Funding Liberalism With Blue-Chip Profits

by David Hogberg and Sarah Haney

08/23/2006

Liberal blogger David R. Mark recently wrote, “Those that call themselves ‘compassionate conservatives’ would never think to touch their fat-cat supporters. It’s much easier to spin the ‘economic benefits’ of helping huge corporations fatten their bottom lines.” Liberal academic Thomas Frank, in his book What’s The Matter With Kansas?, claims that the corporate world “wields the Republican Party as its personal political sidearm.” Both Mark and Frank express a common view that corporations are major funders of the political right, and that when corporations make contributions to nonprofit advocacy groups they give to groups on the right because those groups are pro-business.


On its face, this makes sense. After all, conservatives generally support lower taxes, less government regulation, and freer trade, public policies that are supposed to coincide with the interests of corporations. Why wouldn’t corporations eagerly fund their political supporters? In a Washington Examiner editorial, Professor Thomas F. Schaller lamented the “‘infrastructure gap’ that persists between the well-funded and highly organized Republican right and the relatively underfunded and generally disorganized Democratic left.”

Of course, the conventional wisdom admits some high-profile exceptions. Certainly New Jersey Gov. Jon Corzine (D.) was one of the most liberal members of the U.S. Senate, consistently achieving scores of 90% and higher on the legislative scorecard of the left-wing activist group, Americans for Democratic Action. Yet before he entered politics, Corzine was head of Goldman Sachs, one of the largest investment banks in the world. Nonetheless, the popular assumption is that groups on the political right should have their coffers filled with corporate money. By contrast, the political left, because it is thought to favor policies inimical to business interests, ought to have scant corporate support.

We decided to test this hypothesis by examining giving by the charitable foundations of the top 100 corporations on this year’s Fortune 500 list. For this analysis, we defined the terms “political right” and “political left” broadly but with some specificity. Nonprofit public interest and advocacy groups on the political right favor lower taxes, less government regulation, and less government spending on social programs but more on defense programs. We also put on the right groups that defend traditional values, the right to bear arms, stricter immigration laws and tougher criminal laws.

We put on the political left nonprofit groups that advocate higher taxes, more government regulation, more spending on social programs and less on defense, and groups promoting more liberal values, more gun control and relaxed immigration and criminal laws. We looked at grants to groups across the political spectrum including advocacy organizations such as the Natural Resources Defense Council and the National Right to Life Committee, think tanks such as the Heritage Foundation and Brookings Institution, and public interest law firms such as the Institute for Justice and the Southern Poverty Law Center.

If the political right and major corporations are as closely aligned as popular perception suggests, then the corporate foundations examined in this report ought to be more generous to groups on the political right than those on the political left. That’s not what we found.

Common Perception Wrong

In this analysis, we examined only those Fortune 100 companies that operated nonprofit charitable foundations that made grants to groups we identified as on either the political right or left. That reduced the number to 53 corporate foundations. (See page 20.) We examined the most recent tax- return filings for these foundations (IRS Form 990) and compiled the dollar values for grants and matching gifts to left-wing groups and right-wing groups.

The results are the exact opposite of the common perception. The Fortune 100 foundations gave more money to the political left. In fact, the grant-making was lopsided: The political left received nearly $59 million, while the political right received only about $4 million, a ratio of 14.5 to 1.

The Wildlife Conservation Society, which took in a huge $35-million grant from the Goldman Sachs Foundation, was the top beneficiary on the political left of Fortune 100 foundation giving. It was followed by the Conservation International Foundation ($4.5 million), the National Council of La Raza ($2.9 million) and the Nature Conservancy ($1.9 million).

The American Enterprise Institute received $575,000, which was the largest single Fortune 100 grant to a group on the right, followed by the Competitive Enterprise Institute ($325,000) and the Employment Policies Institute ($275,000).

Competitive Advantage


Why do they do it? To understand why corporations give more money to the political left than to the political right, it is critical to understand that businesses are not inherently “pro-market.” Indeed, some business leaders may support tax increases and more government regulation because they believe it gives them an advantage over competitors. Many are not averse to more government spending if it boosts their profits.

Using government to gain advantage over the competition may explain some of the grants made by the corporate foundations. For example, the IRS Form 990 for the corporate foundation of General Motors shows that it gave grants of $50,000 to Resources for the Future and $10,000 to the World Resources Institute, both supportive of energy policies favoring ethanol production and use. Would GM have made the grants had it not made a major investment in a fleet of E85 vehicles that are designed to run on fuel that is 85% ethanol?

Similarly, the foundations of the timber giants International Paper and Weyerhaeuser fund many groups that support the Endangered Species Act, which has imposed drastic restrictions on the use of forests claimed to be the habitat of allegedly endangered species. International Paper Foundation’s latest tax return shows it made grants of $10,000 to the American Forest Foundation, $30,000 to the Conservation Fund, and $3,000 to the Nature Conservancy. The Weyerhaeuser Foundation gave money to the American Forest Foundation ($201,180), the Conservation Fund ($30,000), and the Nature Conservancy ($74,500).

Restrictive forest-use policies hurt small timber companies far more because they cannot pay what it takes to fight a government regulatory onslaught abetted by environmental advocacy groups. Is it so far-fetched to suggest that International Paper and Weyerhaeuser understand that they gain more than they lose by supporting political groups that back the Endangered Species Act?

Liberal CEOs

But competitive advantage is only one possible explanation for why Fortune 100 giving leans leftward. Another reason is personal political preference. Besides Jon Corzine, many other corporate leaders support left-of-center causes and candidates. For instance, James Dimon, CEO of JPMorgan Chase, has made political contributions to high-profile Democratic lawmakers and candidates, including Sen. Hillary Clinton (N.Y.), Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.), former House Minority Leader Richard Gephardt (Mo.), Sen. Evan Bayh (Ind.), unsuccessful North Carolina Senate candidate Erskine Bowles, Sen. Ken Salazar (Colo.), former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle (S.D.), Rep. Harold Ford (Tenn.), and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. Dimon has also given to Republican Senators Mike DeWine (Ohio) and Richard Shelby (Ala).

Robert Benmosche, who until last year was CEO of MetLife, is another left-leaning corporate chief. His list of contributions includes Democrats Hillary Clinton, Sen. Chris Dodd (Conn.), Sen. Charles Schumer (N.Y.), Rep. Charles Rangel (N.Y.), and the New York State Democratic Committee.

Not surprisingly, JP Morgan Chase Foundation donated just less than $1.2 million to groups on the left, but no money to groups on the right. It gave more than $31,000 to the NAACP, more than $59,000 to Planned Parenthood, and $1,000,000 to the far-left Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN). The MetLife Foundation followed a similar pattern. While it did donate $40,000 to groups on the political right in 2004, it gave more than $1.2 million to groups on the political left, including the Children’s Defense Fund ($5,000), the Economic Policy Institute ($275,000), and the National Council of La Raza ($180,000).

Charity as Investment

“Strategic giving” is another explanation for the Fortune 100 foundations’ giving patterns. Giving to charity is a form of investment strategy, in which donations advance the company by increasing market share, keeping employees happy, or creating good public relations.

The need for good PR may help explain corporate gifts to environmental groups such as the Keystone Center ($459,610), the Nature Conservancy ($1,903,388), the Trust for Public Land ($670,034), the Wilderness Society ($104,790), and the World Wildlife Fund ($680,637). Some corporations, such as Johnson & Johnson, which produces medical supplies, and Pfizer, which makes pharmaceuticals, would seem to have little reason to placate environmentalists. But perhaps they understand that few terms confer more saintly status than the moniker “environmentalist.”

What better way to credibly claim the environmental mantle than to give to environmental groups? In 2004, Johnson & Johnson gave more than $100,000 each to the Nature Conservancy, the Trust for Public Land, and the Wilderness Society, and $450,000 to the World Wildlife Fund. Pfizer gave more than $250,000 to the Keystone Center and more than $130,000 to the Nature Conservancy.

The charity-as-investment strategy may also account for grants to left-of-center minority organizations. Corporate foundations may reason, for example, that grants to groups identifying with Hispanics, the fastest growing segment of the U.S. population, will help them tap the Hispanic consumer market. Bank of America is a case in point. It has engaged in extensive efforts to tap into the Hispanic market, including launching Spanish-language ads in 2003 in the Hispanic-heavy states of Texas and California. In 2004, Bank of America Foundation donated $40,000 to the Cesar E. Chavez Foundation and $31,000 to the Mexican-American League Defense and Education Fund (MALDEF).

Ford Motor Company also has commercial reasons for reaching Hispanics. It’s likely that Ford believed donating to leftist groups that represent themselves as spokesmen for the Hispanic community was one way to do more business. In 2001 the Ford Motor Company Foundation donated more than $200,000 to the National Council of La Raza, $50,000 to the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute, $15,000 to MALDEF, and $4,500 to the Michigan chapter of the League of United Latin American Citizens.

Extortion and Indifference

The final two explanations for why big corporations give to the left are perhaps the most exasperating: Corporations hope to make trouble go away, and they don’t know the nature of the groups they fund.

Left-wing groups are far more likely than groups on the right to organize boycotts and protests to embarrass corporations into caving into activists’ demands. Some groups, such as the radical Rainforest Action Network, use so-called “civil disobedience” to disrupt corporate meetings and operations. Instead of stiffening corporate resistance, their tactics frequently help open company checkbooks.

Jesse Jackson is the master of the corporate shakedown. His tactics are tried and true. Jackson first fires off a letter to a corporation criticizing it for not hiring enough minorities. He demands a meeting. If the corporation defends itself and rejects the demands, Jackson publicly accuses it of racial insensitivity, announces a protest and calls for a boycott. Since corporations recoil at charges of racism, they usually attempt to appease Jackson and agree to a meeting. The upshot is that Jackson can claim a historic breakthrough that also produces a corporate contribution to Jackson’s Rainbow Push Coalition.

It is worthwhile to note that many corporate foundations have programs that match donations made by company employees. Corporations sometimes observe that they can hardly be expected to monitor small employee gifts that they match. For instance, on the Bank of America Foundation tax return we found a matching $300 gift to the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society and a $50 gift to the Progress Unity Fund. The Sea Shepherd Conservation Society maintains a fleet of ships that sink fishing vessels. The Progress Unity Fund is the parent organization for International Act Now to Stop War and End Racism (A.N.S.W.E.R.),which is best known for organizing protests against the War on Terror. In fact, the group’s leaders support the communist dictatorships of Cuba and North Korea. Nicole Nastacie explained that Bank of America does not pass judgment on employees’ personal philanthropy. “We respect our associates’ individual charitable giving choices by matching associate gifts to all eligible 501(c)(3) organizations,” she said.

If the Fortune 100 represents corporate America, then the belief that corporate America is more generous to public interest and advocacy groups on the right is clearly wrong. Unfortunately, that misperception is embedded in American consciousness. How often are groups on the left derided as “corporate lackeys”?

Will the pattern change? Corporate foundations could make a start by better monitoring their matching grants. But real change requires that they commit themselves to free-market principles that are the basis for the liberty that lets enterprise grow and prosper. If corporations use their foundations to stifle competition and buy off opponents, there is little hope that they will be bulwarks of freedom—no matter what liberal commentators believe.

This article is reproduced from the August 2006 edition of Foundation Watch, a Capital Research Center publication.


http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=16588

A History of MALDEF

Funding Hate - Foundations and the Radical Hispanic Lobby- Part III

By Joseph Fallon
Volume 11, Number 1 (Fall 2000)
Issue theme: "America's porous borders"

MALDEF - The Mexican-American Legal Defense and Education Fund


Perhaps the most important book to examine the origin, activities, and source of funds of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund (MALDEF) is Importing Revolution Open Borders And The Radical Agenda by William R. Hawkins. (The American Immigration and Control Foundation, Monterey, Virginia and United States Industrial Council Educational Foundation, Washington, D.C., 1994). The following paragraphs while based principally on the findings of Hawkins also include data from the MALDEF website at http://www.maldef.org./

Ironically for LULAC, the founder of the rival Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF) was Peter Tijerina, State Civil Rights Chairman for the LULAC chapter in San Antonio. Tijerina felt LULAC had failed to use its victory in Hernandez v. Texas to pursue legal activism. He wanted LULAC to imitate the actions of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People Legal Defense Fund (NAACP-LDF). In 1966, Tijerina sent a LULAC member to the Chicago convention of the NAACP-LDF. As a result of the contacts established at the convention, the next year, Jack Greenberg, president of the NAACP-LDF, arranged for Tijerina to meet Bill Pincus, head of the Ford Foundation. Pincus agreed to advance Tijerina 'seed money' to create a five-state 'Mexican-American' organization modeled after the NAACP-LDF. This new organization would pursue civil rights litigation on behalf of 'Mexicans' as the NAACP-LDF was doing on behalf of blacks. Tijerina became MALDEF's first executive director, and, in 1970, Mario Obledo, former Texas Attorney General, became General Counsel. After MALDEF was established by 'seed money,' the Ford Foundation then awarded the organization a five-year grant in excess of $2 million.

