Minuteman Civil Defense Project President Chris Simcox Answers Critics

Minuteman Civil Defense Project Mass Email | 14 July 2006 | Chris Simcox

[Howlin]

You find some tiny scrap of actual information

33,500 hits.

[Howlin]

You really need to understand that I don't care what you think, period.

[Howlin]

Neither are part of the MCDC or MMP organization.

Why don't you link the post where I said he worked for either one of those.

[Anti-Bubba182]

Do you know a Cliff May? He says he was on the Gilchrist campaign as an assistant of yours.

[Spiff]

You really need to understand that I don't care what you think, period.

Whenever you're cornered or one of your arguments gets completely blown out of the water you either call someone an "A$$hole", or you talk about how they're trying to "puff themselves up" and take over your queen of FR slot or something, or you say that you don't care what they think even though you keep responding to their posts. And all the while you're taking the more liberal...er...I mean "moderate" side of every argument here.

[Spiff]

Why don't you link the post where I said he worked for either one of those.

Posts 122, 123, 128, and 129 of this very thread, to which I was responding, is where you implied that EV worked for Simcox or Minuteman Civil Defense Project.

Is your point to attack EV, or say he is discredited, simply because he is a member of or leader of an issue-oriented organization? If that is your criteria to disqualify someone's comments or opinions on a related subject, that would eliminate a great number of people. For example, using your criteria, if Jim Robinson were to comment on conservative issues then his comments would be disqualified because he is paid for his services at Free Republic. You used comments by Newt Gingrich to prop up Pence's amnesty plan last week. Using your criteria, Gingrich's comments were not credible because he is paid too as part of his conservative organization. Or does your bizarre criteria only apply to your enemies?

[Amelia]

Even if his books were open and he was on schedule and doing everything right, the critics would blast him about something else.

At least you admit he's not open with the books, he's not meeting his own schedule, and he's not doing everything as he should.

[EternalVigilance]

33,500 hits.

Gosh. With that many, you'd think, if I was the person you'd like folks to believe I am, you'd be able to come up with something to slime me with. But, you couldn't even do it when you were allying yourself with antifreeper sewage.

[Marine Inspector]

At least you admit he's not open with the books

I see no reason for him to be open with the books. It's none of my business nor is it yours.

he's not meeting his own schedule

Yep, 115 degree heat tends to make fence building a little unbearable.

he's not doing everything as he should.

That's up to his supporters to decide, not you and I.

[Amelia]

How to Evaluate a Charity Before Donating

• Is it legit?
  People always ask us, "is charity X that sent me an appeal legit"? Often folks confuse "legit" with effective or efficient. But before we get to that, an important first step in reviewing an organization is to determine if it is a bona fide nonprofit. Specifically, you need to confirm that the organization is granted tax-exempt status under section 501(c) (3) of the Internal Revenue Code. This means that the group is registered in the US and that your contribution to the organization is tax deductible. You can either ask the organization directly for a copy of their letter certifying their nonprofit status or you can do your own research by searching Publication 78 on the IRS website, www.irs.gov.
  
  
• Is it efficient?
  Make sure you take a look at the organization's spending habits. The majority of the charities rated by Charity Navigator spend less than 10% of their budget on fundraising costs, less than 15% on administrative costs, and at least 75% on the programs and services they exist to provide. If the organization files a Form 990 (many religious organizations, like the Salvation Army, are exempt from filing this annual informational tax return) you can get a sense of its expenditures by reviewing that document. Charities are required by law to provide copies of their three most recent filings to anyone making a request in person or in writing.
  
  

• Is it well positioned to sustain its programs over time?
  Yes, charities are not in the business to make money. But they aren't exempt from the pressures of inflation. It simply costs more money each year to provide the same level of programs and services. Therefore it is important to check if a charity is growing its revenue over time, spending more money from year to year on its programs and if it has a rainy day fund. Of the organizations rated by Charity Navigator, half demonstrate at least 5% growth in their primary revenue and program expenses over the last three to five years, and 60% have accumulated at least six months' worth of working capital to fall back on during economic downturns. Remember, by showing growth and stability, charities demonstrate greater fiscal responsibility, not less.
  
  

• Is it effective?
  Contact the charity directly to assess its goals, accomplishments and challenges. Your attempt to communicate with the charity can reveal a lot about the organization. It's a big red flag when an organization refuses to answer your questions or to provide financial data at your request. To help you start a dialogue, we offer 6 Questions To Ask Charities Before Donating.
  
  

• Is it committed to the rights of donors?
  Selling and trading donor's personal information isn't just common practice among large, national charities. Oftentimes, local organizations will swap lists in an effort to expand their donor base and increase awareness of their group. Unless you want to wind up with a mailbox full of appeals, find out of the charity you are considering supporting has a donor privacy policy. Ask to see it in writing and make sure you "opt-out" if it is required.

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

  Let's see - he won't tell how he's spending his money, it's unclear whether they've filed for tax exempt status with the IRS, and so far they haven't done what they said they would do.....doesn't look like a good bet to me.

[Marine Inspector]

doesn't look like a good bet to me.

Then don't donate. I'm sure they won't miss your money.

[SandfleaCSC]

Have you figured out what a caging company is yet, or do you still have the tinfoil on your head?

One of the things you'll find in the PAC filings is a Disbursement to the Law Offices of Maureen Otis, same address as American Caging in Stafford, Texas. It was a minor amount, but there she is again.

Two other names that appear in those filings are William (Bill) Constantine and Eldon Alexander.

Constantine is the CPA who handles just about all of Keyes FEC filings plus at least one other organization whose name crops up in all of this -- RightMarch.com.

Eldon Alexander was a curveball for me. I had never seen it before, or so I thought. He is listed in some Jim Gilchrist for Congress Inc. FEC filings as a paid campaign staffer (and not one of the low end ones). He shows up in one of the PRE-PRIMARY FILINGS.

Alexander is connected to Mary Parker Lewis. Check his address listed in the FEC filing in Seal Beach, California. Google any phone numbers associated with it and you should turn up one that tracks to Marlo and Mary Parker Lewis (Alan Keyes right hand gal). Mary Parker Lewis is shown to be the sole contributor to both MCDC PAC and the Minutemen PAC for $1,000 each time.

You may come across something that suggests Alexander is MP Lewis' half-brother, but the source is shaky in my opinion, so I wouldn't follow it with any certainty even though that story is funny as hell and it mentions a "Tom" who is sure to be EV.

If anyone looks at the PACs, be sure to pull up Keyes/Lewis Declaration Alliance. The MCDC Fence Project webpage suggests that the project is under the Declaration Alliance 501(c)4 status.

Looks like incestuous money shuffling to me.

[onyx]

WHOA!

Do not miss this!

[SandfleaCSC]

Messed up on the format of that post. Should have bolded all but the last sentence of text. Research work credit goes to someone else who shall remain nameless.

[onyx]

No, it's perfectly readable without the bold. Much better just the way you have posted it.

[Amelia]

You might want to tie that with what catholicfreeper documents on this page.

[onyx]

Shall we await his refutation together?

[EternalVigilance]

Funny. Never seen your screen name before.

In your previous postings on FR, has it been your habit to post actionable lies about FReepers from antifreeper sites?

[EternalVigilance]

Well, one less account for you and the clowns to use, I guess...