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.

“Health as an Asset” “Thought Leadership” and the Chatham House Rule:** A Section Unearthed from My “Smoking Control/Tobacco Litigation” Post and Reposted Here, in light of Current Congressional Events, and in light of Senator Flake’s (2014) Commentary Before the CFR citing to 9/11 and the Iraq War Commended (?) for Unifying the United States. [Published Oct. 26, 2017]

leave a comment »


Why This Post?

The last post, on the global promotion of “HiAP,” — 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”).  About 12,800 words, published Oct. 24, 2017 referenced a “Health as an Asset” section on another of my recent posts, but I didn’t remember which one by name.

Looking to include a link, I discovered that section was so hard to find and so far down on an already information-and-image-loaded post (for which I hadn’t yet added any tags*), that I’m copying it here under its own title, to juxtapose it to the HiAP post.  (It also remains at the prior location).

(*but now have — and over a dozen of them to the HiAP post too).  This was an important post! It contains among other things a colorful WHO Banner explaining around which basic life elements and processes the calling-card “HiAP” intends govt – private – regional -local – and other powers to collaborate (to reduce air pollution) and clear statements of intent to impose HiAP on all — with the corollary, universal health care for all — demonstrates beyond a reasonable doubt how fast this was spread through the system, and lists several organizations, of the type I continue to document and sound the alerts on throughout this blog’s history — at least one U.S. agency (HHS/CDC) and — who else?  the State of California (by Executive Order 2010) all united for a cause whose name seems to have only originated in 2006! The US is also being used as a major financial base to impose/implement this on other countries as well as our own selves, which again gets again down to our own tax base supporting the same.

So, the “half-parent” post to this one (I say “half-parent” because it was only part of the above post, and despite the move, is still about half (the bottom half) of this post too)…is:

Smoking 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) (case-sensitive short-link ending “-7Lp”) published Oct. 20, 2017.

The concepts in the recent (10/24/17) “HiAP” post belong alongside this one too: we are talking about setting global health policies, including those impacting federal agency activity (which is determined in part by Congress, but Congress is also influenced, as I continue to say, by the private sector, both for-profit and nonprofit — as ever) from afar, that is, through global and internationally connected regional governments and related, networking NGOs.

Preparation for this way of running things of course requires restructuring business and management education (schools, academia), which apparently is where the thought leadership by the Academy for Business In Society comes in as a platform from which to proselytize, help organize, and of course advertise the transformation/s.

This time I wrote the post before the title, but the title still came out long and sarcastic—

“Health as an Asset” “Thought Leadership” and the Chatham House Rule:** A Section Unearthed from My “Smoking Control/Tobacco Litigation” Post and Reposted Here, in light of Current Congressional Events, and in light of Senator Flake’s (2014) Commentary Before the CFR citing to 9/11 and the Iraq War Commended (?) for Unifying the United States. [case-sensitive short-link ending “-7QH.”  Re-posted  (bottom half) and written (top half) Oct. 25-26, 2017].[Published Oct. 26, 2017]

**Terms taken from 2010-2011 Conferences Among ABIS* (the Academy of Business In Society), RUTGERS (“The State University of New Jersey”), and the Johnson & Johnson Corporate Citizenship Trust.

“Minor details” The only home (USA) base in that list (despite Johnson & Johnson HQ being in NJ, its “Corporate Citizenship” trust formed in 2007 isn’t a U.S. entity and in fact is focused on the “EMEA” region: Europe, the Middle East and Africa)## would then be Rutgers, the public-supported “State University of New Jersey.”

The NJ state university system has other campuses and colleges.  This one, in Newark (commuting distance to NYC) is just the most famous one. To show that the J&J CCT is as I said, from its website (top, and bottom/footer info) we can see that it’s about 10 years old, a slight reminder who J&J is, if this is needed, and (from the footer) that while its registered HQ is in Belgium (not “Brussels” that I can see), it is registered as a Scottish company, putting it firmly in the UK, not in the EU or the USA

## The Johnson & Johnson Corporate Citizenship Trust (Trust) was founded in 2007 as a registered charity and a company limited by guarantee. The Trust is funded by the J&J Family of Companies through J&J Global Community Impact and J&J Operating Companies in EMEA.  {{stands for “Europe, Middle-East & Africa”}}

Operational structure and management
— The Trust is managed by a Board of Directors consisting of 14 senior J&J leaders across the Pharmaceutical, Consumer, Medical Devices and Global Supply businesses in the EMEA region. (etc., there are three more bullets)

[J&JCT: Johnson & Johnson Corp Citizenship Trust Footer showing legal domicile Scotland and registered office Belgium]


*(the Academy of Business In Societya global network of over 100 companies and academic institutions whose expertise, commitment and resources are leveraged to invest in a more sustainable future for business in society. ABIS enables informed decision-making on business in society issues through collaborative research, education, thought leadership, policy insights and business acumen.

“Thought leadership” — I told you so!

“are leveraged” The main verb of the leading ABIS statement is in the passive tense, leaving it open to speculation by whom they are leveraged while emphasizing scope and respectability of the network.  Question:  Who is leveraging it for the noble cause? Why not just say it up front?

ABIS Image #2 showing some of the organization’s purposes, and delineating four kinds of Projects: EU&UN sponsored (sky blue) | ABIS (red) | Corp. (purple) | Academic (orange)

Answer:  Apparently, the EU and the UN, that is to say, briefly, one regional federated government (which the UK recently voted to exit — remember “Brexit”??) and (if the UN is an “NGO”) a prominent post-World War II NGO for the NWO.

As you can see, the ABIS conducts projects, and lists four types of them.  It does not, obviously, list the EU or the UN as one of its members (how could it?), but it lists the EU and the UN first in four groups of sponsors (funders) of its projects, then itself (wonder what those membership fees are….), then “Corporate” then “Academic” although it is itself composed of both corporate and academic members.  (See “Image #2”, above left).

The next image is from ABIS Home page (one of several available on its main url):

Some initial comments on and images from “ABIS.”

I’m commenting on what I saw on-line so the images will illustrate the comments.

Above, those are “ABIS” home page images (not all clearly visible) on a sliding banner with a secondary (subsection at bottom left) sliding banner advertising an upcoming conference, and it being only the 16th shows the organization isn’t that old.  This is where I found the reference to (and conferences about) “Health as an Asset.”  Another project was “Thought Leadership…” and another “Government Relations for the 21st Century: Beyond Lobbying..” (See nearby images).

Nice to know these things are going on internationally on the behalf of all people who are hereby relieved individually (it seems…) from thinking about structuring their own lives, futures, prioritizing their values, etc. without such mediation and (paternalistic) oversight.


RE: ABIS’ HOME PAGE COLORFUL IMAGES, ABOVE: Notice the listing of subject matters/causes focuses on outcomes, not processes. These are important, naturally, for all people — although not necessarily in the same order.

I believe that, despite however noble and important to life are clean air, water, and whatever “quality education” is supposed to mean, we still ought to focus  on the institutions, operations, and legal processes in place because those are where justice (requiring strong institutions) AND liberty AND as much choice and self-determination as possible  — things highly valued by concept in the U.S. Constitution and specifically devalued in this arrangement — do or do not reside.  When they do not, then life and breath itself  (let alone a meaningful life which entails the freedom to make choices and plan one’s own life) is at risk.

RE: ABIS’ “ABOUT US” QUOTE” – BUSINESS IN SOCIETY:  

Does anyone want to conjecture what “a more sustainable future for business in society” actually means?  Most business is already “in” and has been shaping society and cultures for millennia by virtue of most people needing to eat, have shelter, and in the process generally speaking do business with someone.  So wherever “society” (in its broadest meaning) may or may not fit into the mix within this concept of “BIS – Business In Society,” taken at face value the phrase could be read “more sustainable future FOR BUSINESS.”  In this century, however, generally speaking, that might better read, business owners, or corporate investors with an understanding that this represents the fewer, and those working for, or consuming the products by virtue staying alive, are the many and are NOT included, even if employees, in the “SUSTAINABLE FOR BUSINESS” part, except as it applies to wages and human energy used to produce the goods and services for sale at a profit to others. The need for constant and increasing profit tends to drive down the desired wages paid employees, which makes them work harder and longer, and compete harder (in a global marketplace), etc.

So it seems that all words individually and the words taken as a whole in that phrase are so commonly used that what it means is at first, anyone’s best guess — and so fair game for groups like ABIS and their members to appropriate for mutual benefit, that is, proprietary, purposes. , and redefine it for non-initiated.  And because those “thought leadership” meetings did occur under “Chatham House rule,” my reference to the “uninitiated” is quite appropriate. Chatham House is by its history and nature nothing if not exclusive, secretive as to the innermost decision-making circles, and through this also internationally networked for power. (More on that, below).

The word “sustainable” is of course a very common word, so to understand any of this (let alone “Health as an Asset”) one would have to take a closer look,** but a better look would be at its business filings.  However, I’m not located in Europe or familiar with these, so “WYSIWYG.”

**This is my second post with a “closer look” at least at the organization ABIS’ website; previously, which this post duplicates below, I also took a look at two of its members cited as in the USA (of which only one, Net Impact (SF Bay Area) with its Executive Director, Ivy League education and some time working at Bridgspan, turned out to be US-based).

Apart from a better understanding or closer look, then, ABIS’ self-description above reads like some combo of NGO + NWO (“new world order”) jargon. Which, I think based on what I’ve read so far, is a concise summary of its activities. It’s just adding the “business” (and business education for the sustainable future) into the “NGO,” and the UN is nothing if not happy to invite and accommodate this, specifically launching more invitations around the same time as the ABIS/Rutgers/JJC&T conferences, that is, in 2011…


Several annotated images further explaining the comments below follow. The numbering is arbitrary, and #5 is missing (less relevant) on purpose.

Click to enlarge, “Image #4”

Click to enlarge. ABIS Image #3.

ABIS Image #2 again, showing some of the organization’s purposes, and delineating ~>links to ~> four kinds of Projects: EU&UN sponsored (sky blue) | ABIS (red) | Corp. (purple) | Academic (orange)

Health as an Asset” is shown as one of its “Corporate” projects in “Image #4,” as well as “Managing Stakeholder Media.” Types of projects divided into four types, I gather, by sponsorship — from left to right: (1) EU and UN, (2) ABIS, (3) Corporate, and (4) Academic (see Image #2).

Another thing that concerns me about ABIS activities under EU-and UN-funded is:

UN GLOBAL COMPACT (2000) & its LEAD INITIATIVE (2011, “PRME”) as described at ABIS:

Under the “EU/UN Funded” link we can also see “UN Global Compact” of 2000 in the fine print under “LEAD Initiative,” and after clicking there, what they call “PRME” an initiative for partnership with business schools, and from there “Global Compact LEAD” calling out a select group of businesses to work closely with the UN, and each other (See Image #6):

Image #6. Secretary-General Kofi-Anan in 2000 called for a UN GLOBAL COMPACT for businesses to work with the UN. I mistakenly (image comment) said this was a Corporate funded project, but it isn’t.

(I’ll say “LEAD initiative” for “UN Global Compact LEAD Initiative” — fewer words, less complicated! It’s also what they’ve called it on the projects list).

“PRME” was used deceptively in sentences as if it were an actor, a “who,” or an entity.  Actions it was caught engaging in (while separately being described as an initiative and a “partnership” — not a partner) included: (1) choosing ABIS to, with Ashridge Business School (UK) coordinate the LEAD Impact review, and (2) being “working with” on the “LEAD” project review, while simultaneously from the same pages, being the LEAD Initiative itself.  In other words, it was both the actor and acted upon, while working with another entity — and itself in non-entity persona (?) (Images #8-10, below)

Image #8, use of “PRME” (unexplained) on Project Description page also turns out to be wrong usage (see comment). This is a red flag issue, although commonplace. I added a superimposed image to show. Also failure to explain an acronym shows this website isn’t intended for full public comprehension, just positive “PR” of the programming, and for involved parties who would already know the term. It’s also “jargon.”

Image #9, from “Full review” link (not project descr. page — see darker (black, not gray) font used for this). Click to read my indignant comments on usage of PRME and notes of how an inner circle of leadership was chosen, and indicators the two-year pilot was going to be continued regardless of impact anyhow. Business School listing includes one from the US, one UK, two from THREE from Europe, etc.

Again, a work product, project, or non-entity cannot on its own “act.”  The practice of personification of non-entities as real ones, something I’m often calling out as I find it in government publications, nonprofit or government, or university (private or state-run) websites, IS dishonest and deceptive. IF used unconsciously, there are at some point in the “supply line” of information a source, or sources, who feel this acceptable.

It encourages confusion leading to cognitive dissonance, a dissociation from even trying to apply a real meaning to the words used, and that’s the same slippery ground the target individuals or audience are hoped to occupy. Its PRIMARY purpose is to disable active resistance.

Image #10 [and last image from LGH’s (my) preliminary ABIS comments on Oct. 26 2017 post. These are just for some of the overall flavor as presented on ABIS website.]  from “Full review” link of “Global Compact LEAD Initiative” showing more intentions for mechanisms to for businesses to “systematically engage with the UN system, and for the participating LEAD companies (chosen by the “non-entity”PRME and a UK-based business school? see other image) to work collectively for leadership to the rest of the Global Compact among the other 7,000 companies, set up “Local Networks,” etc.

It is also a known technique for inducing involuntary trance states in those who think analytically and, doing so, may have cause to protest whatever it being sold, or who have already done so. Why:  While the same may be scratching their heads (“huh?!!”) if information about the initiative reaches their ears, those collaborating to push initiative occupy the higher (not necessarily ethically higher), more solid ground in promoting whatever it is being promoted.And what’s being promoted here is “only” mechanisms for direct relationship building, connecting businesses in addition to governments to the UN for the purpose global leadership, i.e., effectively, government.AN OVERLAPPING PRIMARY purpose of switching name of project or initiative for a real actor (entity or individual/person) IS concealment of the real actors behind a fake name which, having been given artificial life, is (at least grammatically) given responsibility or part responsibility for the results of collective actions taken, or about to be taken.  People who may disagree still help the cause by repeatedly using the fake name, thus giving it PR and opportunity to overcome objections in public while continuing to NOT name the primary actors behind it.In this case ABIS went an extra step and on its main page, didn’t even define “PRME.”  I only found it , mentioned in passing by clicking on one of their linked reviews and deduced it stands for “Principles for Responsible Management Education.”Again, while companies (and schools) can have “princiPALS,” who are persons, “princiPLES” are ideas, whether or not written down and implemented — and not persons!  About what one might expect from self-declared “thought leaders” who wish to meet privately, and publicize meeting results anonymously as to whose idea it was…While I see this can be for physical safety reasons in certain places (this might include the USA, or so-called “regimes”), it also nicely conceals possible conflict of interest within the group which might under some countries’ laws be illegal, or at best, improperly undermining representative government.Those business schools or companies which signed (see images or website) are called “signatories” to “PRME,” just as there were countries (including the USA) as “signatories” to the Global Framework for Tobacco Control, a “treaty.”  So, ABIS which started out of a famous (internationally known) business school INSEAD, as a PRME “signatory” is also promoting the phrase “Health as an Asset.” Guess for businesses concerned about THEIR own bottom lines, i.e., asset , this makes sense to complement (supply a missing aspect) to the “HiAP” phrase directed more at governments and their subsidiary parts.  (I have also heard the word “assets” in reference to youth– developing individual youth assets, that is, “developing” youth).Meanwhile and separately, WHO, the World Health Organization as I just showed, in its relationship to the UN also, on its part, helped sponsor and promote “Health in All POLICIES.” So in general seems to me that the UN still wishes to control it all — countries, development, corporations, and from there, let’s face it:  the people of the world (and continue having the USA be the main contributor of assessed fees, which I also documented at the HiAP post as I recall).The only difference is, we, the world’s inhabitants — don’t really have much direct representation in front of the UN and its expanding allies and in the related treaties, compacts, and agenda —  as just plain people. While one of the key concepts behind US Constitution is that “just plain people” are who governments are for, and by whose consent and for whose protection it exists, including post-slavery and AFTER that, enfranchisement of women (female suffrage…)  by way of two separate Constitutional Amendments, one in the 1800s, and guess which one in the 1900s… Both demographics and their descendants, by and large, continue having to fight within the US just for equal representation under the law, and find ourselves often played against each other (divide and conquer) by the power structure as demographics to discourage attainment of that goal.Meanwhile, plenty of corporations (I should say, with their leadership) and business schools apparently seem willing to come alongside the UN and WHO and stake their claim in the administration of this new world (order…) to determine which parts of our lives may or may not be “sustainable” or “equitable” or “healthy” and which systems get transformed first, and which (like “justice” on the ABIS home page) prioritized somewhere near last.(Which reminds me of my recent resolution to take up smoking.  I keep forgetting, and am residing currently in a smoke-free place… and live in a state where most retail establishments and spaces near them are also “smoke-free.”  Therefore if I wish to smoke AND work on a computer, I would have to do it in an open field (not a grassy one though — fire risk…) or go buy a home and stink it up, or smoke right outside (not XX feet from) the back or front door, just to exercise some choice…)  ||


About this post

(Written before I added ABIS comments, above):

Again, my  last post on the global promotion of “HiAP” — 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”).  About 12,800 words, published Oct. 24, 2017 referenced a section on “Health as an Asset” section on another of my recent posts, but I didn’t remember which one by name.

Half this post is a copy-and-paste process. If I later update or expand it, I’ll say so here. (just did, over 24 hrs…) The copied portion about 6,000 words.  Not including the introduction which, it looks, is going to be about the same size, putting the primary, copied portion, again, not at the top, but here, it’s the bottom half.

But even to scroll there, you’ll still have to bypass my contrast of a news-making (this week, 2017) Republican Senator’s recent (2014) comments about “9/11” to plenty of dissidence and complaints about the handling of the evidence, failure to apply the scientific method in investigating, failure of the NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) to apply ethics in handling of such a catastrophe, and how their “don’t want to talk about it!” conclusions did indeed prompt speedy public (AND Congressional) consent to (a) the Patriot Act and (b) the Iraq War.

By ruling out the possible cause of incendiaries (on 9/11) NIST also, gnored the health consequences from the distribution of the smoke, says a report I am about to quote which was also presented in public months before the Senator’s CFR comments about how wonderful it is to have the Congress backing a President on things involving foreign policy, and wars, even when it doesn’t have to. (See next two images, the taller one all text with a long caption, the smaller “Aftermath”, above it and with 9/11 photo, diagram and text).

Also cited below; Ethics and the Official Reports about the Destruction of the World Trade Center Twin Towers (WTC1 and WTC2) on 9/11: A Case Study (from the poster) this is from a large, well-organized (with photos) poster for a Chicago presentation (May 23-24, 2014) by Scientists for Truth of 911.org coordinator John D. Wyndham, Ph.D. (Physics, Cambridge U.). The comments (headings) refer to the NIST explanation of the WTC collapses. How ironic to push for a Global Framework for Tobacco Control through WHO, incl. on the USA, but not, from within this country, to keep up enough constant pressure ON CONGRESS and involved parties to handle honestly this world-changing events, even despite negative health consequences.


So I also have an section here….prompted by current national news on U.S. Congress’s internal Republican strife during a Republican administration.  The initial connection to my earlier post was between the Republican Senator’s involvement with the Foreign Relations Committee (and I then discovered, address before the CFR) and the CFR’s relationship to the originator of “Chatham House Rule,” namely, “Chatham House” (Royal Institute of International Affairs in London, circa. 1927 and until today) cited at the 2010-2011 “thought leadership conferences” by ABIS, Rutgers, and The Johnson & Johnson Citizenship Trust, which was formed in only 2007 and focuses on the ‘EMEA” (Europe, Middle East and Africa).


The CFR as a think-tank professionalizing international relations is considered a sister-institution to the RIIA, which has been no secret for many years.  But then when I caught the comment by the “I’m not seeking another term” Arizona Republican Senator, and the comments by the “Trump is pursuing  a policy of DIVIDE and it’s devolving over time” Tennessee Republican Senator, I thought perhaps it was time to reconsider possible interpretations of how many secrets “unity” is supposed to keep from its own.

I realize these are scary times in many ways, and I also realize that scrutinizing tax-returns and the money trail on major public policy initiatives, a system influx over time is time-consuming, concentrated work that requires diligence and follow-up to get to the point of comprehension.

I also realize that the public policy initiatives are in general (<==that’s my disclaimer!) I believe (<==that’s my taking responsibility for my opinion, although this blog shows where I get information to base my opinion from) NOT designed to be comprehended through scrutiny, drill-downs of the individual nonprofits and their networks, and ongoing reports on the same as I have been doing, absent more powerful computers, software, or technical tools AND access to reliable databases on what I’m looking for at the federal (agency by agency) AND state levels, which go back far enough in time.  Which is naturally also frustrating.

I also realize that the tendency to prioritize looking at the character of the nonprofits on both sides of a cause which we are supposed to debate pro/con as to content, and from a pre-defined, “acceptable debate” menu of causes** doesn’t let me blend easily into most conversations.***  Even among close friends who have followed this blog and don’t argue with it, I’ve noticed, they will then continue re-framing things automatically into Conservative/Progressive (either/or) language.  This gets complicated because I have friends, or at least people I have communicate or socialize with regularly, over the years, of both persuasions. Just not in organized group settings.

  • **Male/Female.  Left/Right (Democrat/Republican).  The stance on a list of issues:  immigration, women’s rights, men’s (or fathers’) rights, LGBQT rights, school funding, tax reform, religious rights (including the right to control the reproductive process in women), etc.  It’s like a catechism, almost.  Demographically I ought to be on the side of the “domestic violence prevention” agencies — all of them, and constantly ensuring they’re funded.  But, I find they are engaged in similar tactics to the “fathers’ rights” groups and working alongside them.
  • ***You wouldn’t believe what comes up once you start looking, at the history and relationships of the boards of directors! I can’t get even it posted fast enough… Throughout the system I keep finding both boards and programming dominated by men, even when women are put in the “public face” (fronting) for it.  The vocabulary has, it seems, been retained but the substance gutted and altered, and usually consistently away from the original purposes of the organization and towards the more and more diversionary activities. Whether it’s NNEDV (in D.C.)## or a Women’s Shelter I just heard about the other day (in San Luis Obispo, CA) and another one not even on the post that underwent a 2013 merger), continual saturation of personnel working in the batterers’ intervention treatments and “prevention” into the mix… and strange name-changes meanwhile.. seem regular practice.  (##That’s my own reminder to post.)

So — what about the Financial Statements / Balance Sheets?  Deficits, including national trillion-dollar deficit often discussed, at all times are meaningful relative to Total Gross/Net Assets.  it’s ALWAYS about the accounting and who controls which assets (and their relative worth) —  “for how long in the foreseeable future” — what those assets are backed by or consist of, and who, by definition, does not and will not, for the “foreseeable future.”  

Aren’t we supposed to look at and comprehend those?

And then have intelligent, actionable conversations among ourselves WITHOUT a globalist or anti-globalist, a Progressive or a Conservative, a hot-button Pro/Con mediator “facilitating” how to correctly think about it, as distributed throughout government, university, and nonprofit sectors (from very big to very small to so small they’re invisible –i.e.,  didn’t get around to filing, or lost interest in it after a year or two, etc…)??

You will rarely find a debate on whether government entities ought to post, promote, and encourage reader comprehension of their “comprehensive annual financial reports” CAFR as a basis for better understanding how governments, plural, work, or scrutiny of just how many “missing in action” show up at ever stage of the macro system involving movement of money from one part of the system to the other.  By “money” I am not, of course, referring to a bona fide currency because we don’t have that in the US anymore, and haven’t for a long time.

The opposite policy, it seems, is operational.  Avoidance of calling sponsoring entities by their real names, referring to projects as if they were corporate entities when the owners obviously know they’re not, as I just showed in the FVPSA Guide to Territorial Administrators (Nov. 2012).  Then, having identified the real entities behind the named resources or institutes, and looking them up, one finds still more “anomalies.”(<==euphemism).

I’ll quote “the Fed” on this one, “page last updated August, 2013.”  In short, Federal Notes (open your wallet — there may still be a few in there) are not redeemable in gold, silver, or any other commodity and haven’t been since 1934.  They haven’t been backed by silver since “the 1960s”… but are ‘deemed lawful medium of exchange” by that 1934 act. From ‘Federal Reserve.gov” “FAQs,” Is U.S. currency redeemable in Gold?

Federal Reserve FAQs, page updated Aug. 2013, viewed late Oct. 2017. For website, see here.

They are obligations of the United States … shall be redeemed in lawful money on demand at the Treasury Department of the United States, in the city of Washington, District of Columbia, or at any Federal Reserve bank. …Congress says the banks must hold

“collateral equal in value to the Federal Reserve notes of that the Federal Reserve Bank puts into circulation.   The collateral is chiefly held in the form of U.S. Treasury, federal agency, and government-sponsored enterprise securities.”

So the Federal Reserve deals with governments and the banks, and “we the people” (used as a generic phrase, not to be anatomically exact on the phrase, OK!?) deal with the banks:

Does the Federal Reserve maintain accounts for individuals? Can individuals use such accounts to pay bills and get money?

Fed Reserve FAQs – Accounts for individuals?

No. The Federal Reserve Banks provide financial services to banks and governmental entities only. Individuals cannot, by law, have accounts at the Federal Reserve.

A recent hoax circulating on the Internet asserts that the Federal Reserve maintains accounts for individuals that are tied to the individual’s Social Security number, and that individuals can access these accounts to pay bills and obtain money. These claims are false. The Federal Reserve does not maintain accounts for individuals.

[continued, basically, “don’t even think about scheming to do so [with fake or even real routing numbers], or face criminal charges, with FBI and law enforcement help..”]


So with the Fed circulating the notes, it’s supposed to hold certain types of collateral backing those notes.  A “SOMA” (Systems Open Market Account) shown at the NY Fed displays what types of securities these might be (see list, and the various associated tabs):

[header: “Federal Reserve Bank of New York — serving the Second District and the Nation
The System Open Market Account (SOMA), managed by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, contains dollar-denominated assets acquired via open market operations. These securities serve three purposes:

  • Collateral for U.S. currency in circulation and other reserve factors that show up as liabilities on the Federal Reserve System’s balance sheet
  • A tool for the Fed’s management of reserve balances
  • A store of liquidity in the event an emergency need for liquidity arise

SOMA Display (tabs not active — use link above) in “dollar-denominated” amounts,” thousands…

etc.  Interesting….

The above post referencing promotion of “Health as an Asset” looked at meetings to be held under the “Chatham House Rule” (improperly called “rules” on that page), which of course, steps right into the middle of stealth globalism over the decades.  Not entirely as a concept, but identification of the historic power structures (decision-makers in respective countries) making it, or it as an alternative to, say, the British empire and overt colonialism.  The Chatham House rule, per its website, is “anonymity,” and “Chatham House” is short for the RIIA (Royal Institute of International Affairs) which was chartered by King George V, and Privy Council, in 1927, and amended over the years.

