Obama to America: Drop Dead

Obama to America: Drop Dead - San Francisco Immigration

By Rick Oltman

In the most anti-American act of his administration that showed complete contempt for America and Americans, President Barack Hussein Obama amnestied over 30 million illegal aliens on Thursday. There was no legislation, no debate and no consideration for American citizens.

Cecilia Munoz, formerly of the racist group La Raza, posted on the White House Blog that under the president’s direction an amnesty was declared for illegal aliens in America.

Oh, it wasn’t called amnesty, of course. In classic Orwellian Newspeak she said, “Today, (DHS) announced that they are strengthening their ability to target criminals even further by making sure they are not focusing our resources on deporting people who are low priorities for deportation.”

But it’s an amnesty.

Read the rest of the story at Examiner.com .
****

Make your thoughts known - call the President's comment line about this: 1-202-456-1111 - Email him at http://www.whitehouse.gov/.  ~ Jean Towell

******

Well, NCLR wasn't satisfied with all the high level governmental appointments Obama paid them in return for their help in getting him elected.  They've now twisted his arm by threatening to withdraw their support in 2012 and by actively encouraging him to be a dictator that he has now become a dictator, throwing the Balance of Power, our Constitution, and our laws out the window.  Here's some on Cecilia Munoz.  I have never liked her since she was on some committee that was discussing how many people from each country we would allow in as legal immigrants.  She said something to the effect that she (although she phrased it as "we") didn't want to let too many black people in.  Wish I'd kept that.  I remember copying it as a comment on some posting on ALIPAC but I haven't been able to find it... that was back when I first started looking at this mess and wasn't familiar with saving things. Anyway, here's Cecilia.



I do believe that is incontestable evidence that the White House knows what the Balance of Powers is, what our Constitution and laws mean and that they have blatantly disregarded all of what this country was founded upon in favor of their own agendas.  Our Congress needs to get off their duffs, do their job and reign this president and his entourage in.  ~   Faye

Congress Asked To Pledge Respect To Latinos

.Last Updated: Wed, 03/23/2011 - 11:07am




Amid heated immigration debates, members of Congress are being asked to sign a pledge acknowledging the economic, civic and cultural contributions of Latinos and opposing “irresponsible and inflammatory rhetoric” that “dehumanizes” them.

The contract is part of the “Pledge for Respect” campaign launched this month by the politically-connected National Council of La Raza (NCLR), which bills itself as the largest Latino civil rights and advocacy organization in the United States. The influential Mexican group receives millions of federal tax dollars annually to promote its leftist, open-borders agenda and has hundreds of branches throughout the nation.

NCLR leaders regularly attend congressional hearings as well as White House meetings and President Obama hired one of the group’s top officials (Cecilia Munoz) to serve in his administration. The commander-in-chief even violated his own lobbyist ban to make Munoz director of intergovernmental affairs even though she supervised all legislative and advocacy activities on the state and local levels for the NCLR, which is headquartered in Washington D.C.

With that said, this isn’t merely a publicity stunt for the powerful NCLR, which is pushing the respect campaign as part of this year’s National Latino Advocacy Days. The idea is to reinforce that the Hispanic community is an integral part of the fabric of America, according to the group, which is also using the opportunity to denounce politicians who use Latinos to exploit xenophobia for political gain.

The contract also forces members of Congress to promise that they’ll meet with advocates and leaders from the Hispanic nonprofit (that would include the NCLR) and business communities to hear their perspective on the “issues.” That way they could find a common ground based on “shared values and interests.”

To launch its respect campaign the NCLR enlisted a Los Angeles hip-hop band named after the Aztec astrological symbol of the monkey (Ozomatli). In a public service ad, members of the musical group claim that some candidates for public office have called for landmines on the U.S.-Mexico border and microchips to be implanted in undocumented immigrants. Others have used “stereotypical and menacing images of Latinos in their campaign ads.”

The message goes on to say that elected officials and states have fashioned “extreme draconian” proposals against the immigrant and Latino communities, including the elimination of ethnic studies programs in public schools, forcing publicly-funded hospitals to ask for patients’ immigration status and stripping U.S. citizenship from children born to illegal aliens. “It’s time to tell Congress that we won’t stand for this anymore. We need to know who is with us and who is against us! “

http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2011/mar/congress-asked-pledge-respect-latinos

La Raza Group Teams Up With Feds To Push Govt. Aid In Spanish

Last Updated: Fri, 07/08/2011 - 2:03pm



President Obama’s favorite La Raza group has teamed up with a federal agency to promote one of the administration’s many government cash giveaways with Spanish ads encouraging Latinos—possibly illegal immigrants—to apply for free U.S. taxpayer dollars.

The new campaign warns Hispanics that time is running out to get up to “$50,000 in help” from Uncle Sam to pay their mortgage, past due charges, taxes, insurance and even legal fees associated with their home. The money is being disbursed by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) as part of a billion-dollar Emergency Homeowner Loan Program (EHLP).

In 2008 the agency revealed that some 5 million fraudulent or defaulted home mortgages were in the hands of illegal immigrants, who obtained the loans from banks that were pressured by the government to offer them. In fact, the agency in charge of preserving and promoting public confidence in the nation’s financial system, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), began pushing banks to offer services to illegal aliens years earlier and many still do today.

It’s logical to assume that the involvement of the nation’s most powerful open borders group, the National Council of La Raza (NCLR), in promoting government-funded mortgage aid is geared, at least in part, towards undocumented immigrants. The EHLP expired but recently got extended amid record-high unemployment to help people keep their homes. The NCLR, which has seen its federal funding skyrocket since one of its top officials got a job in Obama’s White House, wants to make sure Latinos get a piece of the pie. This week it launched a Spanish-language public service campaign to highlight the program’s “fast-approaching” deadline.

“The biggest challenge now is ensuring that people know about this opportunity and take advantage of it during the short period that it is available,” according to the NCLR director who announced the campaign that will help Latinos “seize” an “opportunity.” In the ad HUD Assistant Secretary Mercedes Marquez alerts Hispanics of the imminent deadline to get their government cash and directs them to a Spanish HUD website that assures the money will be disbursed in a “fair and impartial manner.”

Last year Marquez , a strong ally of the open borders movement, awarded an NCLR affiliate known as Chicanos Por la Causa nearly $40 million in grants to “stabilize neighborhoods and rebuild economies.” The money came from a Neighborhood Stabilization Program that has doled out $2 billion to community groups to combat the negative effects of “vacant and abandoned homes.”

Just a few weeks ago a Judicial Watch investigation revealed that federal funding for the NCLR, which for years has raked in millions of taxpayer dollars, has catapulted since Obama hired its senior vice president (Cecilia Muñoz) to be his director of intergovernmental affairs. In fact, the government cash more than doubled the year Muñoz joined the White House, from $4.1 million to $11 million. Additionally, NCLR affiliates nationwide raked in tens of millions of government grant and recovery dollars last year thanks to the Muñoz factor.

http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2011/jul/la-raza-group-teams-feds-push-govt-aid-spanish

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

Obama’s NLRB Uses Weight Of Fed Govt To Protect Illegal Immigrants

Posted by tomtflorida

Saturday, June 18th at 9:14AM EDT



Federal Resources Also Re-Directed To Further La Raza, Other Far Left Causes


When the National Labor Relations Board is not adding to our economic woes by suing American corporations and doing the bidding of the labor unions, it’s strenuously working to protect illegal immigrants.Judicial Watch reports that the Obama Labor Department has entered formal agreements with two foreign countries vowing to preserve the rights of their migrants.


Signed this week by the U.S., Guatemala and Nicaragua, the declaration will make it easier to protect the rights of migrants from those Central American countries who work in the United States. Under the decree, Labor Department regional offices will team up with local Guatemalan and Nicaraguan embassies and consulates to distribute information to their citizens about their “rights” in the U.S.

It’s part of Labor Secretary Hilda Solis’s plan to help illegal aliens, who she refers to as “vulnerable” and “underpaid.”

Judicial Watch also reports that the National Council of La Raza got a big boost in federally funded grants and contracts after President Obama appointed Cecilla Munoz, the National Council of La Raza’s senior vice president, as his director of inter-governmental affairs. In fact, the government cash more than doubled the year Muñoz joined the White House, from $4.1 million to $11 million.