MALDEF was a creation of the Ford Foundation in more ways than just funding. The Ford Foundation soon took control of virtually all important matters from where the headquarters should be located, to the appointment of its executive director, and the type of legal cases it should pursue.

Initially, MALDEF addressed a variety of issues ranging from education to school desegregation, voting rights to job discrimination, composition of draft boards to legal advice for anti-Vietnam war protesters. The Ford Foundation found this tactic unsatisfactory. The cases MALDEF was litigating were not radical enough. The Ford Foundation wanted precedent-setting cases to go before the U.S. Supreme Court whose rulings would effect the entire country. MALDEF was duly restructured to achieve those goals.

Since then MALDEF has redirected much of its effort to bilingual and bicultural education - i.e., promotion of the Spanish language and 'Hispanic' propaganda - and immigration - i.e., promotion of massive 'Hispanic' immigration in opposition to the wishes of the majority of U.S. citizens. Among some of its actions

* MALDEF supported the plaintiffs in 'Lau v. Nichols.' The ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court requiring non-English speaking students to be taught in English or 'other adequate instructional procedures' was successfully misinterpreted by MALDEF to mean education in languages other than English.

* MALDEF sought to amend the 'Bilingual Education Act' so general instruction could be conducted in languages other than English and bicultural programs could be included in the education.

* MALDEF filed charges alleging textbooks in California were biased against minorities.

* MALDEF litigated for free public education for the children of illegal aliens that successfully culminated in the 1982 U.S. Supreme Court decision in 'Plyer v. Doe.'

* MALDEF opposed California Proposition 187 that denied illegal aliens free social and welfare services and filed a class action lawsuit 'challenging its every provision.'

* Some individuals associated with MALDEF have demanded that U.S. citizenship be eliminated as a requirement to vote.

* MALDEF sought and received legal status to naturalize immigrants.

* MALDEF successfully lobbied for passage of the 'motor-voter' bill of 1993 that allows voter registration at welfare offices or when applying for a drivers' license; mandates mail-in voter registration and discourages States from verifying the applicant's eligibility or citizenship.

* MALDEF filed suit in 1997 to abolish the state requirement that students pass the Texas Assessment of Academic Skills (TASS), a three-part standardized test, for a high school diploma claiming among other things that the 'test contributes to the high drop out rates among Mexican Americans and African Americans.'

* MALDEF is defending 'affirmative action' enrollment at the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor.

* MALDEF opposes immigration reform.

* MALDEF opposes securing the Mexican border even to stop the flow of illegal drugs into the U.S. When the Federal government launched 'Joint Task Force Six' to combat drug smuggling along the border, MALDEF filed suit to halt the project arguing in court that 'it would cause irreparable damage to the human and physical environment in the area.' What of the irreparable damage being done to the human and environment due to illegal aliens and drug smugglers? On that question, MALDEF is silent.

What is MALDEF's goal? According to Mario Obeldo, former head of MALDEF, 'California is going to be a Hispanic state. Anyone who does not like it should leave.' In 1998, Obledo was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom by Clinton.

MALDEF obtains the funding to support its activities primarily from corporations in particular AT&T and IBM, and philanthropic foundations. For the period 1991-1995, the total amount of 'gifts, grants and contributions' to MALDEF was over $17 million. Between 1996 and 1998, MALDEF received over nine million dollars from just three foundations the vast majority, over six million dollars from the Ford Foundation, $1,200,000 from Carnegie Corporation, and another $1,525,000 from the Rockefeller Foundation.

For the two-year period, 1995-1996, MALDEF paid a total of $720,992 in 'compensation of officers, directors, etc..' But paid $4,021,363 in 'other salaries and wages.'


http://www.thesocialcontract.com/artman2/publish/tsc1101/article_912.shtml

Judge blocks new rules for licenses, IDs in Texas

By PEGGY FIKAC Austin Bureau
April 9, 2009, 7:53PM

AUSTIN — A state judge agreed Thursday to suspend new Department of Public Safety driver license rules touted as a crackdown on unauthorized immigrants.

The rules prevent thousands from getting standard-issue licenses even though they’re legally in the country, said the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, which is suing over the policy.

District Judge Orlinda L. Naranjo said the rules — which specify that people who aren’t U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents must prove they’re legally here before getting a license — go beyond DPS authority.

“This case is not about illegal immigrants obtaining driver licenses, it is about legal residents who have been denied or have been threatened a denial of a driver license,” Naranjo wrote to lawyers, saying she was granting a temporary injunction. After a formal order, such an injunction would block the rules pending a trial.

When DPS adopted the policy last year, GOP Gov. Rick Perry applauded it as strengthening security, saying, “Texas is a great place to live and work, and while we welcome legally documented individuals to the Lone Star State, we must ensure that this privilege is not abused by those seeking to enter our country illegally.”

Thursday, Perry spokeswoman Allison Castle said, “The governor continues to believe that the recent rule changes by DPS are important to ensuring public safety and national security and he is confident the vast majority of Texans feel the same way.”

DPS spokesman Tom Vinger said by e-mail, “We have received the court’s letter and are reviewing it with the Attorney General’s Office to determine the next step.”

When the policy change was announced, Public Safety Commission Chairman Allan Polunsky of San Antonio said he had instigated it because of a taxi driver in Dallas who had brought in undocumented workers from other states to get Texas driver licenses.

Visa acceptance at issue

Some lawmakers have joined civil rights advocates in saying DPS overreached.

“DPS has created havoc by attempting to inject its political agenda into the lawmaking process and improperly giving second-class status to individuals who in every way have complied with the laws of the land regarding their presence in the United States and Texas,” said David Hinojosa, MALDEF lead attorney in the case.  (Same MALDEF lawyer involved in the ECISD 30-year lawsuit.)(1), (2), (3), (4)

Rep. Ruth Jones McClendon, D-San Antonio, said the rule changes “had no legislative backing. State agencies do not have the power to pass rules that contradict or fail to comply with state laws.”

Before the rules were changed, an unexpired visa was accepted as proof of identify for someone seeking a driver’s license, Naranjo noted. The change required the visa to have been issued for at least a year and have at least six months remaining on it when presented to DPS.

The new rules also provide for noncitizens’ licenses to differ in appearance from standard licenses, and to show when a person’s stay in the country expires.

Hinojosa said it “invites racial profiling.” If license-holders’ legal status expires and they don’t present documentation showing their status has changed or their stay has been extended, their licenses are canceled under the rules.

Naranjo wrote: “State agencies possess only those powers granted to them by the Legislature … The Court finds that the Legislature did not give DPS the authority to create a new category of ineligible persons to receive a driver license.”

Chronicle reporter James Pinkerton contributed to this story.
pfikac@express-news.net

Read more: http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/6366630.html#ixzz1TytulV00

References:
(1)  MALDEF files objections
http://www.oaoa.com/news/maldef-32771-issues-students.html
 
(2)  District:  MALDEF too far off subject
http://www.oaoa.com/articles/district-35028-desegregation-court.html
 
(3)  MALDEF files objections
http://www.oaoa.com/news/maldef-32771-issues-students.html
 
(4)  MALDEF will object to ECISD's request
http://www.oaoa.com/news/crucial-31338-district-ecisd.html

Why Is Mexico’s Voter Registration System Better Than Ours?

This is an old article and Texas passed the Voter ID Act.  However, mail-in ballots were not addressed as several other areas of our voting process that STILL allow for voter fraud have not been.  Dragonrider has sent a couple of e-mails which address some information we all need to be aware of.  This one addresses Mexico's voter ID requirements and procedures.  Note how strict Mexico is about their own voting process while they fight any tightening of ours through bestowing dual citizenship on all people of Mexican heritage, particularly those who are located in the U.S., and even shipping funding through their embassies located in the U.S. to organizations such as MALDEF and NCLR.  ~ Faye

Mexico has a better voter registration system than the United States.

That may come as a shock to those who believe nothing in Mexico could be superior. Nevertheless, it is true.

My wife is a Mexican citizen. I’ve accompanied her when she votes. (Being a non-citizen here, I don’t, of course, vote.) Every registered Mexican voter has a Voter ID card, complete with photograph, fingerprint, and a holographic image to prevent counterfeiting.

At the Mexican polling station, there is a book containing the photograph of every voter in the precinct. This book is available to the poll workers and observers from various parties. If there’s a doubt as to someone’s identity, the poll workers can simply look up the person’s name and see if the photo matches up.

The Mexican voter’s thumb is smudged with ink. That way, if he shows up at another polling site to vote, they know he’s already voted elsewhere. (The ink wears off after a few days.)

It’s a good system. Sure, Mexico has many problems. But hey, they solved that one!

Mexico’s 2000 presidential election elected Vicente Fox with a plurality of the vote. Some were happy, others weren’t. But there was no significant dispute over who had won the election. And that was a great accomplishment.

In contrast, U.S. voter registration is a joke. Thanks to the “Motor Voter” regime, not only is it unnecessary for a voter to prove citizenship, it is also unnecessary to prove identity. Registrars have been instructed not to be inquisitive about applicants’ citizenship - or lack thereof. It should come as no surprise then, that the last few years have seen more and more examples of voter fraud coming to light, including the casting of ballots by non-citizen voters.

But now–help is on the way–or is it?

I refer to the “Help America Vote Act,” recently passed by Congress and signed by President Bush on October 29th, 2002, scheduled to take effect in 2003 and 2004 (if funds are appropriated). The Help America Vote Act was opposed by the Hispanic Caucus, MALDEF and Hillary Clinton (who voted against it). But it was supported by the NAACP and the Congressional Black Caucus.

(Some would argue that voter registration should be the responsibility of states and not the federal government anyway. It’s a valid point. I hope they are working in their own states to improve voter registration standards there.)

In the meantime, what is there about this new federal law that could possibly improve our voter registration system?

Well, it does authorize funds for computerized voter lists. And everyone registering is required to provide a driver’s license or social security number. And election officials are actually supposed to try to verify the numbers.

First-time voters registering by mail have to provide proof of identity (a photo ID, utility bill, paycheck, bank statement, or government document with name and address) when registering or voting.

That’s good as far as it goes. But what about everybody else? Why not, like Mexico, require a permament voter ID, with photo, for everybody, all the time?

Reason: Hispanic pressure groups like MALDEF and National Council of La Raza wouldn’t like it. Every time the suggestion of a photo ID comes up, some so-called Hispanic activist or defender attacks it as discriminatory. In Massachusetts, a federal judge struck down a municipal regulation requiring voters to show an ID before voting on the grounds that it “unfairly burdened Latino voters.”

Photo ID is inherently discriminatory against Hispanics? That’s funny - it works here in Mexico, where almost everybody is Hispanic!

As for “discrimination,” isn’t electoral law supposed to discriminate between citizens and non-citizens?

Well, you can’t expect MALDEF and NCLR to care more about common civic values than the advancement of their own agenda, now, can you?

Besides, there is a simple solution to the “ID Discrimination Problem.”

I suggest we follow Mexico’s example, where the government pays for the photo IDs. Why not? The government wastes money on so many things already. What’s better than spending money on improving our voter registration system? Then maybe someday we could bring it up to Mexican standards.

I hope the new Republican Congress proves me wrong, but so far, I don’t see the new law as a panacea. If the money is appropriated and IF the registration provisions are enforced, such provisions would be a step in the right direction.

But what will it really do to prevent non-citizen voting? Oh, it has a real tough provision for that! The Help America Vote Act requires the mail-in registration forms ask the question, “Are you a citizen of the United States of America?”

It even supplies handy boxes where the applicant can answer “yes” or “no.”

Don’t worry MALDEF! Senator Christopher Dodd, the Act’s principal Senate sponsor, reassures you with these words:

“The checkoff box is a tool for registrars to use to verify citizenship. Nothing in the legislation requires a checkoff or invalidates the form if the box is left blank.”

Yes, the U.S. has a long way to go to get up to Mexico’s standards.

American citizen Allan Wall lives in Mexico, but spends a total of about six weeks a year in the state of Texas, where he drills with the Texas Army National Guard. VDARE.COM articles are archived here; his FRONTPAGEMAG.COM articles are archived here. Readers can contact Allan Wall at allan39@prodigy.net.mx


January 04, 2003
http://www.vdare.com/awall/voter_registration.htm

Feel like a dumb gringo yet?  ~Faye

MALDEF and MAPA: Hiding behind the Voting Rights Act of 1965?

I'm reasonably certain the Founding Fathers are rolling in their graves. It was certainly NOT their intention that any one racial or cultural group of people should be "Packed" into any area of representation!
This smells so badly of MALDEF, and MAPA that one must wonder if they are not the organizations "pulling the strings" of those who are crying the loudest about "minority" representation!
75% packed into a single district, to make up for those who don't vote?!
If Anglos or Blacks or Native Peoples tried this, the screaming would lift the roof clear off the Ector County Coliseum!
What needs to happen here, is to get people out to VOTE! Get everybody educated about the issues, stop whining about being "victims", "man-up" and get off your lazy duffs and VOTE! I've said this before, and I'll say it 'til I'm dead and gone: WE ARE NOT DIFFERENT RACES OR CULTURES, WE ARE AMERICANS! Let's for God's sake start acting like it!!
When an organization or group starts talking "Reconquista" or revolution of one kind or another, and let's be realistic, it is quite a popular idea with some people throughout the Southwest, trouble will surely follow.
We, as Americans, must learn to separate the truth from someone's agenda of keeping us in a turmoil to further their own personal goals: total control of the people in a given area. This is the worst form of Megalomania. It is at best a form of slavery!
For the length of time that this is a "race-culture" issue, this will continue to be the "fly in the ointment"! I would like to know who the entities are that insist on "stirring the pot" of this "us against them" way of thinking. This is the kind of thinking that will be the down-fall of America.
If we, as Americans, with ALL our different cultural systems, cannot come to see ourselves as Americans first, and cultural diversities second, then we, as a Nation, will cease to exist as a cohesive whole, and break up into a System of Tribes that will achieve NOTHING!
History has already proven that an unassociated group of tribes can be defeated rather easily by a relatively small force of determined people. If we let those who would foment racial-cultural hatred guide us into that mentality, we WILL fall.


"UNITED, WE STAND; DIVIDED, WE FALL!" ~Lordhawke

Update on Ector County Redistricting

There's two articles in today's (Sunday, July 24) Odessa American.  "Redistricting still up in air" reveals some very interesting info on just where Rodriguez's, LULAC's, Una Voz's, et al, collective head is.  The other article is the editorial and the OA doesn't have it on line yet.  I'll add a link to it when they do. 

It seems they're not happy with the Hispanic majority they now enjoy in Districts 1, 3, and 5.  It appears they also want District 4 and for the ratios to go up to as much as 75% Hispanic... "because, he says, those numbers are needed to overcome Hispanics’ lack of belief in the electoral system and their tendency not to vote."

Geeeeeez, seen the lack of belief in the electoral system in the general population here lately?  Exactly why do they think Congress's approval rating is so low?  This is like having a race and putting one contestant 3/4 of the way down the track.  PLUS!!!!  These groups get federal grants, TAXPAYER monies, to do whatever they want with it EVEN THOUGH they're SUPPOSED to be NON-PARTISAN (and they most certainly are NOT non-partisan) in order to get that money and then they underwrite each other.  In this case, Carol Uranga let it slip that MALDEF is behind this.  Yep.  Jason got it on tape.  It's at desertvision.net.  Then, I ran across a site that reports business info and Una Voz was reported as having 3 employees and a $70,000 income.  As far as I know, Una Voz has NOT obtained their 501(c)(3) status, IF they've even applied for it, so where did this money come from?  I know for a fact that he was soliciting donations (see "Una Voz Unida" posting on this site) but $70,000?  There's a lot to this story that isn't being told. ~ Faye



Redistricting still up in air:


http://www.oaoa.com/news/districts-69066-see-overcome.html

OK.  Here's the online OA editorial:
IN OUR VIEW: Redistricting fireworks fun to watch


http://www.oaoa.com/opinion/folks-69049-tackling-fun.html