In case you’re thinking this is “Soo…” irrelevant in light of event after national event in the news, for example (this is labeled “a 5 min. read” on its website, Reuters.com), remember (or recognize if for some reason it’s not already known) that the “Council on Foreign Relations” (“CFR”) here is considered a sister organization to the Royal Institute on International Affairs.

Why I bring that up — two Republican Senators have been making news on their disgust with and discontent with the current U.S. President’s, ah, “comportment.”  (Single quotation from Thomson-Reuters, with comments on this news-source (from its own website) and history/maintenance of the Trust Principles…)

RECENT EVENTS (COVERED BY THOMSON REUTERS: SEE ITS PRINCIPLES AND OWNERSHIP), REPUBLICAN SENATORS, ONE OF THEM ON FOREIGN RELATIONS COMMITTEE

  • (and as addressing the CFR in 2014, under President Obama and the Role of Congress in presenting a united front with the President, referencing the wonderful unity in Congress after “9/11” 2001…)

On of the Senators, the younger man from Arizona, is involved on the Senate’s (not the CFR’s itself) “Foreign Relations Committee.”  He is a junior senator, but had before that six terms  inthe House of Representatives.  I found a Sept. 2014 article posted (on the CFR.org website), moderator Doyle McManus from the Los Angeles Times, references “unusually on the record here” in the interview.  The link also includes a video. Quoting this first, and, fair warning, I will have an interjection…

Senator Jeff Flake discusses the role of Congress in U.S. foreign policy.

MCMANUS: Good morning. I’m Doyle McManus of the Los Angeles Times. I’m today’s moderator.  Welcome to all of you today.

We unusually have an on-the-record session, so you are all released from the council’s draconian rules not to—not to quote or cite.

Our guest, as you know, is Senator Jeff Flake, the junior senator from Arizona. You have his biography; you know his biography.

I’ll just say two words about Senator Flake. As a—as a native Californian, it is perplexing to all Californians to look at Arizona and notice that its legislators always punch above the weight of what appears to be—us—to be a small state.

Arizona has a history of—of producing members of Congress, especially of the Senate, who are conservative but fiercely independent and remarkably effective. You only have to think of Barry Goldwater and John McCain. And Jeff Flake, in many ways, follows in that tradition but has already staked out some interesting ground of his own.

He is the—he is on the Foreign Relations Committee—of course, the ranking member of the Africa committee, having spent serious time in Africa, in South Africa, Zimbabwe and Namibia—and has done interesting work reaching across the aisle to Democrats and has interesting positions and views on a—on a range of foreign policy and domestic issues and has a few words to start off with this morning.

And so, Senator Flake, I’m going to give you the podium for about 10 minutes. ….

And I want to thank the Council on Foreign Relations for this opportunity to discuss Congress’s role in foreign policy. …

It being 2014, obviously, “President” means then-President Obama. Sen. Flake is talking about the role of Congress in backing the President on foreign policy, presenting a united front to the rest of the world when action becomes necessary.  He referenced the unanimty right after 2001, and the war on Iraq in 2002, and contrasts it with indecision on “ISIL” more recently:

The president needs to ask Congress for its support, and Congress needs to show it by way of a vote. I say this not because I believe the president is constitutionally bound to get Congress’ approval. The question of where the president’s foreign policy powers end and where Congress’s begin is left unanswered by the Constitution. I say this because securing the backing of Congress on any major foreign policy effort reinforces the United States’ leadership. It reassures our allies and most importantly sends a message to our adversaries that the United States is in fact united.

If you heard the news recently (re: two Republican Senators announcing they will not run for office again), Sen. Corker from Tennessee, in the fragments on TV, was repeatedly emphasizing Trump’s role of dividing the country, as a practice if not policy.

History shows that when there is a threat to this nation and the president makes a good case for action, Congress will lend its support. A 2001 authorization for the use of military force in the wake of the September 11th attacks was approved by the House by a vote of 420 to 1. Similarly, a 2002 AUMF in Iraq was approved by both chambers with strong bipartisan support.

That would seem to me an unfortunate comparison, given other information available (<==Google search) (a skeptic’s rebuttal also streamlines and reviews the claims) about both the causes of the demolition and collapse of the World Trade Towers on 9/11/2001, AND on the causes for invading Iraq.

Among the search results are also “Architects&Engineers for 9/11 Truth” and “scientists for 911 truth (.org),” which website appears to be talking about a paper with five authors cited below, each with (his) own backgrounds and attached links to other papers. A link (April 2009) discussing the NIST review of its own $20M effort, saying it’s so vague it barely qualifies as a hypothesis) — The Missing Jolt: A Simple Refutation of the  NIST-Brazant Collapse Hypothesis (By Graeme MacQueen & Anthony Szambozi, where “NIST” = “National Institute for Standards and Technology).

Click image to enlarge, or Here for the “Missing Jolt: refutation of NIST-Brazant Collapse Hypothesis document (27pp, “Findings” on p.13)

I read the first few pages, and appreciate their simply asking questions about some obvious things the NIST report was silent on, i.e., logical. (If the smaller and narrower top section crashing down on the more massive lower session caused it to collapse, where was the “jolt” of impact? And where was the lower “rigid” upper section after collapse).  Next two images and intermediary (long) quote are from this document .


…What appeals to me about this is something I’m all too familiar with — making a hypothesis, leaving out the evidence that it’s the right one, and tactfully omitting reference to anything which might disprove it — and doing this from a platform of authority, i.e., such as the NIST — in hopes that authority, trauma, distractions, or basic ongoing cognitive dissonance will prevent serious challenges (in hindsight, belatedly — after all, Patriot Act passed, war in Iraq was started shortly after) and a review of a whole lot of other things we are being systematically assured are “scientific” or “evidence-based” in public policy arena for justifications of why (examined more closely) we must sacrifice protections, rights, privacy — but continue our trust in government itself.

Intermediary Quote from “The Missing Jolt” (“Journal of 911 Studies 1 January 2009/Volume 24“) continues right from the image above, with no text omitted:

The border colors are arbitrary, added to break up the paragraphs, and any emphases (underline, bold, font-color changes) are added, not on the website I viewed (the “original”).

In addition, the rigid block had to fall onto the rest of the building. Although this seems obvious, the NIST authors are often shy about saying it. We hear about the rigid block’s “descent.”[5] We hear of tilting and “downward movement.”[6] We have to look carefully to find the NIST authors using the language of falling. Whatever the reasons for their reticence, it is clear that it will not do for the upper block to ease itself onto the building beneath it, with a gradual creaking of buckled columns and sagging floors. If this were to happen, why would the structure beneath collapse?

There was nothing special about the weight of the upper block, rigid or otherwise. The lower part of the Tower had held up this weight without difficulty since 1970. The lower block had 283 cold steel columns, with less than 30% of their total load capacity being utilized for gravity loads, because of the factors of safety designed into the structure and the need to withstand high winds—and gravity loads were essentially the only loads the columns would have been subject to on a day such as 9/11 with little wind. The lower block was not weak, nor (excluding stories 93-98) was it damaged by plane impact or fire. The weight of the upper block posed no threat to it. If there were to be a threat, it had to come from the momentum of the upper block. But momentum is a product of mass and velocity, and since the upper block could not increase its mass it had to increase, if it were to become a threat, its velocity. Since NIST’s theory assumes the only energy at play at this stage of events was gravitational, the upper block had to fall, and the greater its velocity the greater its momentum. The longer and the less impeded its fall, the greater would be its impact on the lower structure. So it is no surprise that the NIST authors, however shy they are about affirming it, eventually come out in favour of the falling of the upper block. [7]

Zdenek Bazant and Yong Zhou, with whose September 13, 2001 back-of-the-envelope theory (with subsequent revisions and additions) NIST largely agrees, have never hesitated to say that the upper block fell. [8] Bazant has likewise been frank about the need for severe impact as the upper and lower structures met: he believes the impact may have been powerful enough to have been recorded by seismometers. [9] In his view, collapse initiation of the lower structure required “one powerful jolt.”[10] Of course, if there was a powerful jolt to the lower structure there must also have been a powerful jolt to the upper falling structure, in accord with Newton’s Third Law.

In order to keep a sense of reality as we discuss NIST’s theory it may be useful to label the three interacting parts of the North Tower, as they are pictured by NIST, as RB-12+, DS-6 and RB-92. Where RB stands for rigid block, DS stands for damaged structure, and the numbers following the letters refer to the number of stories in each structure. The upper block comprised the 12 stories of 99-110 as well as the roof structure with antenna and hat truss; the intermediate area was damaged by plane impact and fire and was six stories high (93-98 inclusive); and the lower block was rigid and comprised, in addition to subterranean levels, the first 92 stories of the building.

These designations actually underestimate the contrast between RB-12+ and RB-92, because the latter was not only largely undamaged by fire but was more massive per story. It was also stronger: the Tower’s columns tapered as they ascended. [11] Yet the fall of RB-12+, we are supposed to believe, put a catastrophic end to DS-6 and RB-92.

What NIST essentially says, agreeing with Bazant, is that the lighter and weaker part initially fell with a powerful jolt onto the heavier and stronger part, which could not withstand its momentum, and that this caused a progressive collapse to initiate smashing the lower block to bits all the way to the ground.

The NIST Final Report does not tell us what happened to RB-12+ after its impact with the two structures beneath it. Did it fall through them all the way to the ground (that is, to the rubble heap on the ground), maintaining considerable mass and rigidity the whole time–as Bazant argued in 2001 and has continued to argue? [12]  [page break] On this the NIST authors are silent.

NIST also does not tell us how far RB-12+ fell before its impact with intact structure. Did it fall one story (roughly 12 feet), or several stories? We are left in the dark. Once again Bazant comes to the rescue. It fell “at least one story,” he says. [13]

Next image is from the “Findings” on page 13:

The Missing Jolt, p.13 (Findings and briefly, Conclusion (1 para. italics) after which p.14 goes into “NOTES,” i.e., footnotes. See FN [14].

 The “NOTES” start on p. 14, (after image to right), after a paragraph of acknowledgements and thanks for other help.   I found FN [14} quoting NIST to show that yes, it was talking about a fall, impact, something I was concerned, reading this document without the NIST report open before me (see also p.3 “The Necessary Jolt,” which has FN 14 within the text):

[fn] 14. The following four points commit NIST to impact and jolt:

(a) NIST speaks of the core of the building as consisting of three sections, which correspond closely to the sections we have spoken of when discussing the building as a whole:

“At this point, the core of WTC 1 could be imagined to be in three sections. There was a bottom section below the impact floors that could be thought of as a strong, rigid box, structurally undamaged and at almost normal temperatures. There was a top section above the impact and fire floors that was also a heavy, rigid box. In the middle was the third section, partially damaged by the aircraft and weakened by heat from the fires.” (NIST NCSTAR 1, p. 79)

(b) The section of the building above the damage zone NIST calls a “rigid block.” This rigid block first manifests its independent movement when it tilts to the south. (“The section of the building above the impact zone (near the 98th floor), acting as a rigid block, tilted…” NIST NCSTAR 1, p. 201.) NIST also refers to this rigid block with terms such as “upper section,” “building section above the impact zone,” “building mass,” “upper building section” and “structural block.” See NIST NCSTAR 1, pp. 83, 195, 196, 201 Journal of 911 Studies [pg] 15 January 2009/Volume 24

(c) NIST acknowledges that this rigid block then falls. NIST says that “the building section began to fall downward,” “the building section began to fall vertically.” Indeed, we are told that this falling rigid block goes through all or part of the damaged area “essentially in free fall.” (“Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos.”) See NIST NCSTAR 1-6, pp. 416, 238; NIST NCSTAR 1, p. 196.

(d) After falling through all or part of the damaged area of the tower, the rigid block or falling building mass encounters “intact structure.” (“The potential energy released by the downward movement of the large building mass far exceeded the capacity of the intact structure below to absorb that through energy of deformation.”) See NIST NCSTAR 1, p. 196. This “intact structure,” has, of course, already been referred to as including the core of the building, described as “a strong, rigid box, structurally undamaged and at almost normal temperatures.”

Coordinating (“Founding”) member of “Scientists” per its website is John D. Wyndham, PhD Physics, Cambridge University.  From that page, I selected a document showing footer date also of 2014..This paper was also presented in May, 2014 in Chicago, so it very well might have been known to the Senator from Arizona:

Ethics and the Official Reports about the Destruction of the World Trade Center Twin Towers (WTC1 and WTC2) on 9/11: A Case Study, by John D. Wyndham, Wayne H. Coste and Michael R. Smith, 2014 IEEE International Symposium on Ethics in Engineering, Science and Technology. See also the poster for the paper presentation in Chicago, May 23-24, 2014.

I. OVERVIEW

On September 11, 2001, the Twin Towers at the World Trade Center (WTC) in New York City suffered damage from aircraft impact followed by fires. In less than two hours from the first plane impact, both steel-framed structures were destroyed all the way down into their basements. These destructions were accompanied by audible explosions as reported by scores of witnesses [3]. Thousands of citizens trapped in the Towers, and many nearby, were killed. Most of the buildings’ material was ejected outside the footprints of the buildings (see Fig. 1). The concrete and building contents were largely pulverized to a very fine powder which was deposited over lower Manhattan by a pyroclastic-like “dust” cloud. Steel columns were broken into short lengths.

At 5:20 pm that same day, World Trade Center Building 7 (WTC7) a modern, highly secure, 47-story skyscraper that was not hit by an airplane was destroyed with unnatural symmetry and later determined to be at free-fall acceleration for over 30.5m (100 feet), in the exact manner of professional controlled demolitions that use explosives. The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) initially denied the free fall of WTC7 as not being physically possible, but after being forced, through a public session, to admit that free fall had actually occurred, NIST never explained it [4] [5]. Before or since 9/11, no high-rise steel-framed building has


I see that Wikipedia claims “NIST” has a budget of $964 million, and that (searching “9/11” speeches and testimony) that I could post links to their report — only 3 results in that category:

NIST Search results on 9-11 only 3 items @2017OCT26

The Building and Fire Safety Investigation into the World Trade Center Collapse (https://www.nist.gov/speech-testimony/building-and-fire-safety-investigation-world-trade-center-collapse) This testimony before the House of Representatives Committee on Science took place I see exactly twelve years ago:  October 26, 2005.

NIST Investigatn Results of 9|11 WTC 1, 2, and 7 collapse (Testimony EXACTLY 12 yrs ago today, Oct 26, 2017) – #1

NIST Investigatn Results of 9|11 WTC 1,2, and 7 collapse (Testimony EXACTLY 12 yrs ago today, Oct 26, 2017) – #2

NIST Investigatn Results of 9|11 WTC 1, 2, and 7 collapse (Testimony EXACTLY 12 yrs ago today, Oct 26, 2017) – #3

 

Back to Senator Flake, about three years ago (Sept., 2014) to the CFR as a member of Congress with position on the Foreign Relations Committee.

Last week, the president (Obama) himself said that the mission to combat ISIL will take time. And without a voice from this Congress to sustain and support him in this effort, I fear this critical mission will be subject to partisan attack for political gain in the months and years to come. Neither the president nor the Congress has demonstrated leadership in this effort, and the stakes are far too high to move forward without it.


Now scholars from CFR and other organizations are discussing this broader context. There might not be a new world order, but think we can all agree that the old order upon which much of our foreign policy has been based and formulated has been shattered. The Senate and the country would benefit if these discussions were brought from think-tanks and editorial pages into the public arena.

In closing, if you ask me what I think the role of Congress in foreign affairs ought to be, I would say it is to ensure that we carry on the tradition of past generations, of ensuring that our kids and grandkids can live and prosper in the greatest nation in the world. I would say that it is—it is in our national interest to promote freedom and liberty abroad. I would say that we need to ensure that scarce resources are put to the highest possible use.

But before all of that can happen, clearly, Congress need to actually want to have a role in the first place. …

Interesting overall speech. Again, that was in September, 2014 and before the Council on Foreign Relations.

Next up, REUTERS news on the two Republican Senators making news for statements of intent not to run for election based on the character and devolution of behavior by President Trump.

Reuters.com, #POLITICS OCTOBER 24, 2017 / 12:51 PM / UPDATED 5 HOURS AGO
Two Republican senators blast Trump as party feud deepens  Amanda Becker, Richard Cowan

REUTERS – Sen Flake of AZ and Corker of TN announce wil not be seeking re-election(image 2017Oct25 at 12.20PM)

…Over the summer, Trump pilloried Senate Republicans – as a group and some by name – after they failed to generate sufficient votes to repeal and replace the 2010 Affordable Care Act, popularly known as Obamacare, one of his top presidential campaign promises.

The dollar lost ground on news that Flake would not seek re-election because it added to investor worries about the fate of the tax plan, which has widely been seen as a potential boost to American companies.

It recovered after a Bloomberg report that Trump asked senators at a closed-door lunch whom they would support to become the next Federal Reserve chairman. Bloomberg quoted one senator as saying that John Taylor, viewed in the markets as an inflation hawk, got the most votes.

Additional reporting by Patricia Zengerle, Susan Cornwell and Jeff Mason; Writing by Caren Bohan and Steve Holland; Editing by Frances Kerry and Peter Cooney
Our Standards:The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

FYI, (bottom of article), “Thomson Reuters Trust Principles” (founded in 1941) with more information about, its having gone public (been offered on the LSE / London Stock Exchange and NASDAQ) in 1984, how a nominating committee who proposes directors.

The Trust Principles were created in 1941, in the midst of World War II, in agreement with the Newspaper Publishers Association and the Reuters shareholders at the time. The Principles imposed obligations on Reuters and its employees to act at all times with integrity, independence and freedom from bias and fortified them in carrying out the difficult and delicate tasks with which they were faced.

Reuters Directors and shareholders were determined to protect and preserve the Trust Principles established in 1941 when Reuters became a publicly traded company on the London Stock Exchange and Nasdaq [below, that was only in 1984?].  A unique structure was put in place to achieve this. A new company was formed and given the name ‘Reuters Founders Share Company Limited’, its purpose being to hold a ‘Founders Share’ in Reuters.

The charter documents of Thomson Reuters Corporation require Thomson Reuters Directors, in the performance of their duties, to have due regard to the Trust Principles, by the proper exercise of their powers and in accordance with their other duties as Directors.  [It then lists the principles…]

Additional information:

Thomson Reuters Founders Share Company was established in 1984 when Reuters became a public company. The Directors of Thomson Reuters Founders Share Company have a duty to ensure, to the extent possible, that the Trust Principles are complied with.

The Directors of Thomson Reuters Founders Share Company are experienced and eminent people from the world of politics, diplomacy, media, public service and business. The Directors are selected by a nomination committee and proposed to the board of Thomson Reuters Founders Share Company for appointment. The nomination committee also has unique features. Two of its members are judges from the European Court of Human Rights and assist in scrutinizing candidates’ suitability. The Thomson Reuters board has two representatives on the committee and Thomson Reuters Founders Share Company’s board has five representatives, including its chairman. Other members are representatives of the press associations from the UK, Australia and New Zealand.

The number of Directors has to be at least 14 and not more than 18. Directors have a minimum of two meetings per year, and receive reports on our activities in the different fields in which we operate. The Directors meet with both the Thomson Reuters Board and representatives of senior management. Through Thomson Reuters Founders Share Company’s Chairman, regular contact is maintained with our company. The relationship is one of trust and confidence


Re: That “9/11” comment from Senator Flake in 2014

From the “missing jolt” paper by one of the authors at “Scientists For 911 Truth” website. It’s 27 pages long, “Findings” are on page 13 (after that it’s references).  I read the first three pages, skimmed in between and am quoting the findings.  After this, I also should say that in addition to the scientific findings, there remains the economic motivations to be considered for the 9/11 destruction itself, the subsequent war and restructuring of the country under the Patriot Act, i.e., further erosion of protection for citizens from their own government.

“9/11” and the circumstances of its collapse doesn’t occupy my attention, generally speaking, although I did post on it, possibly from this site, and probably also quoting Walter Burien’s straightforward commentary on the same.  But when a U.S. Senator addresses the CFR and references the wonderful “unity” after 9/11 as a good thing, without reference to dissidence about that very event, continuing, then it catches my attention long enough to comment on it, again.

My other reason for re-reminding us is that there are many areas, not just a few, where the public is routinely lied to about government operations, and particularly when it’s things financial, and fiscal. I still think the “truth behind CAFRs” is bottom-line significant about what we live under in this country, as it goes global from its federal agencies, state universities, and sponsored nonprofits taking federal agency funds, although the WTO Memorial has already broken ground and is operational on the former spot of destruction.

Again, reviewing the state of nonprofit reporting (small and large) and how many loopholes and inconsistencies seem to be the rule, not the exception — keeping in mind that the ones I study typically deal with public policy and associated with government services, such as “court-connected corps,” the “family court franchise” and/or all kinds of “services and prevention” movements around domestic, or make that (it’s a kinder, gentler, term that doesn’t conjure up images of wife (or husband)-beating) “family violence.” — I say, we are collectively walking on thin ice and voluntarily repeating information fed to us to unify conversations (causes pro/con typically aligned with political parties, or “we’re bipartisan”).

“Scientists for 911 Truth” home page lists four authors and also shows Peter Michael Ketcham, whistle-blowing NIST employee (1997-2011) who warned NIST about the public disconnect if it didn’t do this voluntarily on itself. This image just shows the last two because I’m quoting the first one, and the last one mentioned, Ted Walter, was also involved with Architects & Engineers for 9/11 truth (and has an MPA degree from UCBerkeley), and because the second of two ballot initiatives demanding the NYC Dept. of Buildings investigate the collapse.

“Scientists for 911 Truth” About Us (top part only). (Click to enlarge!) WHY BOTHER TO [re]CONSIDER? Well, for one, wars are costly.Not to mention, why suspend the scientific method or scrap so much evidence on events of this magnitude?

I’ve copied two lead-in paragraphs to the Health as an Asset” section, the section, and transition (closing) comments to the section.  Basically, I’d found the phrase used (again) and looked up some of the groups (corporations, a business academy) whose conference used the phrase, and either here or in a subsequent post, reminded us, with quotes and images, of a NJ state university brushing up its own globalist image, and how I’d discovered that previously just by researching a few California nonprofits which had been brought to my attention surrounding “Agenda21” protests.


RE:“Health In All Policies” (“HiAP”):  

I have been looking up “Health in All Policies,” “Health as an Asset,”  and  “Health as a Human Right.”  Of these, “HiAP” was so blatantly coordinated from WHO + the EU on down,** I’m showing it on a separate post, [published  Oct. 24, 2012]. (**and through federal (CDC), state (Calif. especially — started by Executive Order), and certain kinds of trade organizations representing state-or-lower health officers (APHA, NACCHO are two) and the “public/private promotion campaign (Oakland’s Public Health Institute also heavily involved).

What was found under “Health as an Asset” is also fascinating, and that information, (one occurrence and its significant and inter-connected organizations explored below),  I’ve explored below.  The HiAP post in referring to this one has also a section referring to some of its contents, particularly in reference to Rutgers’ University’s recent interest in things globally connected (it’s GAIA center & its “International Institute for Peace”).  That section makes it longer, but I have to put a limit on moving material around and time spent working on the connective tissue between related posts…


RE: HEALTH AS AN ASSET — SEE RECENT CONFERENCE PARTICIPANTS:

The concept of “Health as an Asset” global organization continues: looking for the original reference (which turned out to be the phrase “Health in All Policies,”) I found a international new collaborative network at “ABIS.”  Notice the types of entities involved, and the language (“thought leadership”).

Health as an Asset (Johnson & Johnson CCT, Rutgers University and ABIS)

[“ABIS” stands for “Academy of Business In Society”] [colors and all emphases added]

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”.

The aim of this initiative is to create an international platform for experts drawing their expertise, passion & commitment from across the global spectrum – corporate, academic, donors, public policy and others – and all regions of the world, to meet in different “thinking spaces”, under Chatham House rules, for a “voyage of discovery” which identifies decision making concepts, models and processes that lead to better health outcomes.

After three successful meetings, the international platform of individuals and organisations, has developed a vision recognising Health as an Asset as the common theme and is committed both individually and jointly to realize a world where health is managed as an asset for the benefit of people, communities and society. This initiative will lead us to rethink the choices we make as individuals, communities but also from a systems perspective.

That’s nice, can we talk about how having self-selecting “Chatham House Rule” conferences — only three at this point so far! —  by people committed to “individually and jointly to realize a (certain kind of) WORLD,” and what that WORLD’s organizing principles should be,

(1) might conflict with existing, governmental decision-making processes and organizing principles historically purported to have a primary connection, at least in the USA and its federal and respective State constitutions, to the rule of law, or

(2) how inappropriate to have our (including yours, my, others’) transformations [[health outcomes, and implementation of a new WORLD policy on how to improve them]] being discussed by un-elected representatives with major financial clout at places far distant from the peoples’  home countries, and/or even continents?

##Johnson & Johnson Corporate Citizenship Trust was formed in only 2007 and focuses on the ‘EMEA” (Europe, Middle East and Africa).  Do readers remember what fields of business and trade J&J represents (if not, reminder is below), and that in the US specifically, the RWJF (Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, originally funded and controlled by Johnson & Johnson family heirs) continues to show up as a philanthropy seeking to influence/steer US health, justice, and family policies, including the family courts?*

  • *(I’ve showed it on this blog.  Look up the CFCC in Baltimore, at least one link under “Vital Links/Chrono-Alpha” sidebar menu deals with it; the same entity also has an “AFCC” connection, as to creation of the family court division in Maryland in the first place, not to mention that on of CFCC’s (startup only as I recall, about 2000 or 2001, right AFTER the family court division was declared by administrative ruling in the first place) major policies:  unified family courts (representing a collective subject-matter jurisdiction grab).

The J&JCT manages programs throughout three major world regions (“EMEA”) and probably is HQ’d in Europe, although the J&J Operating Companies’ HQ is I believe still in NJ.  So, how big are J&JCT’s finances. In what are its assets invested while (as a trust) under private control and without shareholders as a public-traded entity would be?

(Afterthought: Perhaps as U.S. Citizens (if the designation applies, and perhaps all other computer-fluent population living anywhere in the WORLD about to have its operating realities  transformed into the Health as an Asset world vision) we ought to make time — somehow– to learn to navigate ALL countries’ registrations of charitable trusts or private tax-exempt foundation databases, and start doing it, not to mention dedicate perhaps 25 – 50% of our waking / survival hours into ensuring we ALL understand our respective government financials, and accounting/reporting systems of the same, i.e., to balance the power of public/private partnerships with inspired world visions, logically, we must understand both the public and the private parts separately, and how they interact.  Particularly with regards to taxation. AND to the extent we congregate, meet, or develop any DIFFERENT world visions which involve respect of country borders and other such “archaic” (or politically incorrect) ideas, we might want to have these meetings also under “Chatham House rules” — that means, discuss the ideas, but make sure no individual person is credited for them, i.e., Anonymity and GroupThink should prevail.

The Johnson & Johnson Corporate Citizenship Trust is responsible for managing Johnson & Johnson’s Global Community Impact programs and activities across Europe, the Middle East and Africa.

The Johnson & Johnson Corporate Citizenship Trust (Trust) was founded in 2007 as a registered charity and a company limited by guarantee. The Trust is funded by the J&J Family of Companies through J&J Global Community Impact and J&J Operating Companies in EMEA.

Operational structure and management

  • The Trust is managed by a Board of Directors consisting of 14 senior J&J leaders across the Pharmaceutical, Consumer, Medical Devices and Global Supply businesses in the EMEA region.

Notice meetings may occur anywhere in the world. One more reference on this trust, from the EFC (European Foundation Center) apparently in Belgium:

[JJCT] Background (found at EFC.be)

Johnson & Johnson is the world’s most comprehensive and broadly-based manufacturer of health care products, as well as a provider of related services for the consumer, pharmaceutical and professional markets. The Johnson & Johnson family of companies, consisting of more than 200 operating companies in 54 countries, has its worldwide headquarters in New Brunswick, New Jersey, US, where the company was founded over a century ago. The company currently employs 108,500 people.

Mission To make sustainable, long-term differences to human health

And the EFC (which says it’s been around only 25 years) is the foundation platform for “institutional philanthropy”:

The EFC is the platform for and champion of institutional philanthropy – with a focus on Europe, but also with an eye to the global philanthropic landscape.

With the aim of being the voice of institutional philanthropy in Europe, we communicate to stakeholders the value of organised philanthropy to society, to help nurture an environment in which it can flourish. We serve as a hub of sector exchange and intelligence, to help our members increase the impact of their added value in society.

With over 25 years of experience and over 200 member organisations, the EFC gives its members access to a wealth of knowledge on the sector and to long-term relationships with philanthropic peers and external actors. Building on relationships and dialogue with policymakers which span several years, we help our members engage with high-level decision-makers. We also partner with a range of actors and catalyse joint projects which tackle many of today’s greatest challenges.

Interesting, the Forbes 50 largest charities list (2016) as I recall didn’t even include (consider for the list) institutional foundations — university endowments, etc. — although they tend to be VERY large.. so what they do with their assets (where they’re invested) can make a major difference, if organized and wielded over time as a collective unit.

Going back to the “Health as an Asset” quote from ABIS and its Chatham House rule(s)

It turns out there is ONE “Chatham house rule” not several, for that phrase. Reference to “Chatham House rules” is a reference to anonymity and reference to “Chatham House” is a reference to the RIIA (Royal Institute of International Affairs) in London, UK.  Chatham House, the Royal Institute of International Affairs is an independent policy institute based in London and its is intent is world-building: Our mission is to to build a prosperous, just, and sustainable world.  https://www.chathamhouse.org/about It became “Royal” as opposed to just “British” when it incorporated which at the time 1927 and in that place was by charter of King George V, and subsequently, Queen Elizabeth II, as shown in their Royal Charter and Bye-laws, posted on the site.

Click image to enlarge if needed. Link provided in intro paragraph to quote.

Q. How is the Rule enforced?
A. Chatham House will take disciplinary action against a member or guest who breaks the Rule; this is likely to mean future exclusion from all institute activities including events and conferences. Although such action is rare, the rigorous implementation of the Rule is crucial to its effectiveness and for Chatham House’s reputation as a trusted venue for open and free dialogue.

For events held under the Chatham House Rule that are not organized by Chatham House, any actions taken because of a violation of the Rule are entirely at the discretion of the organizer.

Q. Is the Rule used for all meetings at Chatham House?
A. Not often for Members Events; more frequently for smaller research meetings, for example where work in progress is discussed or when subject matter is politically sensitive. Most Chatham House conferences are under the Rule.

Q. Who uses the Rule these days?
A. It is widely used by local government and commercial organizations as well as research organizations.

From the by-laws (spelled “bye-laws” I gather in the UK), consider the original charter, and what it is by incorporating the RIIA actually doing.  Look at who was first appointed.   If this were done in the USA where we, allegedly, do not grant titles of this nature — because we are not a “kingdom.” (the “K” in “UK” still stands for “Kingdom,” does it not??)  They are creating a corporate person composed of already powerful people which can do, as any other corporate body could, or “our liege subjects,” sue and be sued, acquire and sell land, do business, and alter the seal, etc. etc.

Also notice that the royal person heading the RIIA is still considered (last I heard) Defender of the Faith” and in references to the extensive possessions/dominions “beyond the sea” of the empire, not to mention at the time, “Emperor of India.”

Chatham House RIIA charter, as pdf available on the website site under “About” page.

Chatham House RIIA charter, as pdf available on the website site under “About” page.

…..

NOW KNOW YE, that We being desirous of encouraging a design so laudable and salutary, of Our special grace, certain knowledge and mere motion have willed, granted, appointed and declared and do hereby for Us, Our Heirs and Successors will, grant, appoint and declare as follows:

1. His Royal Highness Edward Prince of Wales, Knight of our Most Noble Order of the Garter, The Most Noble Victor Christian William Duke of Devonshire, Knight of Our Most Noble Order of the Garter, The Right Honourable Edward Viscount Grey of Falloden, Knight of Our Most Noble Order of the Garter (also a President), The Right Honourable Arthur James Earl of Balfour, Knight of Our Most Noble Order of the Garter (also a President), The Right Honourable Edgar Algernon Robert Viscount Cecil of Chelwood (also a President), The Right Honourable David Lloyd George, Member of Parliament (also a President), The Right Honourable John Robert Clynes, Member of Parliament (also a President), Lieutenant-Colonel Reuben Wells Leonard,** and The Right Honourable James Scorgie Baron Meston of Agra and of Dunottar, Knight Commander of Our Most Exalted Order of the Star of India (Chairman of the Executive Committee of the British Institute of International Affairs), and such other persons as are now Members of the said Institute known as the British Institute of International Affairs or may hereafter become Members of the body corporate hereby constituted pursuant to the provisions of these presents or the power hereby granted shall for ever hereafter be one body corporate and politic by the name of the Royal Institute of International Affairs, and by the same name shall have perpetual succession and a common seal with power to break alter vary and make anew the [page break]

said seal from time to time at their will and pleasure, and by the same name shall and may sue and be sued in every court of Us Our heirs and successors and in all manner of actions and suits, and be for ever able and capable in the law to purchase, receive, possess, hold and enjoy to them and their successors any goods and chattels whatsoever and to act in all the concerns of the said body politic and corporate as effectually for all purposes as any other of Our liege subjects or any other body politic or corporate in the United Kingdom not being under any disability might do in their respective concerns, and shall have power to do all other matters and things incident or appertaining to a body corporate.

2. WE DO ALSO HEREBY for Ourselves and Our Successors licence authorise and for ever hereafter enable the Royal Institute of International Affairs (in this Charter hereinafter called ‘the Institute’) or any person or persons on its behalf to acquire and hold and enjoy to themselves and their successors, notwithstanding the Statutes of Mortmain, any lands tenements or hereditaments now held by or belonging to the now existing unincorporated body known as the British Institute of International Affairs or by or to any person or persons on its behalf, and also to acquire any additional lands tenements and hereditaments which may be necessary for carrying out the purposes and objects of the Institute and to hold all or any lands which the Institute is hereby authorised to acquire in perpetuity or on lease or otherwise, and from time to time, but subject to all such consents as are by law required, to grant, demise, mortgage, exchange, alienate or otherwise dispose of the same or any part thereof and apply the proceeds of any such disposition for the purposes of the Institute subject however to the provisions of this Our Charter.  [ETC.  read more here:]

**As image above says,Colonel Reuben Wells Leonard, one of the petitioners to incorporate, had provided the moneys for purchase of Chatham House.

 

Who is ABIS? (Academy of Business In Society) — based in Brussels, Belgium and with members (see map) across five continents (I see only TWO in the US:  “Net Impact” and “Global Sustain.” They have a map).  Co-founders referenced, in addition to the business schools, including “UN Global Compact.”

Our Story ABIS (formerly known as EABIS) was founded in 2001 and launched at INSEAD** in 2002 with the support of the leading Business Schools in Europe (INSEAD, IMD, London, ESADE, IESE, Copenhagen, Warwick, Vlerick, Ashridge, Cranfield, Bocconi) in partnership with IBM, Microsoft, Johnson & Johnson, Unilever and Shell.

This initiative was driven by a shared belief that challenges linked to globalization and sustainable development required new management skills, mindsets & capabilities.  || In order to respond to this need and to support research to underpin better education and learning, ABIS developed a stronger role in the arena.

**INSEAD “(graduate) Business School for the World” was founded in 1957 in France, and has campuses in Europe and Asia and the Middle East  “”INSEAD” is originally an acronym for the French “Institut Européen d’Administration des Affaires” or European Institute of Business Administration. Wikipedia AddressBoulevard de Constance, 77300 Fontainebleau, France PhD80+ PhDs

The Two USA Thumbtacks on ABIS “membership” global map:  Global Sustain & Net Impact

 What’s more a look at “Global Sustain” with a “thumbtack” on the map clearly in southern USA, it turns out NOT to be even registered in the US, apparently:

Click image for website in English.

(from the ABIS website, accessed from the map of member location): Global Sustain offers innovative online and off-line services related to sustainability, corporate responsibility, responsible investing, green economy, business ethics and excellence, transparency, human rights and accountability. Its members include corporations, non-governmental and non-profit organisations, municipalities and local authorities, academic institutions, media, professional bodies, service providers, chambers, think tanks and other public or private entities.