The inter-governmental affairs job is among the most powerful in a presidential administration in terms of its occupant being able to direct or influence the awarding of hundreds of billions of dollars in federal grants in aid and contracts.

There are frequent claims that Obama has accomplished little in his first three years, however, when looking at just how thoroughly he has transformed the federal government through the appointment of radical left-wingers at all levels and how successful he’s been in redirecting the weight and finances of these federal agencies to further the far left agenda, those claims are very short sighted.

And with the ‘ends justifies the means‘ mentality of the far left, it’s unfathomable to grasp just how completely the public treasury is being raided.

It also further emphasizes just how critical the 2012 election is for the future of this country. As it stands, it will take years to root out the far left extremists that now permeate federal government. Another four years under the Obama Administration and the odds are that the damage may very well be irreversible.

http://www.redstate.com/tomtflorida/2011/06/18/obama%e2%80%99s-nlrb-uses-weight-of-fed-govt-to-protect-illegal-immigrants/

Hillary Hires Illegal Alien Advocate

Old news but pertinent ~ Faye

by Amanda B. Carpenter — 04-12-2007 @ 11:54 AM Reader Comments (12)

Hillary Clinton once said that she was "adamantly against illegal aliens" in a 2003 interview with WABC Radio, but has now given a high-profile illegal alien advocate a prime place in her presidential campaign.

The Associated Press reported that Raul Yzaguirre, who was president of the National Council of La Raza had signed on as co-chair to Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign.

La Raza is the nation’s largest Hispanic advocacy organization. It has opposed the REAL ID Act, which would have prevented states from issuing driver’s licenses to illegal aliens and the CLEAR Act, which would grant state and local law enforcement agencies that wish to do so, the authority to enforce federal immigration laws.

The late Rep. Charlie Norwood wrote an excellent article for Human Events in April 2006 that explained the La Raza's close ties with Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlan, or Chicano Student Movement of Aztlan (MEChA).

He wrote:

"Behind the respectable front of the National Council of La Raza lies the real agenda of the La Raza movement, the agenda that led to those thousands of illegal immigrants in the streets of American cities, waving Mexican flags, brazenly defying our laws, and demanding concessions.

Key among the secondary organizations is the radical racist group Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlan, or Chicano Student Movement of Aztlan (MEChA), one of the most anti-American groups in the country, which has permeated U.S. campuses since the 1960s, and continues its push to carve a racist nation out of the American West."


http://www.humanevents.com/rightangle/index.php?id=22012&title=hillary_hires_illegal_alien_advocate&c=1

Outrage! US Government Funding La Raza with Your Tax Dollars

by Mike Piccione

03/11/2011


The United States government is funding the National Council of La Raza with our tax dollars. La Raza, which literally means in Spanish “The Race,” is a radical organization that advocates open borders and amnesty for illegal aliens. I pulled and analyzed the tax return Form 990, the form filed by 501(c) 3 organizations to the IRS, and here is what was reported:


Government Grants (contributions) to the National Council of La Raza
2008 Tax Returns, (October 1 2008 to September 30, 2009) $5,136,535
2007 Tax Returns $3,458,351
2006 Tax Returns $3,353,319
Three Year Total $11,948,205

What do people get paid at La Raza?

According to the 2008 tax returns seventeen people listed as officers, directors, trustees, key employees and highest compensated employees of the National Council of La Raza have an income ranging from $119,675 to $378,446, the latter of which goes to Janet Murguia​, president and CEO.

To put that income figure in perspective a rank and file United States Senator makes $174,000. A United States Marine Sergeant with five years of service earns a base salary of $29,376, including the raise received for 2011.

Lobbying:

Part II, Section 1b indicates lobbying expenditures to influence a legislative body amounted to $550,787.

Section 1g indicates lobbying expenditures to “Grassroots nontaxable amount” of $250,000.

Here is the quick analysis: The US government pays La Raza to lobby the US government for money.

The United States of America is facing a multitude of critical issues. Two of those issues are wasteful government spending and illegal immigration. Cutting funding for the National Council of La Raza would begin to help in both of those issues.

Now you sound off. Should the United States taxpayer be funding the National Council of La Raza?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mike Piccione is founding editor of Guns & Patriots and is now an executive at U.S. Concealed Carry. A long time shooter, hunter and writer, Piccione is a Marine veteran, a NRA Marketing Manager and a member of the Fairfax County, VA, Community Emergency Response Team.


http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=42237

Sotomayor’s La Raza Uses Taxpayer Money for Radical Agenda

by Robert M. Engstrom

06/15/2009

If a group of United States citizens trekked to another country, formed an organization called “The Race,” which demanded open borders, unfettered immigration and citizenship, billions of dollars for bilingual education, health care, housing, job and wage guarantees, and anti-discrimination protection, they would likely soon be jailed or deported in a display of righteous sovereign indignation. But the National Council of La Raza engages in all these activities in the United States, and it receives taxpayer dollars to help promote its radical views.


Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor is a member of La Raza. That membership and her own statements have led to many challenges to her suitability for the High Court. Critics of the organization and its goals have frequently been labeled as racists, but that didn’t stop former Rep. Tom Tancredo (R.-Colo.) from calling La Raza a leftist radical group “a Latino KKK without the hoods or the nooses.”

La Raza, founded in 1968 by Raul Yzaguirre, takes its name from “La Raza Cosmica,” a phrase coined by Mexican scholar Jose Vasconcelos. The English translation, and the first definition found in Spanish/English dictionaries, for “la raza” is “the race.” Contrary to La Raza’s contention that the phrase means “the people,” or “the community,” the Spanish for those phrases are “la gente,” and “la comunidad.”

In 2005, La Raza received $15.2 million in federal grant money for charter schools and get-out-the-vote campaigns and in 2006 got another $4 million in congressional earmarks for housing reform. The organization’s financial statements for 2008 show that it received another $5.1 million in federal grants, and holds assets worth $97.4 million. La Raza has received more than $30 million from the federal government since 1996.

The Council of La Raza arranged to have its voice included in congressional hearings by House and Senate leaders and garnered an extra $4 million in federal tax funds earmarked by an anonymous senator in 2007 while continuing to lobby for open borders, driver’s licenses for illegals, and amnesty leading to citizenship for all illegal immigrants in the country.

Many of Mexico’s leading politicians encourage the takeover of sovereign U.S. property, and La Raza encourages those statements, while offering advice about avoiding the terms “illegals” and “amnesty.” Former Mexican President Felipe Calderon told Mexicans in a state of the nation address that “Where there is a Mexican, there is Mexico.” In 1995, President Ernesto Zedillo told a group of U.S. citizens of Hispanic descent in Dallas that “You are Mexicans, Mexicans who live North of the border,” suggesting they owed a higher allegiance to Mexico than the United States. Zedillo brought a 1997 La Raza gathering in Chicago to its feet in applause when he said that the Mexican nation extends beyond the territory enclosed by its borders. All those statements accord with the accusations of the colonialism that the U.S. is constantly accused of pursuing by its enemies.

La Raza endorsed the 2007 Citizenship Promotion Act, introduced by then-Sen. Barack Obama. The purpose of this act was to limit the costs of applying to become a citizen of the United States, but another provision of the bill would have distributed $80 million to pro-illegal immigration organizations, some of which are suspected of having links to the Mexican government.

In the name of diversity, La Raza encourages Latinos to cling to the language and customs of their home country after becoming citizens of the U.S. Those not “brown enough” are derided, as was Linda Chavez when she was considered for the position of Labor secretary under President George W. Bush. Rather than taking pride in the accomplishments of a female of Hispanic descent, critics mocked her as “the Hispanic who doesn’t speak Spanish.” While Chavez was under fire, the National Hispanic Leadership Association, an umbrella group representing 40 different Hispanic groups, including La Raza, condemned the federal Office of Personnel Management for failing to promote and hire Hispanics.

Obama laid claim to the Hispanic vote in a 2007 speech before the La Raza Council in which he said, “Find out how many senators appeared before an immigration rally last year. Who was talking the talk, and who walked the walk -- because I walked.” Obama characterized the 2007 Senate debate on immigration as “ugly and racist” and promised to make amnesty a priority of his presidency.

In the 2006 demonstrations Obama marched in, protestors carried signs reading, “Gringo Go Home,” and “This Is Our Land, Not Yours.” American flags were burned and desecrated by Hispanics wearing Che Guevara T-shirts and carrying Mexican flags while waving Communist and anarchist banners. La Raza advised the organizers of the 2007 demonstrations held in 40-plus cities to keep such incendiary symbols to a minimum.

To gain Hispanic support for his presidential bid, in 2007 Obama voted against amendments that would have facilitated the deportation of illegal immigrant gang members, convicted criminals, and terrorists. He also voted against legislation to enable state and local law enforcement officers to inquire about a person’s immigration status, then twice co-sponsored, but failed to get passage of, La Raza-backed legislation that would have granted citizenship and education benefits to minor illegal aliens and amnesty for their extended families. The border, national security and immigration policies that La Raza and Obama support, along with the healthcare and social welfare programs needed to accommodate the increase in immigration they are promoting, would mean spending and tax hikes that critics predict could bankrupt the American middle class. Spending on undocumented immigrants in the four states bordering Mexico now totals more than $200 million each year.

La Raza, through a network of 300 affiliates in 41 states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, says that it “advocates on behalf of the entire Latino population regardless of immigration status.”

Much has already been said about the Sotomayor’s much-quoted statement about “a wise Latina woman” being better qualified to serve as a judge. President Barak Obama and his staff have downplayed Sotomayor’s statement, its meaning and context, but few have focused on her opening remarks in that same speech in which she said: “I intend tonight to touch upon the themes that this conference will be discussing this weekend and to talk to you about my Latina identity, where it came from, and the influence I perceive it has on my presence on the bench.”

The White House characterized Sotomayor’s comments as an off-the-cuff misstatement that has been taken out of context, but the prepared text of the full speech makes a mockery of that attempt to spin attention away from the meaning and intent of her words. The speech was written for and delivered at the University of California, Berkeley, School of Law’s Judge Mario G. Olmos Memorial Lecture and later printed in the La Raza Law Journal for a symposium on “Raising the Bar: Latino and Latina Presence in the Judiciary and the Struggle for Representation.”

Sotomayor has also served on the board of directors of the Latino Justice/Puerto Rican Legal Defense Fund which, like La Raza, also opposes enforcing immigration laws, securing the border and supports amnesty for those already in this country illegally.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=32277

Tom Tancredo: Por La Raza Nada

Tom Tancredo

While virtually all President Obama will talk about is the debt ceiling, he took a short break to give an address before the National Council of La Raza on Monday. Calling the audience his “Hermanos y hermanas,” he trumpeted his support of the DREAM Act amnesty, stated his opposition to Arizona’s SB 1070 and all state level immigration laws, and touted his Hispanic appointments—citing Ambassador to the Dominican Republic Raul Yzaguirre, Labor Secretary Hilda Solis, and Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor.




Obama did not mention one other Hispanic appointment, former La Raza vice president Cecilia Munoz who serves as his Director of Intergovernmental Affairs and his public liaison to Hispanics. In appointing Munoz, Obama violated his own pledge not to allow former lobbyists positions where they control money they formerly controlled, and gave Munoz a special waiver.

While our nation is going broke, the National Council of La Raza is doing just fine. Since Obama and Munoz took up the white house, they have seen their funding skyrocket, nearly tripling from 4.5 to 11 million dollars in 2010. Judicial Watch also found out that the La Raza affiliate, Chicanos por la Causa received over 18 million dollars of tax dollars. That group was the primary plaintiff against Arizona’s law against illegal employers.

And it is not as if La Raza is lacking funds. Between their various sister organizations, they have over 200 million dollars in assets, much of it paid for by corporate America, and Chicanos por la Causa have nearly 100 million dollars.

Although some of La Raza’s government funding was earmarked by congress, virtually all of it was doled out by the Obama administration. Sixty percent of La Raza's take came from the Department of Labor—run by Hilda Solis. They lobbied hard for her appointment and honored her with an award. She paid them back—with millions of our tax dollars.

Even if we were running trillion dollar surpluses, there is no reason why La Raza should get a dime of taxpayer dollars. Here are just a few reasons why.

“La Raza” means “The Race,” specifically the Latino race. Could you imagine if the government were giving millions of dollars to a group called “The National Council of the White Race”?

La Raza counts the pro-reconquista Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlán (Chicano Student Movement of Aztlán) as an affiliate and helps fund the organization. MeCHA’s slogan is "Por La Raza todo, Fuera de La Raza nada," meaning “For the Race everything, outside the Race nothing.”

La Raza opposes free speech and has tried to get Lou Dobbs, Rush Limbaugh, and other opponents of illegal immigration kicked off the air. Their president Janet Murguia said “when free speech transforms into hate speech, we've got to draw that line.” La Raza has said calling illegal aliens “criminals” is “hate speech.”


La Raza has lobbied for every single amnesty, against immigration enforcement, for Obamacare, and against English as an official language

Barack Obama managed to address the issue of the debt briefly during his talk to La Raza. He stated, “Every day, NCLR and your affiliates hear from families figuring out how to stretch every dollar a little bit further, what sacrifices they’ve got to make, how they're going to budget only what’s truly important. So they should expect the same thing from Washington.”

While 11 million dollars is a tiny fraction of our trillion dollar a year deficit, funding this pro-amnesty propaganda outfit is not “truly important.”

Republicans in the House have passed legislation to defund left wing groups such as Planned Parenthood and ACORN. The National Council of La Raza should be be next. To slightly alter their MeCHA pals' slogan, when it comes to our tax dollars: “Por La Raza, Nada!”

http://townhall.com/columnists/tomtancredo/2011/07/29/por_la_raza,_nada

A History of NCLR

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"

La Raza - The Race




The National Council of La Raza was established in 1968 with support from the Ford Foundation and was originally called the Southwest Council of La Raza. According to a 1984 Ford Foundation report 'Hispanic Challenges and Opportunities,' its funding of La Raza 'provides Mexican American communities and organizations with technical assistance and ... has also become an effective voice for Mexican Americans and other Hispanics.' La Raza operates a Policy Analysis Center, which it claims is 'the pre-eminent Hispanic �think tank'' and uses its 'findings' to lobby for, among other policies, affirmative action, bilingual education, mass immigration, and more 'hate crimes' laws.

For example, La Raza demands an expansion of 'hate crimes' laws claiming 'Traditional hate crimes against Hispanics have increased in number during the 1990s.' What La Raza does not say is that such an increase is due to the flawed methodology employed by the U.S. government for reporting 'hate crimes.' When 'Hispanics' are victims of 'hate crimes' they are classified as 'Hispanics,' but when they are perpetrators they are classified as 'white.' Any bias incident between a 'Hispanic' perpetrator and a 'Hispanic' victim, therefore, will be reported as a white on 'Hispanic' 'hate crime.' The number of 'hate crimes' against 'Hispanics' is naturally increased by such definitions.

La Raza condemns the 'step-up [in] immigration law enforcement significantly along the U.S./Mexico border and in the interior of the country' claiming such activities violate the civil rights of 'Hispanics.'

La Raza has called upon the Congress to rescind the immigration and welfare reform acts of 1996 calling them 'a disgrace to American values.' In addition, it has demanded another amnesty for illegal aliens from Central America coupled with this threat 'Our elected officials should not be surprised if their failure to act on reforms of these terribly unjust laws is met with a firm response at the ballot box.' And U.S. citizens should not be surprised that those going to the ballot box for La Raza include illegal aliens and non-citizens.

On its website, www.nclr.org, La Raza claims to be 'the largest constituency-based national Hispanic organization, serving all Hispanic nationality groups in all regions of the country...[with] over 200 formal affiliates who together serve 37 States, Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia...and a broader network of more than 20,000 groups and individuals nationwide - reaching more than two million Hispanics annually.'

Where does La Raza get the funding to support its many activities? According to its website, 'the organization receives two-thirds of its funding from corporations and foundations, and the rest from the government.' For the period 1992-1996, the total amount of 'gifts, grants and contributions' to La Raza was more than $38 million. This does not include revenues from 'government fees and contracts.' Over three years, 1996-1998, La Raza received over five million dollars from just three foundations the majority, nearly four million dollars, from the Ford Foundation, $850,000 from the Carnegie Corporation, and another $850,000 from the Rockefeller Foundation.

For the period 1993-1996, La Raza paid $983,522 in 'compensation of officers, directors, etc..' But paid $9,842,560 in 'other salaries and wages.'


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

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