Oct. 12 or 13, 2017, on HiAP, but in a “Soapbox Section” about the negative impact of re-framing criminal issue of assault & battery domestic violence as a “health issue.” While my narrative there deals more with other orgs., this situation seems to fit in.

 

Written by Let's Get Honest

October 24, 2017 at 7:59 pm

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

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

One Response

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. daveyone1

    October 26, 2017 at 3:39 am


Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

martinplaut

Journalist specialising in the Horn of Africa and Southern Africa

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

'A Different Kind of Attention Develops Sound Judgment' | 'Suppose I'm Right Here?...' (posted 3/23 & 3/5/2014). Over 680 posts, Public-Interest Investigative Blogging On These Matters Since 2009.

Red Herring Alert

There's something fishy going on!

The American Spring Network

News. by the people, for the people. The #1 source for independent investigative journalism in the Show-Me State, serving Missouri since 2011.

Family Court Injustice

It Takes "Just Us" to Fight Family Court Injustice

The Espresso Stalinist

Wake Up to the Smell of Class Struggle ☭

Spiritual Side of Domestic Violence

Finally! The Truth About Domestic Violence and The Church

%d bloggers like this: