BE BEST - Modern Day Trafficking Tiny Humans Through Faith Based Funding Stimulus - Corporate Parental Rights

I always want to figure out what this "Be Best" campaign was that Melanie has taken on as the flagship of her term in office.

It was the sight of "The Boys" at the National Prayer Breakfast that I realized we are dealing with corporate parental rights.

Yes, the Faith Based Funding Spigot has been turn on, full blast.

This is just a stimulus for the industry of trafficking tiny humans.

Yes, they want the children's trusts because it seems the Vatican and its U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops are have a bit of financial difficulties having to deal with things like child trafficking in domestic and international child welfare NGOs, running real estate, asset management firms and all the other foundations that like to flow as Corporate Shape Shifters through Public Private Partnerships because their Social Impact Bonds are tanking.

The industry of trafficking tiny humans is quite sophisticated.

https://website.praesidiuminc.com/wp/about-praesidium/child-abuse-prevention/

They even commandeered the international repository for private law.

They are taking over the Vatican.

https://www.iilj.org/

This is a full scale legal war and they have raided the legal armories of international law to control their modern day human trafficking and slavery, in a much more fiscally responsible scope.

This is just one individual who is crafting international child welfare law.

Seriously.

I think he is still going through puberty.

Really?

That is dirt on his face.

Paul Mertenskötter

Institute for International Law and Justice

who probably had Mummy & Daddy
pay for the fellowship as cover for
some creepy Israeli ops who came up
with this predictive modeling crap
in some U.S. university with Medicaid funding.
(I see you psychobaby)
https://www.iilj.org/publications/accountability-for-childrens-rights/

ACCOUNTABILITY FOR CHILDREN’S RIGHTS A research mapping of local and informal accountability mechanisms by Beverly Tran on Scribd

Readout of First Lady Melania Trump’s Visit to Nairobi, Kenya

The Nest is a Project for the Rescue, Rehabilitation and Integration 
of Children in Conflict with the Law & Children of Imprisoned Mothers.
Behold, USAID Faith-Based christian colonization,
just like the old days of the Pan-African
tiny human trade

First Lady Melania Trump arrived in Nairobi, Kenya late on Thursday evening.  She was greeted by the First Lady of the Republic of Kenya, Margaret Kenyatta and the United States Ambassador to the Republic of Kenya, Robert Godec.

On the morning of Friday, October 5, Mrs. Trump traveled to Nairobi National Park.  Upon arrival, she went to the Sheldrick Elephant Orphanage to learn about their facilities and mission and to observe the staff engage in their daily routine of feeding the baby elephants rescued by the shelter.  Mrs. Trump, joined by Mrs. Kenyatta, fed the baby elephants with large bottles of milk.  After the feeding concluded, Mrs. Trump spoke with briefly Angela Sheldrick, the owner of Sheldrick Wildlife Trust, and Edwin Lusuchi, the Chief Elephant Keeper.

On the Safari, the First Lady was able to see many wild animals including zebras, hippos, rhinos, and giraffes.  Along the way, Mrs. Trump was briefed by Nelly Palmeris, the senior warden of Nairobi National Park, about the conservation efforts of the Kenya Wildlife Service.  Near the end of the tour, Mrs. Trump visited one of the ivory burn sites, which are important landmarks in conservation, where Kenyan president Daniel arap Moi made a dramatic statement to poachers by setting fire to 11 tons of seized ivory in 1989.

Following her visit at Nairobi National Park, Mrs. Trump visited the Nest Baby Village part of the Nest Children’s Home, which cares for children ages newborn to 17 whose mothers are imprisoned.  This shelter focuses on children by providing them with clothing and food, emotional support, medical care, and educational opportunities.

Director and founder of the Nest Children’s Home, Irene Baumgartner, greeted the First Lady.  Children sang and danced around Mrs. Trump to welcome her and escorted her to the nursery village.  Mrs. Trump met with the staff and held many of the babies.  Outside in the gardens, older children sang to the First Lady.  Mrs. Trump read a story titled The Lion and the Mouse.  Before departing, the children circled the First Lady for a prayer and each child gave her a flower.

The shelter, which has been in operation since 1994, is a charitable trust that relies solely on private donations.  The First Lady donated baby blankets, teddy bears, and children’s bags containing several items, including Frisbees and water bottles.

In the late afternoon, Mrs. Trump joined Mrs. Kenyatta at the State House for a private meeting where they discussed their shared goals within their respective countries – noting the importance of maternal health and education for children.  First Lady Melania Trump and First Lady Margaret Kenyatta visited the Nairobi National Theater for a cultural performance by the Sarakasi Allstars.  The audience included children from various schools and programs including the Nest and USAID Nilendi program.

Mrs. Trump also attended an Embassy Meet and Greet in order to thank United States Ambassador Robert Godec and Embassy employees for their service.

“My time in Kenya impacted me greatly and I want to thank everyone who took the time to meet with me, especially Mrs. Kenyatta,” said First Lady Melania Trump. “The hospitality that I received made the experience so special.  I was awed by the beauty of Nairobi National Park and was very interested to learn more about Kenya’s conservation efforts.  The Nest is a prime example of what it means to protect and nurture our next generation – seeing their efforts shape the lives of so many children is something I will never forget.  I look forward to visiting again in the future.”

https://www.theforgottenintl.org/the-nest-childrens-home/

The Children’s Home also operated by The Nest is for children ranging between 2-17 yrs. old. They currently house and care for over 80 children, some who are committed into their care from the Children’s Court because their mother are imprisoned. Some who have been abandoned as babies grow up in The Nest until they can find them another home. The children all receive care and education regardless of how long they will be at the home. For some it will only be a few months until they are reunited with their mothers, while others will spend years there. Many of the children arrive severely traumatized along with suffering from separation anxiety from their mothers. Social workers and caring staff help the children and they are also able to visit their mothers regularly in prison to maintain the family bond. The Children’s Home receives a lot of volunteers to help with the everyday tasks, but is always in need of more help because the number of children is always increasing. They are in desperate need for sponsors for the children to help put them through school especially as they get older and outgrow the education offered at the children’s home. TFI first visited The Nest in 2012 and is proud to support them in all their work. Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

So Easy A Justice Can Do It

SCOTUS barely has its feet in the water of cyber technology.  Seriously.  It was the last of the U.S. Courts to implement electronic recordkeeping.  So you think these Justices would have any idea about electronic transparency?  NOT.  They still live in the stone age of communication.

You can read in Kennedy's opinion that he did not have a freakin' clue about networking or internet technology.  In the opinion the Justices refer to "magic words". (line 953)

K, dun roflmao.

'Magic words' are what we call metatags and backlinks and are used for SEO.  They sound like cavemen. (and cavewomen).

Then, they did not even have any stares decisis that would have given them any foundation to address the culture of technology because SCOTUS has an ancient system of hearing public issues.  Here is how it works:

You make it to the big show, the United States of America Supreme Court.  You file...in person, of course because SCOTUS still does not have Electronic Case Filing on PACER.

Then you have to make it through the rank and file of law clerks who will only pick public issues they feel are appropriate for the Justices to conference on.  All the research is done through the clerks because.

When the clerks are researching a case to make decisions on whether to allow it to go before the Justices, where do you think they go to see if it is a public issue?  THE INTERNET.

This is verifiable due to wonders of Google Analytics.  I busted SCOTUS a few times looking at my stuff.  I can actually track how long and what subject matter they want.  Now, someone please tell me the Justices actually are knowledgeable of this stuff.  If they were, they would not have come down with such a...I must put this in proper legalese...such an unsophisticated sagacious decision which gracefully demonstrates its undeveloped acumen for technology.

So, when the Justices come up with their fancy opinions, you know where it comes from.  The internet.

A corporation will shoot money to a fly-by-nite non-profit.  All you need is a post office box, a domain name, a quick website and pay someone who knows nothing to use their name on it.  File for your 501(c) 3 and you are in business and that non-profit.

Now you have money coming in and if you are really good, you snag a few state and federal grants.

Next, is getting the money to a candidate.  Create a Political Action Committee.

All a corporation needs to do is set up a few of these non-profits and then make contributions to the PACs.  A PAC has to support an issue and that issue has to do with 3 or more political candidates.  It's done.

There are much more sophisticated schemes but I think you have a basic understanding of this rubric.

Corporate campaign ads haven't followed Supreme Court's prediction

COMPANIES AND UNIONS HAVE BEEN ABLE TO AVOID THE TRANSPARENCY CALLED FOR IN THE COURT'S LANDMARK RULING. SPENDING ON NEXT WEEK'S MIDTERM ELECTION HAS BEEN EXORBITANT

Chart: Money flowing into midterm campaigns

Reporting from Washington — The Supreme Court sent a wave of corporate and union money flooding into campaign ads this year, but it did so with the promise that the public would know — almost instantly — who was paying for them.

"With the advent of the Internet, prompt disclosure of expenditures can provide shareholders and citizens with the information needed to hold corporations and elected officials accountable for their positions," Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote in January. "This transparency enables the electorate to make informed decisions and give proper weight to different speakers and messages."

But Kennedy and the high court majority were wrong. Because of loopholes in tax laws and a weak enforcement policy at the Federal Election Commission, corporations and wealthy donors have been able to spend huge sums on campaign ads, confident the public will not know who they are, election law experts say.

Corporate donors have been able to hide their contributions despite the opposition of shareholders and customers — the very groups cited by Kennedy.

Here are the questions presented to the Justices:

QUESTIONS PRESENTED: 

1. Whether all as-applied challenges to the disclosure requirements (reporting and 

disclaimers) imposed on "electioneering communications" by the Bipartisan 

Campaign Reform Act of 2002 ("BCRA") were resolved by McConnell’s statement 

that it was upholding the disclosure requirements against facial challenge “for the 

entire range of electioneering communications' set forth in the statute." Mem. Op. I, 

App. 15a (quoting McConnell v. FEC, 540 U.S. 93, 196 (200)). 

    2. Whether BCRA's disclosure requirements impose an unconstitutional burden 

when applied to electioneering communications protected from prohibition by the 

appeal-to-vote test, FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life, 127 S. Ct. 2652, 2667 (2007) 

("WRTL II”), because such communications are protected "political speech," not 

regulable “campaign speech,” id. at 2659, in that they are not "unambiguously 

related to the campaign of a particular federal candidate," Buckley v. Valeo, 424 

U.S. 1, 80 (1976), or because the disclosure requirements fail strict scrutiny when 

so applied. 

    3. Whether WRTL II’s appeal-to-vote test requires a clear plea for action to vote 

for or against a candidate, so that a communication lacking such a clear plea for 

action is not subject to the electioneering communication prohibition. 2 U.S.C. § 

441b. 

    4. Whether a broadcast feature-length documentary movie that is sold on DVD, 

shown in theaters, and accompanied by a compendium book is to be treated as the 

broadcast "ads" at issue in McConnell, 540 U.S. at 126, or whether the movie is not 

subject to regulation as an electioneering communication.

Here are the some keywords and links to make sure this message gets back to the Justices, of course, via the clerks:


Sonia Sotomayor, Stephen G. Breyer, Samuel A. Alito, Elena Kagan. Clarence Thomas,Antonin Scalia, Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Anthony Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg