Posted on 01/23/2006 8:16:52 AM PST by Calpernia
Before Bill Clinton left office, he authorized 2001 an 84% increase in the government's investment in nanotechnology research and development, National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) and made it a top priority.
What has not been publicly realized is the meaning of this initiative and the various components that are encompassed.
This governmental increase has been combined with non-governemental organizations and grant programs. These NGOs have been creating partnerships with existing governmental agencies and masking initiatives as Federal and State grant reward programs. They are not.
Here, at the CDC is an overview of what is called, Healthy People 2010. As you can see from this link, the initiative is driven with 28 different categories. All of these categories have grant award programs that are awarding monies through various agencies to promote 'a healthy intiative program'. Some of the programs alone, sound harmless. When they are tied together though, they are disturbing.
Former (EX!) President Clinton's budget for his NATIONAL NANOTECHNOLOGY INITIATIVE is fueled by funding from the National Nanotechnology Initiative, National Science Foundation, National Institutes of Health, Department of Homeland Security, Department of Energy and the Department of Defense in combination with private and nonprofit funds from non-governmental organizations.
These funds now make available monies for grant projects for:
Focus Areas at a Glance (28)
1. Access to Quality Health Services
2. Arthritis, Osteoporosis and Chronic Back Conditions
3. Cancer
4. Chronic Kidney Disease
5. Diabetes
6. Disability and Secondary Conditions
7. Educational and Community-Based Programs
8. Environmental Health
9. Family Planning
10. Food Safety
11. Health Communication
12. Heart Disease and Stroke
13. HIV
14. Immunizations and Infectious Diseases
15. Injury and Violence Prevention
16. Maternal, Infant, and Child Health
17. Medical Product Safety
18. Mental Health and Mental Disorders
19. Nutrition and Overweight
20. Occupational Safety and Health
21. Oral Health
22. Physical Activity and Fitness
23. Public Health Infrastructure
24. Respiratory Diseases
25. Sexually Transmitted Diseases
26. Substance Abuse
27. Tobacco Use
28. Vision and Hearing
When an association, state, or company applies for the grants to fund these initiatives, in turn they authorize a Freedom of Information Release to all their data. This is a sample of the data collected from a grant application. All the data requirements are the same, the only difference is the partnered agency that is acting as a liaison for relaying the data. Example, this one below is using the USDA as the partnered liaison. If this was a hospital application, it would say the CDC.
--------------------------------------------------------
Other Federal Statutes and Regulations That Apply
Several Federal statutes and regulations apply to proposals considered for review and to grants awarded by USDA. These include, but are not limited to:
7 CFR part 1.1--USDA implementation of the Freedom of Information Act.
7 CFR part 15a--USDA implementation of title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
7 CFR part 3015--USDA Uniform Federal Assistance Regulations.
7 CFR part 3016--Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements to State and Local Governments.
7 CFR part 3017--Governmentwide Debarment and Suspension (nonprocurement) and Governmentwide Requirements for drug-free workplace (grants).
7 CFR part 3018--New Restrictions on Lobbying.
7 CFR part 3019--Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Agreements with Institutions of Higher Education, Hospitals, and Other Nonprofit Organizations.
7 CFR part 3052--Audits of State, Local Governments, and Non-Profit Organizations.
The terms of the above parts will be incorporated in a grant made by the NSIIC.
(snip) 7. Further Provisions. This section establishes further provisions that must be understood and agreed to by the Grantee.
(a) All of the terms and provisions of the application submitted by the Grantee for this SGIGI, including any attachments, amendments or conditions that are otherwise not in conflict with this Agreement are attached to and incorporated into this agreement. Any changes to these documents or this Agreement must be approved in writing by the Grantor,
(b) Grantee certifies that it is in compliance with, and will comply in the course of the Agreement with grant conditions and all applicable laws, regulations, Executive Orders, or other applicable requirements,
(c) The provisions of the following are incorporated into this Agreement by reference: 7 CFR part 3015--``USDA Uniform Federal Assistance Regulations''; 7 CFR part 3016--``Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements to State and Local Governments''; 7 CFR part 3017--``Governmentwide Debarment and Suspension (Nonprocurement) and Governmentwide Requirements for Drug-Free Workplace (Grants)''; 7 CFR part 3018--``New Restrictions on Lobbying''; 7 CFR part 3019--``Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Agreements with Institutions of Higher Education, Hospitals, and Other Nonprofit Organizations''; and 7 CFR part 3052--``Audits of State, Local Governments, and Non-Profit Organizations,''
(d) The Grantee shall not encumber, transfer or dispose of any property, equipment or other asset, or any part thereof, acquired wholly or in part with Grantor funds without the written consent of the Grantor,
(e) Grantees shall adequately control and safeguard all assets associated with the grant to ensure that they are used solely for authorized purposes,
(f) Grantor shall monitor performance in accordance with the applicable terms of the Agreement. Grantor reserves the right to monitor meetings and request documents applicable to the terms of the Agreement.
8. Assurances. Grantee has executed.
(a) Form AD-1047, ``Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension, and Other Responsibility Matters--Primary Covered Transactions,'' to certify that your organization is not debarred or suspended from Government assistance,
(b) AD-1048, ``Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension, Ineligibility and Voluntary Exclusion--Lower Tier Covered Transactions,'' from anyone you do business with as a result of this Government assistance,
(c) AD-1950, ``Certification Regarding a Drug-Free Workplace Requirements (Grants)'' to certify you will provide a drug-free awareness program for employees,
(d) RD 400-1, ``Equal Opportunity Agreement,''
(e) ``Certification Regarding Lobbying--Contracts, Grants, Loans and Cooperative Agreement.''
9. Accounting, Audits and Reporting Requirements.
(a) Generally Accepted Accounting Principles: The Grantee agrees to account for all amounts associated with this grant using Generally Accepted Accounting Principles. Records must at least include:
(i) financial records that identify the source of all funds used for grant-supported activities, including Grant Funds, any matching funds, other funds, and;
(ii) source documentation to support activities.
(b) Audit: The project will be audited by a Certified Public Accountant annually or as otherwise agreed to in writing by the Grantor. All audits will be in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles. The audit for the years the Grantee receives this financial assistance will be conducted in accordance with 7 CFR part 3052. Audits are due within 90 days after September 30 of the respective year and the Grantor is to receive a copy of this audit,
(c) Reports: The grantee will provide periodic reports as required by the Grantor. A financial status report and a project performance report will be submitted by the Grantee on a semi-annual basis (due each March 31 and September 30). The financial status report must show how Grant Funds and any matching funds have been used to date and project the funds needed and their purposes for the next six-month period. A final report may serve as the last semi-annual report.
Grantees shall constantly monitor performance to ensure that time schedules are being met and projected goals by time periods are being accomplished. The project performance report and final report shall include at least:
(i) A comparison of timeline, tasks and objectives outlined in the proposal as compared to the actual accomplishments,
(ii) If report varies from the stated objectives or they were not met, the reasons why established objectives were not met,
(iii) Problems, delays, or adverse conditions which will materially affect attainment of planned project objectives,
(iv) Objectives established for the next reporting period, and
(v) Status of compliance with any special conditions on the use of awarded funds.
(d) Proposal Results: Grantee shall deliver the results of any study or activity to the Grantor upon completion of each task outlined in the proposal. These include, but are not limited to, feasibility studies, marketing plans, business operations plans, articles of incorporation and bylaws. All items delivered to the Grantor will be held as proprietary information to the extent provided by law.
(e)
Record Retention: Financial records, supporting documents, statistical records, and all other records pertinent to the grant must be kept for a period of at least 3 years after grant closing, except that the records shall be retained beyond the 3-year period if audit findings have not been resolved. Microfilm or photocopies or similar methods may be substituted in lieu of original records. The Grantor and the Comptroller General of the United States, or any of their duly authorized representatives, shall have access to any books, documents, papers, and records of the Grantee's which are pertinent to the specific grant program for the purpose of making audits, examinations, excerpts, and transcripts.
10. Funding.
(a) Payment: Requests for cash advances should be for the minimum amount needed and timed to the actual, immediate cash requirements for carrying out the grant purpose. The funds will be reimbursed or advanced based on submission of Standard Form 270, ``Request for Advance or Reimbursement.''
(b) Distribution of Funds: Once the Agreement is entered into, grant funds will be transferred electronically to an account specified by the Grantee.
(c) Pre-award costs: The grantee may incur or claim no cost prior to the Effective Date as provided for in this Agreement.
11. Code of Conduct and Conflict of Interest.
Conflict of interest for the purpose of this Agreement is defined in 7 U.S.C. 2008j and Grantee agrees to disclose any conflict of interest to Grantor.
12. Other Parties. This Agreement is not for the benefit of third parties. Grantor shall not be under any obligation to any such parties, whether directly or indirectly interested in this Agreement, to pay any charges or expenses incidental to compliance by Grantee with any of the duties or obligations imposed hereby.
13. Event of Default and Remedies.
(a) Events of Default of Grantee. By delineation and not limitation, any of the following occurrences shall be an ``event of default''. Written notice of default shall be provided within 90 days of such occurrence of an event of default:
(i) Any representation or warranty made by the Grantee in connection with this Agreement shall prove to have been false or misleading in any material respect on or as of the date made or deemed made,
(ii) Failure, inability or unwillingness of Grantee to carry out or comply with the terms or conditions of this Agreement, or any applicable laws,
(iii) The Grantee becomes insolvent, or ceases being able, or admits in writing to its inability to pay its debts as they mature, suspends its business operations, become a debtor in a bankruptcy proceeding or makes a general assignment for the benefit of, or enters into any composition or arrangement with, creditors, proceeds with the appointment of a receiver, trustee or liquidator, or like action and is not dismissed within 90 days.
(iv) A judgement or other like order for payment is rendered against the Grantee or any material adverse change occurs in the Grantee's financial condition.
(v) Submission or making of any report, statement, warranty, or representation by Grantee or agent on its behalf to Grantor in connection with the grant hereunder which is false, incomplete or incorrect in any material respect.
(b) Remedies:
(i) Upon the occurrence and during the continuation of any event of default, Grantor shall have no obligation to continue funding the Grantee as contemplated in this Agreement. Accordingly, Grantor shall suspend operations contemplated by this Agreement until the declaration of default is cured and Grantor notifies in writing such acknowledgment of cure,
(ii) The Grantee shall have 60 days from the notice of default to propose remedies and cures to Grantor to remove the event of default,
(iii) Grantor reserves the right to waive any and all events of default. Exercise of this waiver shall not preclude Grantor from declaring a similar future event as an event of default.
14. Notice. All notices hereunder and for whatever purpose, including declaration of default, shall be in writing and shall be deemed to be duly given upon delivery if personally delivered or sent by telecommunication (facsimile or e-mail) or 3 days after mailing if sent by express, certified or registered United States Postal Service mail, to the parties. The grantees address and contact person shall be the one provided on SF 424 and the Grantor shall be the National Sheep Industry Improvement Center, USDA, PO Box 23483, Washington, DC 20026-3483, if using the U.S. Postal Service or Room 2117, South Agriculture Building, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250 if using other carriers.
15. Amendments, Termination and Changes. The Agreement may be amended, changed or terminated by mutual consent of the parties in writing.
(a) Amendment: This Agreement may be amended with the mutual written consent of the Parties.
(b) Scope of Work: Any changes in project costs, source of funds, scope of services, or any other changes in the project or applicant must be reported to and approved by the Grantor by written amendment of this Agreement. Any changes not approved by the Grantor shall be cause for deobligating grant funding.
(c) Termination: The Agreement may be terminated by either party upon 30 days' notice in writing to the other party.
16. Conflict. Nothing herein is intended to conflict with current USDA directives. If the terms of this agreement are inconsistent with existing law or agency directives, then those portions of this agreement which are determined to be inconsistent shall be invalid, but the remaining terms and the agreement will remain in effect. All necessary changes will be accomplished either by an amendment to this agreement or by entering into a new agreement, whichever is deemed expedient to the interest of both parties.
17. In witness whereof, Grantee has this day authorized and caused this Agreement to be executed by:
-------------------------------------------------------
What the schools, states, associations, and hospitals are doing, when they take the grant money, they are turning over the data, your data.
Example, under initiative 10. Food Safety, The National Animal Identification System (NAIS) is being mandated to livestock producers.
About the NAIS:
·
Foodborne diseases have declined significantly, said the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention April 29. In its annual report on the incidence of infections from foodborne pathogens, CDC noted significant declines from 1996 to 2003 in illnesses caused by E. coli O157:H7 (42 percent), Salmonella (17 percent), Campylobacter (28 percent) and Yersinia (49 percent). Illnesses caused by Salmonella Typhimurium (typically associated with meat and poultry) decreased by 38 percent. Most significantly, between 2002 and 2003, illnesses caused by E. coli O157:H7, typically associated with ground beef, dropped by 36 percent. The reduction in E. coli O157:H7 illnesses brings the United States very close to achieving the “Healthy People 2010”goal of 1.0 case per 100,000 people. The data, while inclusive of all foods, generally tracks the trends revealed through random regulatory testing of meat, poultry and egg products by the Food Safety and Inspection Service. In addition to testing results, recalls for Salmonella, E. coli O157:H7 and Listeria in FSIS regulated products also dropped from 65 in 2002 to 28 in 2003.
· Framework for implementing animal ID was announced April 27 by Agriculture Secretary Ann M. Veneman. The National Animal Identification System (NAIS) is designed to identify any agricultural premise exposed to a foreign animal disease so that it can be more quickly contained and eradicated. Implementation of a NAIS will be conducted in three main phases. Under Phase I, USDA would evaluate current federally funded animal identification systems and determine which system(s) should be used for a NAIS, further the dialogue with producers and other stakeholders on the operation of a NAIS, identify staffing needs, and develop any regulatory and legislative proposals needed for implementing the system. Phase II would involve the implementation of the selected animal identification system at regional levels for one or more selected species, continuation of the communication and education effort, addressing regulatory needs and working with Congress on any needed legislation. In Phase III, the selected animal identification system(s) would be scaled up to the national level.
—U.S. Department of Agriculture
It looks like it is being launched from the USDA; but it isn't. The receiving of the data is going through the USDA and the grant monies are being funneled out through the USDA. The the data isn't being stored with the USDA.
Division of Health Promotion, Education and Communication
12 indicators of the “GLOBAL HEALTH FOR ALL” strategy that were to be assessed by all countries in the world
At least 5% of the Gross National Product to be spent on health; A reasonable percentage of the national health expenditure devoted to local health care; Equal distribution of resources;
(snip)
--------------------------------------------------------
Same with the Model School Nutrition Program which falls under 7. Educational and Community-Based Programs and 10. Food Safety programs listed above. Our state just mandated it. So what does that mean? Our state took the grant money. Now, agents of this program get to enter our school systems to gather data and have auditing rights to the schools records.
They have now criminalized the peanut butter and jelly sandwich so these agents can come in and gather information on our children in public and private schools.
1. Target Setting and Assessing Progress for Measurable Objectives
One of the three overarching goals for the Healthy People 2000 prevention initiative was to reduce health disparities among Americans.1 The framework of Healthy People 2010 has taken this a step further by proposing to “eliminate health disparities” as one of the two primary goals for the next decade.
(snip) Database Description
DATA2010 is a SAS database that contains one record (or observation) for each objective and subpart found in the 28 focus areas. The database will also contain records for the measures used to track the goals and the Leading Health Indicators.
Each record in the database contains the following information:
|
|
n |
Objective number |
|
|
n |
Objective text (abbreviated) |
||
|
n |
|
Baseline year |
|
|
n |
|
Baseline data |
|
|
n |
Tracking data for subsequent years (future) |
||
|
n |
2010 Target |
|
|
|
n |
Comments (definitions, clarifications, and explanations) |
||
|
n |
Data source(s) |
In the future, DATA2010 will contain additional population groups, and include options for chart and map generation. State data are expected to be added to the database, and users will be able to select national and/or State data. There also will be links to the operational definitions in Tracking Healthy People 2010 and to the Healthy People 2010 Web site http://health.gov/healthypeople/. Where available, standard errors of the estimates will be included in the database
I am in a Community Health class at a University that is really pushing this Healthy People 2010 as a major focus of the class. Thanks for the heads up on this topic. It felt perculiar the first few class lectures, but I will really pay attention from now on.
I know, and that's why I do everything I can to help my local seniors. With our landlord raising rent 3x in one year, he can't buy his medications anymore. So I help him with some extra money, he's helping me with some financial stuff... and well, I cook often for him. :) He might be moving (rent-free) to Hawaii though, and that will be good. Believe it or not, he's an elderly (88) gay, REPUBLICAN! :D He's so sweet. But it has definitely given me an incentive to save and plan.
Oh I know dear Pirate. They put me on 'generic' Allegra that just hit the market... I've taken 2 doses, and I'm sneezing my head off by 10pm. It's supposed to last all day, but I can so tell it's not. Funny enough, I experienced the same thing with Advil vs. generic Ibuprofen. Wassup with the FDA these days .... oh yeah.... government agency! :P
I know, and that's why I do everything I can to help my local seniors. With our landlord raising rent 3x in one year, he can't buy his medications anymore. So I help him with some extra money, he's helping me with some financial stuff... and well, I cook often for him. :) He might be moving (rent-free) to Hawaii though, and that will be good. Believe it or not, he's an elderly (88) gay, REPUBLICAN! :D He's so sweet. But it has definitely given me an incentive to save and plan.
God bless you for helping this poor soul out! I know he must really appreciate it.
It would be wonderful if he could move to Hawaii. Rent Free? Excellent!
It just takes a case like his to turn us around to a different mind set about saving money.
This thread deserves a bump. ;)
>>>>I am in a Community Health class at a University that is really pushing this Healthy People 2010 as a major focus of the class.
Hi Precious!
Now this is interesting. Universities and colleges apply for these grants too.
I wonder how much data the universities are relying back?
I've found several insurance companies that have foundations that donate to the NGOs.
I guess that buys them lobbying in return.
A keyword used by practitioners of the "Delphi Method" of "building consensus" (another keyword).
An indidious method of presenting preconceived notions to a "diverse" group of people, who then "buy into" the concept and saddle the rest of us with something we don't want or need.
I know it's boring, but......
>>>The Delphi Method makes use of a panel of experts, selected based on the areas of expertise required. The notion is that well-informed individuals, calling on their insights and experience, are better equipped to predict the future than theoretical approaches or extrapolation of trends. Their responses to a series of questionnaires are anonymous, and they are provided with a summary of opinions before answering the next questionnaire. It is believed that the group will converge toward the "best" response through this consensus process.
This is correct. They just implemented the panel of experts:
"A private group has been formed to oversee the National Animal Identification System. The United States Animal Identification Organization (USAIO) held their first meeting via teleconference this week, where the board's first three members were elected. "
I know they are selling a concept. But I am fishing for something else. And the NAIS is the one I have the most information on, so I keep referencing it.
Who now owns the livestock?
The fact that they are employing this subversion unfortunately means that your position means nothing......whatever it is that they want is already a done deal.
Whatever they are doing now, and whatever they do soon, is known as "lip service"
Soon, they will publish a "report" which indicates that the "group" agrees with them, and whatever they want should be implemented.
Sorry to be so cynical, but I've seen it happen over and over, on a wide range of proposals.
I have yet to find a way to stop it, once it gets started. I wish I could be of more help, but at least you know now what they're up to.
That is also what my thoughts were.
Now, if you don't mind me picking your thoughts, how does this concept transfer over to the other grants? Like the school lunches?
Am I asking who owns the children?
The conclusion has been reached and they are engaged in the process of demonstrating to some sort of governing body that their preconceived idea is the best way to deal with some "crisis".
However they have concluded is the best way to make that connection will become apparent in the "report" - which has already been written, BTW.
Can only guess what that plan consisted of.
You may want to try that.
bttt
I understand the concept. But now I'm down to wanting to know what the bottom line means.
Our 'former' governor just signed a conga line full of new amendments that encompass receipt of most of these grant monies.
These grant monies are from the NGOs and they are being awfully quiet about all of this.
What does this mean? Is our state now part of the UN?
From the grant applications I'm reading, the Statutes and Regulations really sounds like the UN or the 'they' own us.
I found this in my old files
Goals to Lower U.S. Smoking Not Being Met: Report http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20011213/hl/smoking_2.html
(Has since been removed). Thursday December 13 5:47 PM ET By Emma Hitt, PhD ATLANTA (Reuters Health) - The percentage of US adults who smoke ranges from about 13% in Utah to about 30% in Kentucky, and only three states have meet federal goals for reducing the number of residents who smoke, according to researchers at the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (news - web sites) (CDC). Two reports in the December 14th issue of the CDC's Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report describe state-based statistics for adult smokers and, for the first time, smoking patterns in major metropolitan areas. In their ``Healthy People 2010'' guidelines, federal officials have set the goal of reducing cigarette smoking among adults to 12% by the year 2010. The CDC points out that the average number of people who smoked in 2000 was similar to that reported for the preceding 5 years; however, the number of smokers varied from state to state. For the year 2000, the goal was to reduce cigarette smoking among adults to 15% in every state, but only three states, Puerto Rico, Utah and California, were able to meet that goal. The 12 states with the highest number of smokers were Kentucky, Nevada, Missouri, Indiana, Ohio, West Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, New Hampshire, Alabama, Arkansas and Alaska, the researchers report. The CDC also investigated the percentages of smokers in 99 metropolitan areas across the US. Similarly to the state-based figures, they ranged from 13% to 31%. Toledo, Ohio had the highest percentage of adult smokers and Orange County (Los Angeles), California had the lowest, they found. According to the CDC, the findings indicate support for smoking bans, with ``nearly universal support for bans in schools and day care centers and strong support for bans in indoor work areas and restaurants.'' Just over 60% of adults reported a smoke-free office in Mississippi compared to nearly 84% of adults in Montana, the CDC notes. ``The low prevalence of smokers in California, Utah and Puerto Rico may be a result of stronger social and cultural norms against tobacco use compared with other parts of the country,'' the CDC's Dr. Terry Pechacek said during a telephone press conference. ``We have seen variances with states, but they have been stable from year to year, suggesting that there are broad cultural and social differences,'' he told Reuters Health. Utah, for example, has religious and social traditions that may influence smoking, he explained. According to Pechacek, some states have stronger anti-smoking policies than others. ``We are encouraging all states to look at their trends and smoking within their own state, and where the rates of smoking rates are high. We see that as an opportunity to apply the strategies that we know have worked for other states, such as California.''
>>>>but only three states, Puerto Rico, Utah and California, were able to meet that goal.
Puerto Rico is a State???
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.