From Global Sustain’s own website (to access, click on its logo image above/partial list):

Since 2006, Global Sustain provides a wide range of services and solutions to support its members and clients succeeding triple bottom line results. Based in London and Athens, with offices in Berlin, Brussels, London, New York and Zurich,  {{repeats descriptive sentences shown above…}} Global Sustain:

Global Modern Slavery Supply Chain Summit / M2M link…

  • Facilitates synergies among members, between the corporate and third sectors as well as key stakeholders.
  • Effectively communicates CSR and sustainability news, reports, events and information on behalf of members and clients, with a global audience.
  • Is a UN Global Compact signatory and founding member of the Global Compact Network Hellas since 2008 and member of United Nations Global Compact Network Belgium, since November 2012.
  • Is a signatory to the United Nations-supported Principles for Responsible Investment (PRI) Initiative.
  • Is a member and partner of leading global media organisations such as CSRwire, Inc., Ethical Performance, Business Wire etc. …

 

The only other USA connection in “ABIS,” also an “Affiliate Member” shown on member map was “Net Impact” in California — targeting professionals and students (chapters at colleges), to “make a difference in the world.”  ABIS site described as in SF; its website now says in Oakland (across the SF Bay from SF, in “East Bay”).  Image and quotes from a organization? website:

ABIS affiliate member (context: “Health as an Asset” conference at Rutgers) Net Impact (Calif.) advertising its Oct 2017 conference in Atlanta.

ABIS member description of “Net Impact”: Net Impact is a leading nonprofit that empowers a new generation to use their careers to drive transformational change in the workplace and the world. At the heart of their community are over 50,000 student and professional leaders from over 300 volunteer-led chapters across the globe working for a sustainable future. Together, they make a net impact that transforms our lives, our organizations, and the world.

NetImpact.org page footer with Oakland addr.

 

 

 

 

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

ORGANIZATION NAME ST YR FORM PP TOTAL ASSETS EIN
Net Impact: New Leaders for Better Business CA 2015 990 31 $1,654,655.00 03-0552976
Net Impact: New Leaders for Better Business CA 2014 990 27 $1,843,912.00 03-0552976
Net Impact: New Leaders for Better Business CA 2013 990 26 $2,299,974.00 03-0552976

I looked through the website and took many screenprints (images) from a closer look at its tax returns and charitable details available at the state Registry of Charitable Trusts (run by the Office of Attorney General).

I noticed several things (such as claiming 1993 origin on its tax returns, 2004 incorporation, registered only 2006 as a charity, and resisted filing its initial tax returns form FY2005, 2006, and 2007 until the OAG got after them in 2012, leaving the question, what was it doing, if it was, for nine years from 1993-2004?  And why are no founding documents, independent auditor’s financial statements uploaded there? I also looked some more at the incorporating lawyer (2004, Joshua A. Ridless) who has connections to the SF Bar, SF-Marin Lawyer Referral Information and Services (LRIS).  NetImpact is making revenues from its chapters work, and in recent years, its “program service revenues” have outstripped its contributions, which are all, it seems, either private (not government) or membership dues.

Any connection of its incorporating lawyer to Net Impact other than being its original incorporating lawyer is not known.  Here’s a photo (click either image to enlarge as usual):

Top left, standing (blue suit) man was incorporator of ABIS member “Net Impact” in 2004, with Net Impact’s subsequent tax returns claiming a 1993 origin. image from Comar Law

Ridless as part of SFLRIS photo was @ Comer Law (cf Net Impact) SShot 2017Oct16 @ 2.42PM

A conflict of stated dates received from the Charitable Details Page as summarized on the Registry and the request for missing documents many years later (as well as the Received by OAG date & time stamp on uploaded images). Not sure how much of this is of major interest to the post; all of it is simply observation of sources I’ve shown on this blog year after year, and which anyone else who reads these sources, with some attention to detail, could take notes and generalize or compare what’s found to other organizations and their practices.  It is interesting, however, that ABIS references this entity seeking to mentor, direct, and network with new professional talent — internationally.  Here’s printout of charitable details pages (links will be active), and a more recent Tax return (all of it) Net Impact (EIN#030552976, CalEntity#2714384, Reg Charity only 2005 but Forms 990 say started 1993) Calif OAG Chart Details @Oct 2017 — No FoundingDox or Independently Audited FS ~~4pp |  Net Impact (030552976) FY2015 (YE Jun30) Form 990, rec’d OAG Feb 2016 (completed on IRS Yr2014 return) 37pp 958329

What follows are many images from either the filings or (in one or two cases) re: Mr. Ridless’ (his mother’s obituary, a designer, made the NYT, an unfortunate death in her late sixties (with long-time partner, she had been a widow at the time) from carbon monoxide poisoning from keyless-ignition cars which failed to turn off. There was a designer “Randy Ridless” who also died in 2009 and who appears to have known (relative?) the lawyer while young, and if a brother, may not have made the mother’s obituary (although normally this is also reported) because he died earlier — I just do not know. These are less relevant, and are all “thumbnail” size (click to enlarge if you want).  I also notice, sadly, that while his mother lived until 2012, his father died in Florida, 2000, but before hand, was apparently, with another Florida couple, defrauded (grand theft, combined of $85,000) for which a certain attorney, having admitted to this, was disbarred in NY. The guy pleaded no contest (it was before the disciplinary committee).

From “leagle.com”: Matter of Kirschner

 263 A.D.2d 154 (1999)

699 N.Y.S.2d 399

In the Matter of WILLIAM M. KIRSCHNER (Admitted as WILLIAM MARTIN KIRSCHNER), an Attorney, Respondent. DEPARTMENTAL DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE FOR THE FIRST JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT, Petitioner.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, First Department.

December 9, 1999. (click link to read — it’s a short opinion)..

I’m sorry to hear of this (horrible news for any offspring to hear), and will be careful in the future of keyless ignitions.

J. Ridless a presenter (last named on image) at a brown-bag (lunchtime) event.

There’s also a lengthy article in a Cleveland IndyMedia referencing, among other things, “pump and dump” (pump up value of stocks, then sell them at the inflated value) regarding an “Image Entertainment” company, which Ridless apparently advised regarding; the writer is angry at him for having suppressed indymedia posts using the “anti-Semite” label.  I don’t understand it well enough to comment, but it’s the only negative comment on Mr. Ridless (and not specifically on him only) I found.

He has his own law firm apparently and has been involved with the legal power structure in the state for many years, after degrees (including J.D.) from UC Berkeley, per his LinkedIn.

Here’s the “Cleveland IndyMedia” forum article (several pages long, I’ve annotated (marked up) some of the relevant passages, but I cannot dismiss or validate any of the facts.  Its concepts are interesting.  Cleve IndyMedia (Sev’l refs to Joshua A Ridless, Inc of NetImpact (2004, Calif) re Pump+Dump stocks for ImageEntertanmt+more-Annotate!U.S.SEC Cyber Czar John Reed Stark,Steve Honig, Josh .

Getting back to the nonprofit, not its incorporating attorney (repeat disclaimer; only relationship known with the group).  Net Impact isn’t that remarkable as a nonprofit, and other than its mention by the ABIS as one of only two “US Members,” obviously having some nice start-up funding and aiming for the younger generation of professionals to get them connected with existing professionals, wouldn’t catch my attention.  However, when I did look a little closer at its long-time executive diretor, Elizabeth Maw, I saw her Bridgspan background and Ivy league background, which IS relevant because Bridgespan is.

The website posts no financials, and even the colorful (very) ads for an upcoming (Oct. 2017) conference in Atlanta didn’t encourage readers to see conference registration prices until ready to buy, and even then, in fine print, light-font.

Notice the context and topic; two more images include acknowledgmts citing to Boston Group and Bridgspan, and the 3rd references Ms. Maw of Net Impact as a speaker. I believe conference date was 2014; image shows source URL in two places near the top.

Taproot conference (See nearby image). Boston Consulting Group and a woman as Partner and Head of the SF Office for the Bridgespan Group, etc.

From the Taproot conference, Speaker 7 is Elizabeth Maw.

Early Executive Director who had salary increases over the years, and more paid officers added to the group, was/is Elizabeth Maw. Looking her up (after viewing the tax returns) I see she is showing Ivy League Education (Yale, Columbia MBA) and work with the Bridgspan Group — which explains a lot about the character of Net Impact! (Bridgspan style of consulting is searchable on this blog; I discovered it as a subcontractor on another nonprofit or foundation I’d been studying at the time).  Bridgspan – Bain – Boston Consulting – HBS (Harvard School of Business) have connections and inter-relationships.  Bridgspan focuses on consulting for nonprofits as Bain did, I guess, more for-profits.)

(No more on “Net Impact”),

Continuing Discussion (from much nearer top of this post):

It must have taken me years, while writing this blog, to realize the immense pressure to undermine the rule of law and definitions of what is and is not criminal in favor of “treatments” under the “health” scenario.

THIS ENDS COPY & PASTE FROM MY Oct 20, 2017, “Smoking Cessation/Litigation” post on this topic.

 

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: