Organization Trends

Going Soft on Juvenile Crime: How the MacArthur and Casey foundations distort youth offender policies

By Fred Lucas (Organization Trends, May 2013) (PDF here)

Summary: Although the young still commit outrageous crimes, two multi-billion-dollar foundations have spent years working to make the juvenile justice system more lenient. Now the Obama Justice Department has also joined in the effort.

The family of Antonio Torres didn’t feel better after the January 24 sentencing of James Lee Allen, now 18. In 2011 Torres was murdered at the age of 42 by a group of four teenagers in Oakland, California. Prosecutors said the armed teens were “hunting” for someone to rob. They stole a gold chain and an iPod from Torres before fatally shooting him in the back as he tried to run away. Allen didn’t shoot the gun that killed Torres, but he was charged as an adult with murder and robbery for participating in the crime, the Oakland Tribune reported.

Allen ultimately pleaded guilty to a lesser charge of involuntary manslaughter and was sentenced to 12 years, too short for the Torres family. “My concern is that he is going to come out [of prison] and hurt another family,” said Maria Torres. “They not only took my brother’s life away, they took a part of each of us.”

Some advocates would oppose ever trying these four offenders as adults, despite their horrific crime. Forget the question of whether 12 years is too light a sentence. These advocates do not want any incarceration for crimes committed by offenders under the age of 18, and their thinking has begun to influence our legal system.

Over the last eight years, the courts have made juvenile justice, even for the worst offenders, more and more lenient. This gradual evolution follows what Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy has called, “the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society.”

Those evolving standards have largely been driven by two left-wing philanthropies, the Annie E. Casey Foundation and the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation. These two funders have battled the get-tough-on-crime approach of the 1990s and pushed for alternatives to incarceration for youth offenders. They have also opposed trying minors as adults. These organizations and their allies have had their way in abolishing the death penalty for juveniles (thanks to Justice Kennedy), and eliminating—in most cases—life sentences for youth murderers. They have also forged a tight-knit relationship with the Obama Justice Department and swayed the thinking of a majority of states across the country (red and blue) on the issue of crime and punishment for minors.

Read all »

Shadow Network: A leaked strategy memo reveals a powerful, and partisan, network of left-wing nonprofits

By Susan Myrick, Organization Trends, April 2013 (PDF here)

Summary: Thanks to a leaked strategy memo, the inner workings of the Left have been revealed in North Carolina. Dozens of nonprofits have colluded to make personal assaults on their political foes and to subvert state voting laws.

The veil of secrecy that shrouds left-wing nonprofits in North Carolina was recently shredded with the public exposure of a shocking memo. Thanks to this leak, the public can see how these organizations collaborate and employ highly coordinated hardball tactics to achieve their goals, hoping to undermine elected officials and apparently defying the law. For once, we have proof of something long suspected: left-wing nonprofits wield an alarming amount of power in the media, state politics, and government.

Just a few weeks ago the Charlotte Observer broke the story of the leaked strategy memo that described the game plan that “progressive” groups should use to attack the Republican Governor and leaders in the Republican-majority House and Senate. The memo would not be so unusual, if it had been written by and for a political party.

But a political party didn’t write it. Instead, it was circulated by a nonprofit organization, Blueprint North Carolina, that acts as a coordinating group for the state’s Left. The strategy memo was presented to a group of left-wing nonprofits at a Blueprint North Carolina meeting, and to the best of our knowledge was developed and written by at least one of those nonprofits.

Read all »

The Left’s Answer to Grover Norquist: Robert Borosage Uses Class-Warfare Rhetoric to Unite the Left

By Sean Higgins, Organization Trends, March 2013 (PDF here)

Summary: While the various pressure groups on the left all agree they want bigger and more intrusive government, they often squabble amongst themselves over the question of which agenda items should take priority. One man makes it his mission to unite these groups’ efforts and messaging, in order to move America further to the left.

Robert Borosage leans back in his chair in his K Street office and grins as he recalls the recent “fiscal cliff” debate in Congress and the box that conservatives—including anti-tax activist Grover Norquist—found themselves in during it. “It was actually a great delight watching Grover explain how the greatest tax increase in 20 years was a tax cut. It was a magical moment in television,” chuckles Borosage during a lengthy on-the-record interview. He compares it to his own effort to prevent any entitlement reform in the deal. “We outlasted him,” he claims.

If anyone in D.C. is the left-wing equivalent of Norquist, who is famous for his networking efforts to bring together various conservative groups, it is Bob Borosage, a ubiquitous figure behind the scenes of the “progressive” movement. His work is key to understanding the Left’s renewed embrace of old-fashioned class warfare and its abandonment of Bill Clinton’s more moderate rhetoric.

Borosage doesn’t shy away from the term “class warfare” either. “For years, conservatives in both parties have warned against class warfare. Americans, we’re told, don’t like that divisiveness,” he wrote at the Huffington Post website late last year. “Nonsense.”

While hardly alone, Borosage is also a key figure in the Left’s newfound ability to present a united front, rather than collapse into the kind of internecine squabbles that long plagued the Left. Anyone who wants to know how, for example, Big Labor, which long defended the heavy industries in which many of its members worked, came to embrace environmentalism, which regularly wars against those same industries, needs to understand Borosage’s work.

Read all »

Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights (but Not Equal Rights) Under Law

By Kevin Mooney, Organization Trends, February 2013 (PDF here)

Summary: Formed in the midst of the nation’s struggle to guarantee equal rights to all Americans, regardless of race, the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law has morphed into just another left-wing pressure group trying to gain special privileges for its favored constituencies, even if that means undermining the voting rights of Americans of every race.

Be careful about working to uphold the rule of law in areas of the country where both political parties are competitive. Otherwise, you can expect to hear from the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, which has joined forces with Project Vote, Demos, Common Cause, the Advancement Project, and other far-left groups in an effort to scuttle ballot integrity efforts. Thanks in large measure to a compliant, uncritical news media, the Lawyers’ Committee and its allies, have worked successfully to delay (but not stop) implementation of voter identification laws that would protect the best interests of the very racial minorities the Committee claims to champion.

While it is fair to point out that Republicans have been the primary driving force behind voter ID laws since the 2010 mid-term elections, the New York Times and other liberal publications do not inform readers that a broad cross-section of Americans, spanning political and racial lines, support these same laws. In fact, polls show that minorities actually favor voter ID laws by a slightly higher margin than whites.

John Fund, a senior editor with the American Spectator who has written two books on voter fraud, told the “True the Vote” Summit in Houston, Texas, last year that the poll results should not be surprising.

Read all »

The ‘Responsibility to Protect’ Doctrine
A pretext for disarming Israel

By James Simpson (Organization Trends, January 2013 – PDF here)

Summary: The Left’s long love affair with global government continues, as does its hostility to the interests of America and America’s closest ally in the Middle East. Radical donors like George Soros and activists like Code Pink’s Jodie Evans will continue to press this agenda in the new year, especially with a president who no longer must face American voters.

Read all »

Librarians for the Left

By Fred Lucas, Organization Trends, December 2012 (PDF here)

Summary: Like many national organizations, the American Library Association has long been captured by the Left. It postures as a champion of free speech rights, but in fact it twists the ideas of censorship and free speech to meet the ideological requirements of left-wing activism.

It was a landmark week: September 30 through October 6, the 30th annual Banned Books Week, sponsored by the American Library Association and other partners, in which Americans are implored to protest censorship by reading a list of “banned” books throughout the United States.

It sounds like a noble goal for anyone who supports the First Amendment, regardless of political views. Who wants to ban books? In reality, virtually no one, though the American Library Association (ALA) would have us believe we either live in a country where federal agents are reading over your shoulder, or unenlightened masses of farmers with pitchforks are marching to burn books.

“In honor of the 30th anniversary of Banned Books Week, the Office for Intellectual Freedom delivers the 50 State Salute to Banned Books Week in coordination with ALA Chapters,” the press release said. “The 50 State Salute consists of videos on how each state celebrates the freedom to read.”

Toward the end, the release does concede that although books are “targeted with removal or restrictions in libraries and schools,” in a “majority of cases, the books have remained available.” The key word is targeted. The overwhelming majority of books identified in Banned Books Week appear on the list after a parent objects to the presence of a book with sexual or violent content in a public school library.

Read all »

Catalist for Victory: How Nonprofits and Unions Have Struggled to Re-elect President Obama

By Neil Maghami, Organization Trends, November 2012 (PDF here)

Summary: Supposedly nonpartisan nonprofits on the Left and their union allies have exploited the latest “microtargeting” technology as they’ve worked feverishly to elect Democrats. The most powerful weapon in their arsenal is Catalist LLC, a state-of-the-art data firm that services both “nonpartisan” nonprofits and every would-be Democrat officeholder who can afford it. (Note: This study went to press shortly before the election.)

Winning in war, quipped a Southern leader in the Civil War, is all about getting to the battlefield “firstest with the mostest.” That’s a formula for victory in presidential politics, too. When it comes to mustering all possible support on Election Day 2012 for the Democratic Party, unions and tax-exempt left-wing groups have played a critical role in the party’s get-out-the-vote strategy. Since 2006 a high-tech operation called Catalist LLC has helped both unions and tax-exempt groups fine-tune their electoral influence to the point that they may well provide the Democrats the edge they need.

Catalist boasts it was vital to President Obama’s 2008 victory. By its own admission, “over 90 organizations, campaigns and committees” used the company’s services. “Based on data that was loaded into the Catalist databases and then standardized,” a Catalist analysis of the 2008 cycle says, “progressive organizations, the Obama campaign, and federal party committees attempted to contact more than 106 million people. This means that the progressive community attempted to contact over 46% of the U.S. adult population. Contacts were delivered in-person, over the phone, by mail and over the internet.”

Catalist says that “data stored by all progressive groups (over 90 organizations, campaigns and committees) working with [us] in the 2008 cycle shows that presidential [voter] ID activity alone reached 15,452,954 people—a difference of over 80% [compared to 2004]. Overall, Catalist customers were responsible for generating over 7 million voter registration applications. They completed over 127 million contacts to over 49 million unique individuals. Of these individuals, 28 million voted on Election Day, representing over 20% of all votes cast. Furthermore, 82% of progressive activities occurred in 16 highly contested states. Progressives contacted 37% of all the people who voted in the 16 battlegrounds.”

If this is what Catalist and its allies could achieve in 2008, imagine their goals for 2012, after four more years of refining their techniques. This edition of Organization Trends examines the who’s, why’s, and how’s of Catalist. We’ll also explore Catalist’s link to George Soros, the Left’s Daddy Warbucks. And we’ll look at some of Catalist’s known customers in the 501(c)(3) tax-exempt community and among labor unions.

Read all »

Southern Poverty Law Center: Wellspring of Manufactured Hate

By James Simpson, Organization Trends, October 2012 (PDF here)

Summary: The Southern Poverty Law Center began with an admirable purpose but long ago transformed into a machine for raising money and launching left-wing political attacks. Lately it’s become more of a threat to free speech and civil debate than a defender of the weak or a foe of violent extremism. It has also taken in millions from the Picower Foundation, whose own funds came largely from founder Jeffry Picower’s “investing” in his old friend Bernie Madoff’s Ponzi scheme.

On August 15, 2012, an angry gay rights activist named Floyd Corkins stormed the Family Research Council’s Washington, D.C. headquarters and began shooting. Corkins shot a brave security guard in the arm, but the guard still managed to wrestle him to the ground before he could kill or injure others.

Corkins was carrying 50 bullets and two loaded magazines for his 9-millimeter semi-automatic pistol; 15 Chick-fil-A sandwiches; and the address of another potential target, the Traditional Values Coalition. Before initiating his shooting spree, Corkins reportedly said, “I don’t like your politics.”

Reacting to the shooting, Family Research Council President Tony Perkins stated: “Corkins was given a license to shoot an unarmed man by organizations like the Southern Poverty Law Center that have been reckless in labeling organizations as hate groups because they disagree with them on public policy.”

Read all »

CASA de Maryland and the Corrupting Influence of Illegal Immigration
By James Simpson, Organization Trends, September 2012 (PDF here)

Summary: In a part of the nation severely affected by illegal immigration, the activist group CASA de Maryland has grown into a regional powerhouse. Although it has shadowy leaders and a history of disregard for the rule of law, this organization receives millions of dollars from government at all levels, while winning awards from left-wing foundations and invitations from the White House.

Across the nation, debate rages over illegal immigration. Liberal politicians from the White House on down have supported amnesty for illegal immigrants and lax border enforcement, often in a naked attempt to bolster prospective Democratic voter rolls.

This controversy has been especially heated in Maryland, whose Hispanic population more than doubled between 2000 and 2010. Under Gov. Martin O’Malley’s sanctuary policies the state has become an illegal alien magnet.1 Illegal immigrants cost Maryland an estimated $1.7 billion per year, which is more than three-quarters of the state’s $2 billion structural deficit.2

Taxpayer ire overflowed last year with passage of Maryland’s Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors (DREAM) Act, which granted in-state college tuition rates to children of illegal immigrants. A nonpartisan coalition of concerned Marylanders launched a petition drive to delay the measure and place it on the 2012 ballot as a referendum. They needed 55,736 signatures. They received more than twice that amount.

CASA de Maryland
The driving force behind the DREAM Act was CASA de Maryland, a vocal advocate for illegal aliens that received almost $5 million of taxpayer dollars in 2010 from Maryland and local governments and spent most of it lobbying for illegal immigrant perks and exceptions. The group’s aggressive tactics and questionable dealings helped provoke outrage, but CASA was not deterred by the successful petition drive to force a public referendum on Maryland’s DREAM Act. The group sought help from the Democratic National Committee’s chief counsel, who specializes in harassing conservatives with frivolous litigation threats. It sued Maryland’s Election Commission to overturn the petition and keep the referendum off the ballot. After almost a full year of legal wrangling, this attempt to derail the democratic process was slapped down by the state Court of Appeals.

Read all »

Sharpton, Jackson, and the Onslaught of Radical Race Politics

By Cheryl K. Chumley, Organization Trends, August 2012 (PDF)

Summary:  The Reverends Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson have long generated controversy, yet the Obama administration has done much to heighten their reputations, as well as skew government policy in the direction of their racial rhetoric. Now even more extreme groups like the New Black Panther Party are waiting in the wings, hoping to rise to the same kind of respectability.

It was 2008 and two New Black Panther Party (NBPP) members had just been captured on video standing mere feet from a polling place in Philadelphia. They were dressed in black military garb and by all appearances—one was waving a billy club—threatening and intimidating would-be voters. After the video caught the attention of the nation, the Department of Justice, under President George W. Bush, launched an investigation.

Fast-forward a few months to the newly seated Obama administration. Attorney General Eric Holder dropped the voter intimidation case against one of the Panthers, and against the party itself, claiming a lack of evidence. The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, tasked to investigate the second NBPP defendant, closed its case and suspended publication of its findings.

Meanwhile, career Justice Department lawyer J. Christian Adams came forth with firsthand accounts of his colleagues’ bias, declaring publicly that the Justice Department ignored the facts of the case in order to protect minorities. Americans concerned about the integrity of the country’s electoral system were outraged. Holder himself fueled the flames of outrage in testimony before a House Appropriations subcommittee, when he responded to a Democratic activist’s charge that the NBPP incident was an egregious act of voter intimidation:

“Think about it,” Holder said. “When you compare what people endured in the South in the ’60s to try to get the right to vote for African Americans, and to compare what people were subjected to there to what happened in Philadelphia—which was inappropriate, certainly that—to describe it in those terms, I think does a great disservice to people who put their lives on the line, who risked all, for my people.”

Read all »