THETA HEALING: Dates for Basic Theta Healing Certification in MD June 2018

From: Creative Healing Trends <creativehealingtrends+yahoo.com>
Date: Sat, May 26, 2018 at 1:08 PM
Subject: Dates for Basic Theta Healing Certification in MD June 2018
To: olgalazin

s.gif

010ca2a0-8c18-4677-99a7-b84fb752a7d2.png
Learn ThetaHealing®
60bd028c-a7ab-469b-af70-7e6cf3ac0b6c.jpg
yvanle_TR8_MainImageShadowBL.png
SpacerImage.gif
yvanle_TR8_MainImageShadowBR.png
Learn ThetaHealing for yourself or become a practitioner. This class is mostly hands on with some lecture. This modality has been around since 1998 and is in 23 different countries. What will you learn and experience during this class:

– Connect with source/creator and obtain a Theta Wave State
– Learn to access and utilize your clairvoyance
– Perform and receive body scans and healings
– Communicate with guardian angels and spirit guides
– Remove psychic cord and psychic attacks
– Reintegrate lost soul fragments
– Dig for blocks, fears, programs, resentments and anger that is blocking us and energetically remove them
– DNA activations
– Manifestation

Class is Friday 6/22 4:00 PM – 8:00 PM
Saturday, 6/23 and Sunday, 6/24 from 10:00 AM – 6:00 PM

24 CEUS Basic ThetaHealing Practitioner Certification awarded

LOTS of healing and FUN!

total cost – $545

$150 deposit to reserve your space

35360367-7385-4aad-bd74-304fbab2b625.jpg Rockville, MD
Minutes from Washington D.C. and Baltimore.

15821 Crabbs Way Branch Suite C
Rockville, MD 20855

June 22nd – June 24th

June 22nd
4:00pm – 8:00PM
June 23rd and 24th
10:00 AM – 6:00 PM

To RSVP please call Rebecca at (301) 876-3475 or email creativehealingtrends

To learn more please visit our website.
www.creativehealingtrends.com

Creative Healing Trends:

Creative Healing Trends’ mission is to get you from where you are now to where you dream to be. Our goal is to ensure that you are the key player in your own life. Allow your journey to be one full of laughter, success, health, and prosperity. You CAN create your own reality starting now! Let us show you how to lead your life instead of your life leading you. We utilize a combination of the most effective holistic healing modalities using energetic principles blended with proven life coaching strategies, to assist you in designing a personalized plan of success. Sign up today!

S.gif
Creative Healing Trends, 16241 Harwood Drive, Frostburg, MD 21532
SafeUnsubscribe™ olgalazin@gmail.com
Forward this email | Update Profile | About our service provider
Sent by creativehealingtrends in collaboration with
Constant Contact
Try it free today
S.gif
Advertisements

Help: Assistance With Rent and More Today in Los Angeles

Dr Olga Essentials: ISBN 978-970-27-0713-4

http://www.amazon.com/shops/olazin

PROFMEX – DIRECTOR RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT : http://www.profmex.com

LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/olgaandrei/

http://www.olgalazin.com

http://www.decentralizedglobalization.com

AMAZON STORE: http://www.amazon.com/shops/olazin

http://www.globalsisterhood.org/circles/dr-olga-westwood-sister-circle/admin/edit-details/

http://dr-olga-essential-oils-blends.business.site/

Books: http://www.drolgacoaching.self-esteemfirstdrolga.com/2018/04/amazon-kindle-direct-publishing-dr-olga.html

From: VastPlatinum <patrick>
Date: Sat, May 26, 2018 at 3:30 PM
Subject: Help: Assistance With Rent and More Today
To: olgalazin

I hope you have had positive Vast Platinum results,
~Please be sure to add me to your address book to continue to receive my emails. ~

Rent, Bills and Groceries can be hard to afford on time, or even at all, I barely made it in April after paying just my rent.
My clients were slow to pay me. At the worst time possible, I guess I should be happy, at least I didn’t get laid off from a job.
But what could I do with less cash coming in and utilities still due? Especially when they are already past due.

I was in a bad position, no way to make ends meet!
There I am looking at my checking account and trying to make it all work and still keep my power on.
I was desperate, I couldn’t sleep and I was getting cut off notices on everything. I got lucky
big check came in from my family and it was ok, but it was a month of stress barely dealt with.

Today I found this great site offering letting me know I might be entitled to help with rent
or more. I wish I had found it a few weeks back. You need to take a look and get info if you need it or wonder
if one day you might! Don’t go through what I went through check out the site I found!

View Your Rent Assistance Benefits

As always, if you have questions please let me know. Or let me know how you like my recommendations!

Thank you for your time,

Even in hard times you should still know your credit score. We really like Credit Sesame, you should check it out
they don’t even require a card for a membership. View your score no fees

Patrick Carlson
Vast Platinum
2 wisconsin circle #700
Chevy Chase md 20815
USA

Unsubscribe | Change Subscriber Options

?l=AYGFq&m=imhARE.nkZYunBY

Disaster In ROMANIA, Civic Attitude And Lack of Clear Regulations Against Corruption

Globalization Is Decentralized: Eastern Europe and Latin America Compared

By Dr Olga Magdalena Lazin

ISBN: 9781980296577

Fast-Track Globalization: Civic Attitude and Civil Society

My contribution to the study of globalization is by first distinguishing between “Gradual Globalization” and “Fast-Track Globalization”—the latter offering a new conceptual basis that allows us to compare competing definitions for what the term means as well as to develop the bibliography for studying the issues surrounding it, especially in free markets and philanthropy.

In this book the focus is on globalization of civic attitudes, and Civil society. I am myself a product of globalism: I wear many hats as an entrepreneur: Lecturer, writer, and especially as an academic, I am the product of two systems; capitalism and socialism.

Second, to go beyond the existing conceptualizations about how to define “Civic Society (which I capitalize because of its importance),” “civil society,” and the role of U.S. philanthropy. These three concepts have not been clearly analyzed in relation to each other, especially confusing Civic Society with civil society, thus misleading countries that seek to emulate the U.S. system of decentralized government.[1] Each state in the U.S. has its own set of rules and laws.

Third, to articulate for the developing world how U.S. philanthropy is defined to be the tax-deductible basis for a healthy Civic Society based on funds that are ceded by the government through tax deductions ceded to hundreds of thousands of civic-minded Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs).

Fourth, to how the negative heritage of statism persists, government bureaucracies resisting loss of power. The concept of “statism” is examined in the Introduction, below. If the state owns over 50% of the GDP producing enterprises, that means the country we are analyzing is a statist country.

Fifth, it examines the role of free markets in making possible Fast-Track Globalization. Free markets include international trade communications (such as phones, free press, radio, TV, news, fax, e-mail, and the web) and jet travel.

Sixth. To show that globalization and the role of “free trade” is often misunderstood by critics who fail to see how the new worldwide networking system of communications makes dictatorships difficult or impossible and laying the basis for almost instant exposure of human rights violations.

Seventh, to compare and contrast in case studies two countries as they strive to modernize their governmental systems and economies. One is Mexico, and the other is Romania, in Easter Europe.

Eighth, to show how two aspects of free trade profits have been diverted to philanthropy to stimulate the growth of civil and Civic Society in the world based on the U.S. model. The Rockefeller Foundation has been based on investments in world regions; the Soros Foundations have been based on both freely flowing world investments and free trade in currency values.

Ninth, to clarify to policymakers in the developing world that the term “Not Profit Organization” is misleading, as we will see in the case of Mexico and Romania where it is being officially mis-translated as meaning “no profit.” If the term had been translated from its correct name in English, that is Not-For-Private Profit Organization (NPPO),”

it would not have been mis-translated in Mexico and Romania. This throws off many intellectual leaders.

Let us be clear here that profits are desirable in order that the tax-exempt non-governmental organization (NGO) can make productive investments and use the interest as a basis of continued existence and expansion, as we will see.

Tenth, the concept NGO and its role in society is here defined in a new way in order to clarify its breadth. It is a term that covers grant-making foundations (such as Rockefeller and Soros), operating foundations (such as universities and hospitals), and innumerable types of decentralized organizations authorized in a pro forma manner by the U.S. government to encourage the myriad activities old and new which are beyond the government to imagine, let alone administer.

“Globalization” is defined here in terms of the drive to standardize international laws and regulations in order to facilitate worldwide long-run development of free markets—intellectual as well as economic.[2] This process led by the United States, with some important exceptions such as cellular phone service where the European Union (EU) standard will have to prevail, requires that countries everywhere understand how the USA "works."

Especially important is learning how the U.S. permits non-governmental, tax-exempt funding of citizen-based political activity through a society that is organized to almost instantly mobilize and transfer ideas, capital, and information worldwide. Without such understanding this process, developing countries will be unable to catch up to the U.S. standards, let along to compete economically in process of globalization, the European Union has been created since the 1950s to provide its own alternative standard for globalization, as well as to negotiate with the U.S. on equal footing. In many cases, however, the EU has not developed consistent standards, as in the case of philanthropy where 15 then, now 23 separate sets of rules exist to govern Civic Society, which is often confused with the broader term “civil society.”

As part of my analysis of globalization, I argue that the concept includes not only the flow of Profit-Making Funds (needed to finance and conduct business affairs), but also includes the flow of Non-Profit Funds (needed to build Civic Society and human capital as well as to protect human rights and the world’s physical environment.)

America operates with the advantage of being able to enact one standard law for Non-Profit Organizations (NPPOs) whereas the EU is only beginning to do so in such areas as taxation and pensions and has been unable to do so at all for NPPOs, where 25 national legal standards prevail to this day. No wonder, Britain sought to exit in 2017, and is still trying to get out from the bureaucratic quagmire that the European Union has been this past 10 years.

The distinction developed here between “Civic Society” and “civil society” is as follows: Civic Society, the activist sector of civil society, seeks democratically to initiate change for the “public good.”[3] Civic cannot. Society has in part been identified as “Civic Culture” by Gabriel A. Almond and Sidney Verba, with whom I see as having appropriately laid the basis for distinguishing between civic society and Civic Society. They identified in 1963 the idea of “Civic Culture”—which they alternatively define as “political culture.” [4]

Although they did not themselves make a distinction between Civic Culture and “civil society” (and did not even include “civil society” in their index to their work in 1963 and their revisiting of the idea in 1980), their work implicitly leads in the direction that I develop here.

That Almond and Verba did not see the connection that I see here is due perhaps to the fact that as political scientists seeking to compare political views in England, America, Germany, France, and Mexico, they were more concerned with their survey research to compare attitudes than with examining the role of persons in Civic Society as actively trying to change the civil society (including professional government) in which they lived.

My own view is that Civic Culture encompasses

1. that part of government which falls under civil law and is administered by civil service employees. Indeed, civil government ideally is based upon a professional corps of civil

servants protected under “civil service” laws that permit qualified people to administer government affairs regardless of change of elected leaders;

2. the broad private sector of citizens who participate in society as citizens. The concept of civil society its origins in ancient Greece where citizens invented the idea of participatory democracy to organize the city-state. Since ­­­­­then, the notion

of civil society has been used in different ways by different groups and defined in a tremendous variety of ways.

The first to explicitly use the concept were the thinkers of the Scottish Enlightenment of the 18th century. They created an important body of thought, which planted the idea of establishing a market economy with moral values.

Subsequently, the French tradition begun by Montesquieu and de Toqueville posed the idea that civil society has multiple dimensions. They emphasized the role of non-political autonomous associations among citizens. De Tocqueville’s travels led him to conclude that the new United States of America was the epitome of civil society, the USA having built upon and gone beyond the English civil law tradition.

Eventually England, too, saw its own civil society

flourish by limiting the power of the monarchy under which it continued to live to this day. Beginning with the Magna carta.

The concept Civic Society presented here involves non-governmental organizations (such as foundations and voluntary associations) as well as civic-minded citizens who donate their time and money for causes of their choice.

In my view, the concepts civil society and Civic Society both exclude the military, Church hierarchies (but not socially active lay groups), and one-party systems (such as the Communist Party[5]), if they seek to create “group-think” by preventing and/or discouraging citizens from thinking for themselves. Civic Society involves individuals and groups who seek to expand civil-rights (such as voting and access to independent courts) and human rights (such as the right to live with ethnic expression and the right not to be tortured and/or exterminated).

Both civil society and Civic Society have been stunted in much of the world by “statism,” or the situation that occurs when a nation-state comes to own more than half of the country’s gross domestic product (GDP). Statism also involves governmental development of extensive laws and rules which stultify and discourage the role of citizens. Just like in Romania such is the case up to this day.

To explain the rise of statism in Romania and Brazil, Joseph Love, in his book entitled Crafting the Third World: Theorizing Underdevelopment in Romania and Brazil[6], focuses on showing how the rise of state power was justified by "nationalists," who sought to explain the poverty of their countries by blaming the "capitalist" model and especially the "gradual globalization" of markets led by the USA. Such statism not only caused economic stagnation but set back seriously the role of civil society in Latin America and Eastern Europe, subjecting the regions to dictatorships of political as well as social poverty.

The emergence of an embryonic civil society in the 1970s and the 1980s with semi-autonomies and semi-liberties was possible mostly in the relaxed communist environment of Kadar’s Hungary and Edward Gierek’s Poland, but it never did develop into a truly autonomous alternative to the power of the state – Solidarity in Poland being the exception, but much later.

Political stirrings in Eastern Europe surfaced gradually, first in rather ensconced forms such as "flying university" lectures and Samizdat publications.[7] Later came participation in informal self-educational groups. The rise of organizations that pursued independent activities and the call for establishing individual responsibility became evident in Poland only where the churches led in creating independent space for thought[8].

Stirring of Civic Society, then, was beginning to call for rejection of communism, with KOR and Solidarity in Poland embodying full-fledged and convincing alternative to the communist regime. They provided a spark for Civic Society but could not by themselves bring about the collapse of communist ideology, which would have to wait for the communist system to implode politically and economically in 1989.[9]

Rise of alternative society beyond the reach of authorities had eroded the credibility of the ruling communists, implicitly destroying the monopoly of the state over the society and individuals. Such society had shown a glimmer of life after the 1960s, providing a basis for Civic Society, ironically in the absence of civil society.[10]

The Helsinki Human Rights Accord of 1980 gave hope to dissidents in Czechoslovakia where political activists seized upon Chapter 77 of to anticipate a new type of politics.[11] Eventually they used Chapter 77 to demand human rights, open dialogue, plurality of opinion, and alternative structures, demands that slowly began to weaken communist ideology. The famous Chapter 77 bolstered the call of some Czech intellectuals for free speech, free press, investigative journalism, freedom from arbitrary search and seizure, freedom of movement, and judicial recourse against illegal arrest by the police and military.

Dissidents were literally “vaporized” from their homes in all communist countries.

In Romania, Ceausescu’s extreme repression stunted intellectual protest. Only few individuals such as Mircea Dinescu, Paul Goma, Doina Cornea, and Radu Filipescu took the risk to openly protest against the regime in the late 1970s—but they gained no following. Nor did any organized urban socio-political activity take place in the 1980s.[12] Only very few people dared talk or protest.

Once the communists lost power in Romania, his successor Ion Iliescu promulgated Law 42 in 1990 as his “moral duty” to reward those who had helped defeat the dictatorship. The problem that arose, however, was that former communists bribed their way into the reward system, thus creating division and distrust in society and setting back the rise of consensus which needed to make a qualitative shift from collectivism to individualism.

CHAPTER II: THE ROMANIAN CASE

The Communist republic of Romania, in the 1970s was considered the favorite kid on the Eastern European block. Until the blinding veneer wore off, and a shoemaker, Nicolae Ceausescu started terrorizing the Romanians who did not agree with the communist disaster, and one-Party rule, and the complete payment of the country’s debt to the IMF at the detriment of the famished population. Communism was in fact an utter failure in Romania, and Hungary alike.

The Ceausescu dictatorship (1965-1989) left the country in total chaos. Under the Iliescu regime (1990-1996), debate about modernization of civil society came to life, but effective results were not possible to achieve without the development of a new legal framework.[13]

From 1990-1993, civil society benefited from pent-up demand and expressed itself in an explosion of activity, which simultaneously differentiated and politicized itself during the relative vacuum of power as Iliescu sought to establish his power. This initial explosion was partly the consequence of the fact that political independence was in a sense political opposition and partly an inclination toward a populist "bottom-up" approach to democratic development.[14]

The first three years of Iliescu’s period were marked by the rise of Western-style NGOs, most hopeful that their mere existence would bring foreign grants. Romanian NGOs involved free association of autonomous persons who volunteered to help raise funds to take up the immediate decline in state social benefits. Only a few NGOs were able to gain foreign funding for their plans which called for, among other things, the teaching of democracy, the operation of orphanages, and the networking of ethnic groups.

By 1992 the profile of NGOs revealed an open separation between political advocacy groups and civic advocacy organizations. All NGOs, however, undertook qualitative changes in their activity to achieve "institutional development, capacity building, and sustainability," the goal being to make the NGOs viable and effective.

The problems of Romania’s nascent civil society are complex. First, there are too few competent leaders to staff both government and NGOs so that Romania can compete effectively in the globalization process. Second, NGO leaders are tending to move into politics and business. Nevertheless, notes Dorel Sandor there is a chance that at least some of those who leave the NGOs will use their influence to support the nongovernmental sector.[15]

Although in Romania the pre-communist 1924 Law 21 on charities has been reinstated in the 1990s, it does not regulate in a specific manner the nongovernmental bodies. Law 21 only provides a general, vague legal framework and no categories to encompass modern institutions or communities. This permits corruption and produces misunderstanding of what civil society is meant to be.[16]

Crystallization of NGOs in post-communist Romania demonstrates the viable capacity of response to the challenges of transition. Having initially appeared when the state was impotent, clusters of nonprofits and civil actors spontaneously filled the gap as government activity sputtered.

My Participant Observer’s View at the National and

Local Levels in Romania

My role as participant-observer of social life began in 1983 as a Foreign Languages student in the Department of Maramures during my University years in Romania has continued till 1989. I was directly connected to a network of civic minded students, and together we wanted to save the Elitelore and Folklore of our superb Transylvanian region, by studying and recording songs, and customs in Maramures County, the most Northern part of Romania.

The communist party elites were proud of the diverse dance assemblies, and poetry that was blooming those years, before things turned tragic in Romania.

The dictator and his wife, Elena Ceausescu were shot execution style, in a sham of a trial, just so another communist could seize power, Ion Iliescu, a Moscow educated apparatchik who wanted to settle scores with the dictator Nicolae Ceausescu.

In 1992 in my subsequent travels on behalf of PROFMEX.[17] In Eastern Europe and Russia I have been able to compare the attempts to create new civil society that matches the de-statification and privatization processes.

What was striking to me, as a student of Ethnopsichiatry during the Ceausescu was to realize that the peasants of Maramures, in Northwestern Romania, were bound together in matters of common self-concern. They had developed a rudimentary civil society of their own in which they took decisions and solved problems by themselves in so called "claca.” Moreover, these peasants had survived the "chopping tactics" of the communist polity that had tried to destroy community spirit. Instead those tactics caused a reaction that reinforced local individualistic energies in most Maramures villages.

This village resistance to collectivization was so particularized in a geographically isolated area, however, that it did and does not provide a model for transition of Romania to a modern pluralistic society. Rather the Maramures experience does suggest that socially-based rural civil society is difficult to destroy because of its dispersed nature. If Buchowski, [18] who is quoted in the epigram at the outset of the chapter had wanted to find civil society in a communist country, he would have done well to visit Maramures to see true collective spirit surviving—not because of the communist dictatorship but to spite it. Thus, my observations directly contradict those of Buchowski.

My travels after 1991 took me throughout Romania and especially to the capital and other urban areas in Transylvania, a region that accounts for 30% of the over 3, 500 NGOs founded since 1990. I realized that the NGO sector then in formation had two levels: the well-organized foreign foundations which were organizing to solve general problems at the national level (such as the Soros Foundation, with offices in the regions of Romania) and the Romanian voluntary interest organizations that were then organizing to solve immediate local issues. The latter are what the Romanians call "form without foundation" or original versions of NPPOs that not only transfer the western models, but also are mainly based on genuine social projects, according to Steven Samson vision is based on research in Albania.[19]

Although countries such as Romania need to develop legislation that permit the creation of very diverse organizations that operate with crosscutting and overlapping purposes, post-Ceausescu Romania has failed to do so repeatedly. Indeed, the country’s latest law that attempts to cover NGOs, law no. 32 of 1994, is not in accordance with the requirement of necessities of reasonable functioning of civil associations.[20]

Even with imperfect law, the concept of civil society now prevalent in Romania implies some kind of formal autonomous organization, made up of thousands of constituent associations and charities organizations that compete with the state.

Some non-governmental organizations and think-tanks do seek to provide a check on the power of the state, however, such as the Center For Political Studies and Comparative Analysis, the Romanian Helsinki Committee, the Romanian Society for Human Rights (SIRDO), the League for the Defense of Human Rights (LADO), Liga Pro-Europa, Antitotalitarian Association-Sighet, Academy for Ethnic Studies in Sighet, Civil Protection Maramures, Titulescu Foundation, Association of Lawyers in Defense of Human Rights (APADO), and Academia Civica Foundation. Others make demands on the state for it to pave the roads, extend electricity to villages, install telephones, and provide general services, but they do so without umbrella legislation that legally authorizes and protects their activities.

What is evident from my investigations in Eastern Europe is that after the initial post-1989 enthusiastic phase, the so-called revolution brought many grants from abroad, especially the U.S., British, and French grant-making NPPOs. Since the mid-1990s, however, such international assistance and donations have slowed markedly. Except for Soros, many U.S. grant-making foundations have turned to fund world problems such as disease, as we see in the Conclusion, leaving NGOs disheartened in countries such as Romania. Without a tradition of being able to raise funds in their own country, NGOs that mushroomed in Croatia, Bulgaria, Hungary, the Czech, Slovak Republics, and Poland as well as Romania have in general not received funds from abroad—they had naively believed that by merely organizing an NGO to solve an important problem that foreign funding would be forthcoming.

The most acute problem faced by Eastern Europe’s NGOs, then, is that of financing their activities as they seek a place in the new institutional order. With the slow pace of privatization in Romania, there is not yet any real base of private corporate funding to make donations to Romanian NPPOs, and without provision for secure tax deductibility donations to NGOs domestic funding is not feasible.[21]

Given the shortage of funds, some philosophers and practitioners of NPPO activity are requesting the volunteering of time, not the volunteering of money, and they are narrowing the scope of their activity to moral influence rather than charitable activity.[22]

In this situation, I find that Katherine Verdery’s concerns about the limitations on civil society are valid. Very much in the Toquevillean tradition, Verdery argues that the concept of civil society is linked to the political processes and has become, in the Romanian case, interrelated to that of reconnecting to democratic Western European values.[23] She suggests that the ruling political elites ,who dominate the public sphere since Ceausescu’s heyday, have achieved symbolic capital by having claimed falsely that they suffered under communism, thus overshadowing other forms of a pluralist civil society. In important ways civil society still revolves around national symbols and organization left over from communist rule.

The New Ethnic Role for NGOs in Eastern Europe and Romania

NGOs now seek to play a major role in resolving ethnic tensions. Ethnic problems are exacerbated by the fact that most of the countries are heterogeneous in their ethnic and religious composition. In Bulgaria, for instance, about 1 million of the 9 million inhabitants are Turks; Romani account for some 700.000 and another 400, 000 are Muslims.

In Romania, the shares of the 23 million population are Hungarians 7.1%, Romani 7%; in Czech Republic Slovaks are 3%, and Romani are 2.4%. In Slovakia, Hungarians are 10.7%, Romani 1.6%, Czechs Moravian, and Ruthenian more than 2%. [24] (The latter are persons descended from a marriage between any combination of the following: Ukrainian, Hungarian, and Romanian, aka Ruthenians.)

In the Kosovo province of Serbia, 90% of the population is reputed to be ethnic Albanian, and it seeks to drive out the Serbs in order to declare independence or join with Albania.

Where for decades refused to recognize ethnic differences under the Soviet optic, which saw such recognition as divisive, since 1989 there has been radical change. The European Union encourages Eastern European countries to accommodate regional differences in development, tradition, local circumstances, and the current state of systemic transformations. As András Biro, a Hungarian activist has put it: " For the first time in 40 years we are reclaiming responsibility for our lives.”[25]

In Romania, in the immediate aftermath of the 1989, several ethnically heterogeneous villages (Bolintin, Casin, Miercurea Ciuc) saw the burning of the houses of the Gypsy and Hungarian ethnic minority and systematic murders. On March 15, 1990, the Romanian security and miners, in direct complicity with Ion Iliescu, took busloads of Romanians from remote villages to the city of Târgu Mures, telling them that they were needed to save Romanian citizens there from being beaten by Hungarians during the celebration of Hungary’s Independence Day. When the busses arrived, the Romanian villagers attacked the participants of the celebration and besieged the Hungarian minority’s headquarters. It was there that the playwright Andras Sütö lost his eye. Several Hungarians and Gypsies were beaten and jailed for years. In a gesture of historic reconciliation, President Emil Constantinescu released them in1996 when he took office to try to change the Iliescu policies. Unfortunately, the new president did not investigate or publicly expose this case.

It is ironic that only analysis of this troubling case has come at academic and NGO meetings in the USA.

Without any mediating entity to prevent confrontation, a second incident took place in Cluj and Târgu Mures in July 1990, which led the Soros National Foundation to establish in Cluj an office of its Open Society Network to develop social mediation programs.[26]

The general objectives of the Soros National Foundation in Romania, then, has been that of promoting the following objectives of civil society:

– confidence in a state of law, fair government administration, and independent judiciary;

– democratic election of a new political elite;

– existence of a diverse and vigorous civic spirit;

– the respect of the rights and opinions of minorities by the majority.

With these calming idea, the situation in Cluj changed for the better, especially with the appearance of newsletters dedicated to end ethnic hatred. Further, by publishing, for example, Korunk for Hungarians in the Cluj area it is important especially to the Romania’s border with Hungary, it aided the development of relatively strong non-governmental associations (such as Alma Mater Napocensis of Cluj-Napoca and the Academy for Study of Ethnic Conflict-Sighet,) all seeking to prevent and buffer ethnic tensions.

George Soros had been the main source of funding for civil society in Romania since 1989.

By opening the Central European University in Hungary, Soros has done tremendous benefits to the

Open-minded professionals and intellectuals in Hungary, and Romania as well.

Viktor Orban, the Hungarian PM, since 2000, has been educated and given a grant, only to completely turn 360 degrees against Soros. His entire campaign of 2018 was based on

anti-Semitic language, and West bashing, and anti-Soros slogans.

In my view, it is only since their return to globalization, this time at fast-track speed, that regions such as Eastern Europe, and with Salinas de Gortari in Mexico (Latin America,) have begun to fight wasteful centralism, especially through the rise of new civil society. In this process of recovery, Mexico and Romania have "capitalized" on U.S. funds (both from the U.S. governmental and philanthropic sectors) as well as ideas (such as basing citizen-led activism in tax-exempt organizations such as NGOs).

As part of my analysis of globalization, I argue that the concept includes not only the flow of Profit-Making Funds (needed to finance and conduct business affairs), but also includes the flow of Non-Profit Funds (needed to build Civic Society and human capital as well as to protect human rights and the world’s physical environment.)

America operates with the advantage of being able to enact one standard law for Non-Profit Organizations (NPPOs) whereas the EU is only beginning to do so in such areas as taxation

and pensions and has been unable to do so at all for NPPOs, where 15 national legal standards prevail.

My field research has revealed that countries such as Mexico and Romania have had difficulty in understanding and adopting U.S. tax law, which is the basis for standardization because of problems in analysis of how U.S. economic sectors interrelate.

U.S. analysts themselves have failed to articulate the relations among economic sectors, thus confusing the way in which policy analysts interpret U.S. law to the world. Thus, the concept “Non-Profit” has been mistranslated as “No Profit,” as we will see in this study.

Hence, I encourage here use of the term Not-For-Private Profit (NPPO) to specify that profits can be made but not diverted for private use. Such profits can be used only for the tax-exempt purposes for which any organization is founded, including the expenses of running the organization (salaries, travel, rent, etc.) as well as the re-investment of funds to increase the size of the NPPO and ensure its continued existence.

As part of my contribution to globalization studies, I here

redefine U.S. societal spheres as being four:[27]

1. Government (State) Sphere (centralized and Decentralized)

2. Private Sphere

3. Mixed State/Private Sphere

4. Philanthropic Sphere (often erroneously called

the “Third Sector”)

Confusion about definition of societal sectors comes when analysts fail to take into account the role of the Mixed state/private sector, which for so many years has come to provide a “theoretical bridge” between government and the private business, especially in England and the USA, as well as to keep inefficient and corrupt statism in power, especially in Latin America and Eastern Europe. Given the “third-way” ideology

espoused by diverse leaders in different times (for example, Juan Domingo Perón in Argentina in the 1940s) and England’s Tony Blair (1990s), such a concept is not helpful because it is by now empty of meaning.

I seek to show in a new light the relation of the profit and not for-private-profit sectors, the latter funded by the former. Further, I develop new analysis here to help citizens everywhere to understand the roles of government, which must include the study of GONGOs (governmentally organized NGOs), QUANGOs (quasi-autonomous NGOs) as well as to understand that "non-profit organization" does not preclude such organizations from earning profits but rather require that the profits must be used for the purposes chartered and not for private gain.

With regard to meaning of words, one final statement is in order. I do not use the word “public” per se because it has two distinct meanings. For formerly statist societies, “public” means government or government-owned. For non-statist societies such as the USA, the word’s meaning depends on context: “broad general public,” in the context of philanthropic analysis; “public utility” owned or regulated by the government, in the context of economic analysis. Hence in discussion here I discuss foundations as “broadly supported by the general public”; and I do not use “public foundation” which could give the idea of government-owned foundation.

This approach provides the overarching framework for analyzing the full impact of:

– the findings of Margaret Carroll’s UCLA doctoral

dissertation in history entitled: "The Rockefeller Corollary—The Impact of Philanthropy and Globalization in Latin America (1999);

– the findings of James W. Wilkie in notes and oral

history interviews with (a) Norman E. Borlaug, the father of the Green Revolution; and (b) with the staff of the “El Paso Community Foundation” about its operations, upon which he drew to develop the framework for the U.S.-Mexican international philanthropic standard that emerged from his policy research as President of PROFMEX (Consortium for Research on Mexico).

– my findings based on field research in Mexico, Russia,

and Eastern Europe on the problems especially facing Romania as it attempts to establish Civic Society; and my interviews with George Soros in New York City.

In this work, I argue that the challenge is for formerly statist countries such as Mexico and Romania are to establish Civic Society and free markets as the countervailing forces needed to reform centralized legal systems. Both Mexico and Romania, which once "benefited" from Roman Law and the Napoleonic Code, find that they now suffer from the legal limits that preclude action not expressly permitted by the state. Indeed, this legal situation is the problem hampering the development of philanthropy in both countries. Until they adopt a legal system that allows companies and persons to innovate without obtaining prior authorization from the government, innovation will be stifled by fear of bureaucratic retaliation.

In my view, where Rockefeller’s model of tax-exempt organization has been centrally based in New York City, George Soros offers a fascinatingly different model of decentralization. Soros has used globalization of profit-making funds to finance his Not-For-Private Profit branches of the Soros Foundations around the world. Soros, Hungarian-born and London-educated, lives in New York City where he oversees his worldwide economic operations. His profits from currency speculation[28] in all areas of the world, however, go into his Curaçao-based Quantum Fund, which pays his salary and fees to him in New York City. From his own personal profits (Quantum Fund being one source), Soros donated and tries to donate at least half to his New York-based Soros Foundation, which is organized to take advantage of the fact that the USA has the most flexible Tax-Exempt Organization law in the world while at the same time limiting political action and requiring rigorous accounting.

The Soros Foundation does not make its decisions through a New York-based board, as do most of the world’s other major foundations such as Rockefeller and Ford, but transfers most of its tax-exempt funds to more than 30 nation-based boards. These boards are made of leading citizens who are attempting to construct Civic Society in their own country. Local Non-Governmental Agencies (NGOs) determine their own priorities providing their input, local boards of prestigious citizens representing various professions are in charge of identifying where grants should go.

The Fundación Soros-Guatemala serves as a good example. Board members have been chosen as to reflect different sectors of the society and ethnic groups: a Jesuit sociologist, a Mayan economist, ex-government officials, and a local businessman. Local NGOs detain the highest legitimate information and knowledge and can provide the local links from the outset in efforts of reconstruction following the 36 years of civil war in Guatemala.

Romania is especially interesting (as also is all of Eastern Europe) for comparison to Mexico. As I argue here, Romania is following the same path of moving from statism to de-statification; and thus, it seeks to understand how Mexicans have faced with varying degrees of success the process of nationalizing (1917-1982) and then de-nationalizing (since 1982):

– industry, banking, ports, airports, toll roads, and

railroads (in which nationalization meant loss of

accountability and in which de-nationalization has

meant establishing open accounting);

– agricultural land (in which nationalization meant

creation of communal holdings and in which de-

nationalization has involved disincentives to (but not

prohibition of) the right of peasants to hold land

communally;

– trade (in which nationalization meant integration

asymmetrically into large trade blocs turning inward and in which de-nationalization has meant integrating outward into free trade markets);

– philanthropy (in which nationalization left little or no role for civil society and in which de-nationalization has required foreign philanthropy to fund Civic Society).

To portray how in the 1990s Mexico officially sought to enhance the role of Civic Society, I analyze its adoption of the U.S. model where government builds a compact with its citizens to exempt from taxation money and property that are devoted to philanthropic purposes. The Mexican government realized that by

establishing the basis for instituting the U.S. philanthropic model it would be compensated for the loss of revenue because

(1) It is relieved of the burden of financing all activities that otherwise the state must fund; and

(2) Government does not have the "mental space" capable of identifying and attempting to resolve problems or develop new plans in thousands of places at once, as statists once believed to be possible through the use of central planning, even later including the use of computers.

Thus, I offer a new historical view of globalization to explain how the U.S. model of philanthropy has come to serve as basis for Civic Society in many countries of the world. This process is not clear to much of the world, nor has it been well articulated by the U.S. Council on Foundations, which has sought to lead such change. In the 1950s a big change has occurred with the expansion by Norman E Borlaug of the green agricultural revolution.

Funding of the Green Revolution by the Rockefeller Foundation serves as one excellent point of departure to examine the philanthropic basis of Civic Society’s importance in the globalization process. Although such countries as Mexico and Romania have been attempting to follow the U.S. legal model to achieve de-statification, this has not been easy because even in the USA there is little clear understanding of how the U.S. model of philanthropy has come to fit into the overall economic structure of society. Hence it has been difficult for other countries such as Mexico and Romania to emulate the U.S. model.

I see U.S. philanthropy as the most important historical model for all countries because it holds the world’s largest pool of foundation funds for expenditure on world development. Its importance is that it flexibly sets one standard under U.S. law to permit private persons and corporations, be they U.S. or foreign, to incorporate in America and to give outside the USA as well as inside. Although Enrique Barón, noted member of the European Parliament, claims that the EU is the world’s largest funder of NGOs,[29] and therefore impliedly more important than America, his argument does not take into account the fact that the EU’s huge pool of funds about which he writes is more plan than reality; and in any case, it operates under 15 separate standards, one for each country, thus dissipating EU’s effect on the world.

To arrive at my goal in this work, I define in this work Civic Society in a way that can well be understood outside as well as inside the United States; and develop the argument that civil society (regardless of its limitations) has provided the basis for the health of Civic Society by both leaving it free and also cooperating with it to assure financial freedom to organize Civic Culture without government interference.

The U.S. law on Tax Exempt Organizations (TEOs) has created tax deductible incentives to help NPPOs (including NGOs) carry out their plans to establish voluntary-action programs and donations of money and time. The scope of the U.S. NPPO Law on Philanthropy (which is my name for the body of U.S. law that does not explicitly use the term “philanthropy”) does not set any limits on the types of activities that can be funded. Although the law includes some key concepts, they do not constitute a limit because the fast-changing world cannot foresee what should or should not be funded. I summarize U.S. tax law to define non-exclusively these guiding categories as involving the “HEW-SEER-PUC” factors:

1. Health,

2. Education,

3. Welfare (and human rights),

4. Science

5. Economy,

6. Environment (and ecology),

7. Religion

8. Publication (and literary societies,

9. Charity (including the facet of poverty relief).

While not limiting what can be funded, U.S. NPPO law does limit how such activities can be funded, but flexibly so.

This work is organized into six chapters:

Chapter 1: The Role of Civic Society

This Chapter argues that the Fast-Track Globalization process is based on the rise of rapidly expanding free markets. Here I argue that free trade of goods, communications, and services provides the context for the rise of Civic Society. I do not see a direct, measurable correlation between the two, but rather that the context of free trade opens international communication and makes possible and more effective the role of Civic Society. In this chapter I present my view that Globalization is accelerating from a “Gradual” process for many centuries prior to the 1980s to a “Fast-Track” process. Beginning in the 1980s, U.S. President Ronald Reagan and United Kingdom Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher joined forces to foster the many factors involved in Fast-Track Globalization based upon open communications that have facilitated the flow of funds among For-Private-Profit Organizations (FPPOs), many of which donate a significant share of their profits to NPPOs seeking to foster change in the developing world.

Chapter 2 deals with developing a clear definition of the U.S. model for Tax Exempt Organizations (TEOs) such as foundations, NGOs, and a wide range of NPPOs). It is because a definition does not exist that there is so much confusion in the world as well as in America about how U.S. NPPOs function.

Chapter 3 takes up the Rockefeller Foundation, which I portray here as representing the Centralized Model of Philanthropy wherein decisions are made in the USA and not in the country receiving the benefit of U.S. philanthropy.

Chapter 4 analyses the rush of world countries into Free Trade Blocs which are not only opening the world to the free flow of ideas for developing civil society and Civic Society but also expanding the base of profits from which funds are donated for philanthropic purposes. Civic Society is the main beneficiary of such donations.

This Chapter treats globalization of Civic Society and

compares the experiences of Mexico, and Eastern Europe’s Romania, which

constitute my two case studies.

The Epilogue examines two new model of U.S. philanthropy for the world:

The El Paso Community Foundation with its decentralization to the local level and its cross-border Board of Directors also representing Ciudad Juárez—the part of Greater El Paso Metropolitan Area, that has the largest share of population.

The final conclusion also examines the recentralization of philanthropy in the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, over which Bill Gates’ father presides. This new type of personal philanthropy eschews the development of a bureaucratically oriented foundation run by a professional staff; rather the foundation leaders use their huge new “dot.com” fortunes to personally choose huge projects that will have worldwide impact.

The last chapter defines the Decentralized Model for Philanthropy developed by George Soros and illustrated by analyzing the rise and role of the Open Society Foundations around the world.

The purpose of this study, then, is to show how the four models of U.S. philanthropy together encourage open societies and the new role of Civic Society to combat both the negative heritage of statism as well as the Ultra-Liberal reaction to it.

Although non-governmental funding is the key to successfully developing Civic Society, each of the foundations discussed here is shown to take a different approach to the problem of using grants to “prime the pump,” thereafter finding their own continued funding and not becoming dependent upon their initial benefactor.

At the same time, theoretically foundations thus can use their funds to “prime new pumps.” by making a profit. Unfortunately, theory and practice rarely coincide, as will see.

Finally, let me note that this work is written under the auspices of the UCLA Program in Policy History and Globalization and is my Doctoral Dissertation in History on which I had been working nonstop for the past 30 years.[30] Where area studies used to limit their focus to one geographic part of the world, that approach makes little sense in light of the interactions of regions around the globe. And although country-specific histories remain vital, they only make sense in the ebb and flow of international influences that require a globalized policy framework, which invites the policy recommendations of historians who are familiar with long-term change and its meaning.

The spiritual axiom that runs throughout the Western civilization is Magna Carta, or the book of rights. Historically, The Magna Carta, or the Great Charter was guaranteeing that the King John of England on June 15, 1215 to be subject to the rule of law and documenting the rights of “free men”, therefore providing the foundation for Individual rights in Anglo-American philosophy of Law.

Individuals have the right to associate, and fight for their rights and causes.

All you need is a well -informed citizenry, aware of its rights and freedoms, who act in consciousness of substantive and procedural framework of the Law.

What a great tool to exercise daily in order to preserve individual human rights, as well as the right to associate with people who feel the same way, in order to protect our inalienable rights.

It was indeed civic engagement that ended the Cold War. The good old scholars of socialism, communism, have arrived to the conclusion at the beginning of this Millennium, that:

Under communism the nations of Eastern Europe never had a ‘civil society.’

A ‘civil society’ exists when individuals and groups

are free to form organizations that function

independently of the state,

and that can mediate between citizens and the state.

Because the lack of civil society

was part of the very essence of the

all-pervasive communist state,

creating [civil] society

and supporting organizations

independent of the state-–[such as] NGOs—

have been seen by donors as

the connective tissue of democratic political culture—

an intrinsically positive objective.

–Janine R. Wedel, 1994, p. 323

[Scholars such as Chris Hann]

criticize the notion put forth by some western scholars and former Central European dissidents

that there was no civil society in Central Europe

during the communist period . . . [because the concept of "civil society”

was not even included in the

Polish Political Dictionary

published in New York in 1980 and

London in 1985.  However, [under communism] civil society

itself continued to thrive at the grass-roots level, although Western intellectuals could not

possibly have been aware of it. . .

[Dissidents] liked to imagine themselves as the "heroic underdogs"

opposing the totalitarian state. In effect, Hann asserts, scholars were

mistaken in perceiving members of communist societies as atomized and

unable to form an authentic civil society. . .

[Civil society existed in the following forms:

•official associations licensed by the state

(such as Village Women Housekeepers Association,

Polish Student Association, Polish Scouts, and

professional associations such as writers)

which involved political imposition from the top but at the bottom involved the possibility of apolitical collective action against the party),

•unofficial associations (including extended kin groups •informal interest groups (including traditional village families and mutual self-help groups),

•religious organizations (usually but not fully controlled by the party), and

•social protest organizations (which began in the 1956 rebellion for "freedom and bread" and although quickly curtailed by the party, evolved by 1976 into KOR or the Workers' Defense Committee] to help detained workers and

defend those brought before the courts.

–Michael Buchowski, 1996, p. 83

Introduction to Civic Attitude and Civil Society in Romania

Indeed, since the Cold War has descended upon Romania in 1947, there was

terrible hardship in the midst of Russian impositions, to gather and have

meetings of “free minds,” as communists were literally dictating what was

good and/or what was bad for the country.

Eastern Europe has never had a Magna Carta, like Britain had. Instead,

Eastern Europe had revolutions and lots of bloodshed which was repressed

and ensconced for over 45 years of communism.

Chapter I:

COMPLEXITIES OF THE GLOBALIZATION PROCESS

This first Chapter dwells on the complexities of the globalization process, as well as it concentrates on the significant role that the Interplay between civic engagement and civil government play in the process of balancing out the negative and positive sides of globalization.

For the sake of best practices of civic engagement, I have chosen Mexico and the USA, as well as Romania, which is a Latin speaking country in Eastern Europe, bordering with Ukraine, and Hungary. Hungary has been always looking up to the West for help.

“Decentralized Globalization” provides a fresh, multi-dimensional viewpoint on free trade blocs and globalization, which is more than just free trade blocks, the private sector, the mixed state-private sector, and the civil society, or, as I call it the Not-For-Privet-Profit sector.

From a new vantage point, my book, is unlike other globalization literature, which tends to be written either in favor or against globalization or highlight cross-border issues such as economic dislocation, the spread of pandemic disease, cultural assimilation, rapid decrease in transportation times, immigration, or the growth of drug-trafficking, and crime cartels.

My optic comes from a look at civic engagement and civil society and its role in balancing out the effects of abusive authoritarian governments.

Students fresh out of Ivy League Universities believes are that civil society should act as a check on executive powers in all countries, to counteract authoritarianism, nationalistic tendencies, and isolation, or another Cold War.

It is sufficient to look at Hungary’s Viktor Orban, the PM, who has launched an authoritarian undemocratic regime, and has deeply damaged the country’s civil society by eliminating all refugees and dissidents from the Parliament. And pitting civil society against George Soros.

The ghosts of communism are alive and well, also in Romania. Corruption has defaced the country completely. Politicians are selling off the resources of the country and people are suffering. Entire forests are being extirpated, by Austrian corporations, and the soil is being depleted.

As a writer I acknowledge that readers have become more knowledgeable and can now shake off the narrow views on globalization by better studying the statistical data enclosed and the facts.

This angle then aids experts in globalism/globalization in further understanding by explaining the birth of the anti-globalization movement. It is based on the premise that globalization is here to stay, and Blockchain technology is going to help sort out a new, and safer way for direct voting on Blockchain.

Continuing the tradition of “Decentralized Globalization,” I am enclosing and citing analysis and data proving the effectiveness of all Free Trade Agreements, especially NAFTA, that is the North American Free Trade Agreement.[31]In the Statistical Abstract of Latin America, published by UCLA, the data on manufacturing, health and Education prove that NAFTA (The North American Free Trade Area)[32] has done a world of good in creating a myriad of jobs. California is perfectly intertwined with the Mexican economy; the balance struck being a perfect model for the rest of the World. The race for Free Trade agreements and elimination of tariff has started long time ago with the creation of the EU, and it works.

Civic society keeps the government honest and clamors to take into account the non-governmental interest groups. E.g. to reform Constitutions, to store land-titles. Too many countries will need to change from their judicial systems, from “guilty until proven innocent” to " innocent until proven guilty", which should be the norm in the twenty-first Century.

Especially Mexico with its retrograde amparo system, that lets criminals go free if they pay a fee.

No one could read it without learning a great deal or without having her conception of the course of history radically challenged.”
In my briefly structured constructed thesis, I bring in a fresh perspective on the history of civic engagement, and civil society and importance of NPPO (Not-for-Private-Profit) Law.

Given the fast pace of change in the global economy it is more important than ever to have a comprehensive point of reference to allow us to understand and map the transformations around us.

A key point of view is the relationship between government, and civil society, the way in which the parts of the system are organized, so that to reach that comprehension: the need of interoperability. This dialectical process is evident in countries like Romania. They do inform each other and build on each other’s strength.

Government and Civil Society Interoperability

The key of the argument is as follows:
For decades several regions of the world such Latin America and Eastern Europe had suffered from impostor dictatorships and poverty, caused by statism. The Fast track globalization (FTG) process which begun in the 1980s with the establishment of the European Union and later on in 1994, of NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement.

Reagan and Thatcher got together to break down the barriers in the world. FTG is the main force to counteract the nationalistic dictatorships, the detrimental phenomenon of statism. It also opened up tourism. FTG is based on the rise of rapidly expanding free markets, or managed trade.

The free trade of goods, communications and services provides the context for the rise of civic society. Orban still tries to control the judges, just one monolithic government, no longer a democracy.
The fast-track globalization has facilitated the flows of funds among “for-profit organizations” many of them donating profit to NGOs seeking to foster change in the developing world. The relationship among those elements have detonated a process of rapid change in the developing world, as we have seen in the 21st Century.
With some exceptions Latin America and Eastern Europe countries have passed by the process of democratization and liberalization, missing out on reducing poverty and inequality.
It is worth to stress that the problems still persisting and the dangers to regression are explained mainly because of not going further in the direction of reforming the law according to US model on decentralization to expand civic action and philanthropy.

Romania followed the same path like former socialist countries of that region by trying to privatize state owned factories. Romania has partially succeeded in de-statification.

Mexico by contrast had faced with mix results; regrettably, the Mexican government lacked and still lack the “mental space” needed to identify and resolve the bureaucratic problems limiting civic action. The rise of the drug lords who took over five states in Mexico has further impeded the development of civil society. But Mexicans have risen against these scourge, by establishing new NGOs, and under the leadership of Mr. Malverde had fought back against corruption in the state of Morelia, Michoacán.

It is important to point out: Romanians have decided, no more dictatorship.

There is a clear need for authentication, and Blockchain can fill in that gap, and provide it for Not-For_Private-Profits, as well as for land titles, house titles, as Hernando de Soto the author of the “Mystery of capitalism: Why It Works in The West”, and why it failed elsewhere in the world.

It is worth to have that useful analysis in mind because is pivotal to understand the current social crisis afflicting Mexico, due to the drug-lords, gangs, and kingpins which control some parts of Mexico.

For today’s scholars and historians, the focus on Civic Society’s role in attempting to strengthen and actually interplay with the government seems plausible and, as we can see new movements sprung up, like Blockchain technology, which is going to change the direct voting system in the U.S.

We need to trust our voting system, especially to build up digitized security systems that we can trust, and Blockchain is one of them.

Actually, it is perfect for government and civic society interoperability.

As per eastern Europe, my argument is that (1) civil society has been able to save itself in Mexico through Civic Action (often supported by philanthropic donations from abroad); and that (2) Civic Society is attempting to build civil society in Romania (especially through the medium of the Soros Foundations), civil society that was destroyed in Eastern Europe and Russia by the Communists, who considered Civic Society as “subversive” to Statism.

Whereas Wedel, in the quote above correctly poses the issue facing Eastern Europe, Buchowski completely misunderstands what civil society means. If we follow his definition of the communist pioneers’ organization, the logical conclusion is that the brainwashed Hitler Youth were exemplary members of civil society.

In this chapter we will examine Mexico’s new NPPO and NGO legislation and its unique standing as having achieved, through harmonizing its NPPO law with the U.S. The U.S. – Mexico treaty provisions, the mutual recognition of philanthropic spheres, thus facilitating the flow of U.S. foundation funds to Mexican NPPOs. The nascent Civic Society in Romania seeks to influence the Romanian government not only to establish civil society with fair societal rules and rights of appeal but also to follow the Mexican model, which involves working closely with U.S. Treasury to facilitate the inflow of U.S. foundation funds.

Why Mexico? Because it, together with the USA, has created the only international standard that exists to ease the flow of foundation funds internationally—and from the world’s largest source largest pool of such funds, that of the USA.

It is of great interest to Romanian NGOs, as a Latin-based model, the only one in the world that corresponds to the pre-communist laws to which it has reverted after a time warp.

The years 1917 and 1989 offer the benchmarks for understanding the rise and eclipse of centralism, analyzed here in case studies for Romania in Eastern Europe and for Mexico in Latin America. World statism was generated simultaneously by the Mexican Revolution’s 1917 Constitutional Model (which still prevails) and the 1917 Russian Model of Revolutionary Terrorism, both of which encouraged the rise of state monopoly that distorted economic, political, and social systems. In Russia and Mexico one-party political and economic systems came to define the dimensions of statist corruption that became prevalent in so many countries worldwide.

With the problems of excessive centralism manifest by the 1980s, statists in Mexico and Romania took very different paths to save their power. Despite a heavily statist orientation, Mexico and Brazil were the largest and fastest growing economies in the world in the period from 1950 to 1980, reaching growth rates of GDP of over 6% per year.[33]

In the Mexico of 1983, the new President Miguel de la Madrid began to bring to a halt the expansion of state power by beginning to permit large private land holdings of production for export even as he began to close or sell some money-losing factories and service companies.

In Romania of 1983, the brutal dictator Ceausescu (1963 to 1989) attempted to deepen his control, thus accentuating the crisis in statism that within six years saw his bloody fall. Ceausescu’s drive to increase state income by expanding food exports to the world caused crisis in central government financing of local welfare as well as shortages of staple goods needed by the masses. Thus, by 1989 Ceausescu’s dictatorship of extreme state centralism of power at the national level left Romania’s thousands of communities in poverty, with civil society unable to think for itself after 40 years of failed central planning.

Meanwhile, half-way-around the world, Mexico faced the problem of statism but one in which civil society had been compromised, not destroyed as had been the case in Romania.

In Mexico the rise of statism had been gradual beginning with President Lázaro Cárdenas in 1934. Cárdenas and those who followed him steadily expanded the size of the State until it owned more than half of the country’s GDP. The statist solution seemed to work for decades and not until 1982 did Mexico’s civil society and its population at large realize that it had been left bankrupt literally and figuratively, albeit, as in Romania, with subsidies from the central government to support the country’s corrupt one-party political system.

With the 1982 collapse in demand for oil and raw materials owing to the world downturn after the Arab oil embargoes and quintupling of energy prices in the 1970s, Mexico was unable to borrow international funds, thus "bankrupting" efficient private industry as well as highly inefficient statist enterprises. Subsequent shrinkage of subsidies caused increasing crisis in the living standards for the thousands of Mexico’s communities in which the only basis for funding had been the central government. With the decline in size of state economic power, then, the state itself has barely been able to cope with the series of recurring economic collapses caused by earlier central government mismanagement of nationalized industries.

Inefficiency, and Incapacity of the statists in both Mexico and Romania to maintain their corrupt social systems and command economies, changed dramatically after the fall of the Berlin War in 1989. The unmasking of the Soviet system and its 1991 collapse revealed it to be a negative development model, not the ideal model that ideologues believed to have existed. Now free to act, anti-statists unleashed rapid change in the old Communist World.

"Anti-statism" in Mexico and Romania took different routes from 1989 to 1997. In Mexico, anti-statist leadership led by President Miguel de la Madrid began with timid care so as not to incur the wrath of the highly unionized society that always voted for the Official Party in return for relative privilege of believing that it
“owned” the state enterprises. De la Madrid and his Secretary of Planning, Carlos Salinas de Gortari could justify the first privatizations, however, because there could be no hiding that the State was literally bankrupt. Further, the two began deregulating the economy, decentralizing power to federal levels (to the 52 counties).

As President in his own right from 1994 through 1998, Carlos Salinas was aided by events in Russia. (The USSR’s implosion both dispirited and paralyzed Mexicans who favored statism—their “model” gone from the world scene.) Thus, Salinas could accelerate decentralization of state activity as well as massive sale and closure of inefficient industries. Another important aid was the rise of Civic Society dating back especially to between 1968 and 1985 when it had become increasingly clear that civil government was failing. The student strike of 1968 may have been led by some political thugs but the general movement was supported by the middle class actively demanding change in the university system. The students had been attacked and jailed after the revolt. Then came the women’s rights movement and organization of the Doctor’s Strike against the low State’s low salaries.

Finally, in 1985, almost the entire population of Mexico City found itself mobilizing to combat the effects of the devastating earthquake that had hit Mexico City, killing over 12,000 persons. With civil government standing paralyzed,[34] citizens realized that they had to organize Civic Action in order to restore on their own civil society. Thus, they began to provide medical care, distribute food and clothes, and reconstruct housing—simply ignoring government officials who had not been appointed for any expertise but for their cronyism. Civic Society organized into NGOs, the number increasing dramatically each year after 1985.

In contrast to Mexico, the situation saw its great change in Romania in 1989 when “counter-revolutionary Communists” Ion Iliescu, overthrew Ceausescu and his wife (she being considered to be the power behind him) and executed them to save themselves from the revolution against Communism that swept Eastern Europe after the fall of the Berlin Wall.

In “post-Communist” Romania, the brief spurt of Civic Action that had protested against the Ceausescus to bring an end to their regime was pushed aside by the old-line Communists, capitalizing on the fact that they themselves had conducted the “execution” of the dictatorial couple. Although the old-line leaders officially called for Romania’s de-statification, they took little action against the State’s power and certainly had no interest in forming real civil society. Indeed, they were pleased to let the bureaucratic infrastructure and tangle of “red tape” remain in place, with no appeal against administrative indifference or error.

The Glimmer of Civic Society in Eastern Europe

To match the demise of statism, and often to help its demise, Civic Society has arisen in its own right to assume growing importance depending on the country, the USA providing for Eastern Europe perhaps the strongest “model.”

Ironically the USA may not be the best model because the “state” never gained the power that it came to hold in Eastern Europe and, therefore not only its law codes but also its experience are so very different.

The basic notion of Civic Society is that the people can and should prevent the civil society (including especially the government) from becoming authoritarian. Civic Society represents that part of civil society which mobilizes civic spirit to “right the wrongs” of the government when they are identified and not resolved properly by government. Some of the “wrongs” are identified spontaneously and some on an on-going basis. (The U.S. American Civil Liberties Union, for example, maintains a standing corps of attorneys that respond to complaints as well as watch vigilantly for possible wrongs.) The Rodney King beating is another example, in Los Angeles, California.

The race issue had to be addressed, and it is still unresolved, like in the case of #BLACKLIVESMATTER. The two sectors of the American society have to work together.

The stringent issue of immigration should be solved with the help of civil society, and immigrant-oriented NGOs.

The rise of civil society in Western Europe and the USA had been set back by World War I and world economic depression between 1929 and 1939. To face these emergencies, state power was seen as necessary for political and economic defense. In the USA, the New Deal’s mixed capitalism and its expansion of state activity offered an alternative to the rise in Europe of statist fascism and statist communism.

In Eastern Europe, the Western concept of civil society had only partially penetrated by the early twentieth century. There, however, it existed in widely varying degrees ranging from

incipient democracy in Poland to monarchy in Romania. In the latter, the nobles and the small middle class exercised civic responsibility.

Expansion of civil society in Eastern Europe, which was disrupted by World War I and remained weak during world economic depression of the 1920s and 1930s, saw its basis for action decapitated by successive German-Russian actions. The Germans occupied Romania as its “ally” by the early 1940s and held it until Romania was caught in the crossfire of German and Soviet warfare in August 1944. In Romania, when King Michael ordered his troops to turn on the Germans, he helped the Russians to seize the country. Then, after the Russians awarded him the Soviet Order of Victory, he was forced to abdicate.[35] Russia ruthlessly suppressed whatever civil society remained and put in its place a fake civil society which it called the “peoples’ government.” Uneducated cadres were placed in key-positions of government, only because they were obedient, and followed the red party’s directions.

With victory over Germany in 1945, Russia set out to break nascent civil society by Stalinizing Czechoslovakia, Poland, Hungary, and Bulgaria as well as Romania. Thus, Bolsheviks and some Socialists conducted a deliberately destructive and brutal campaign to

liquidate associations, independent trade unions, and artisan guilds, community groups, churches, and social movements.[36] Among other values, the communists erased the notion of noblesse oblige and middle class social responsibility as they broke both the nobility and the bourgeoisie.

Because World War II had expanded the role of the state in all spheres worldwide, the post-war era in the West had to contend with reinvigorating civil society. By the second half of the 20th century, the English invented the concept of quasi-autonomous government organizations (QUANGOs), wherein the QUANGO is responsible neither to the government nor to the citizenry.

The idea of using TEOs (from now on Tax Exempt Organizations), as the basis to establish associations of active citizens as a “space” separate from government has a long history in England and America, such associations being able to mediate between the citizenry and the government as well as among different societal groups.

By the 1970s and 1980s many of these associations came to be known as NGOs. As we saw in the analysis of society’s four spheres (see Chart A in Conclusion), NGOs fall into

the fourth sphere, and they may or may not depend entirely on volunteer participation and/or paid staff. NGOs usually attempt to register with the government in order to achieve a tax-free status that allows them to receive donations deductible against the income of the donors–hence the incentive to donate.

That civil society defines the sphere of activity separate from the state clearly emerges in the burgeoning literature on the role of citizens in East Central Europe. Recent books have theorized in different ways about how civil society is defined by the dynamic of and tensions between the state and non-state activity. These authors include Ernest Gellner (1994), Jean L. Cohen, (1992), Andrew Arato (1992), and Adam Seligman (1995).

In its inception, in such literature the strand of the civil society tradition that is most relevant in Eastern Europe is the one that has called for intellectuals to adopt “Civic Action”[37] or engagement to oppose the ruling intelligentsia who blindly support statist power. (Many so-called intellectuals did not want to end the state’s heavy hand because they benefited from it, monetarily.)

The majority of Eastern European political dissidents (such as, Miklós Haraszti, Kis Jánós, and Lech ValeVa of Solidarnost) argued that civil society, in its traditional forms, has been endangered by collectivism, statification of social structures, and regimentation.[38]

The so-called intelligentsia who sought simple communist solutions justified its role as serving as the “vanguard of society.” They helped the communists to construct a new class of bureaucratic apparatchik and ruling elites later defined as nomenclature.[39] In the meantime, humanist intellectuals, scientists, and academics who questioned power and opposed censorship were allowed to go on working in peripheral positions, but only so long as they did not overtly challenge the state’s authority.

In its early stages, the process of collectivization and heavy bureaucratization was justified by the intelligentsia who helped the communists preach to the workers that nationalization would benefit the masses. This type of “associatedness” resulted in the destruction of intermediary networks such as independent trade unions. Thus, the complicity of the statist-oriented intellectuals helped destroy the societal networks that promoted civic articulation between the state and society. In destroying the very interstitial “tissue” of the social construct in different degrees throughout Eastern European countries, pro-state intellectuals did so because they knew that civil society threatened the very nature of the communist ideology upon which they fed, literally and figuratively.

Well before the communists seized power in the Eastern Europe of the mid-1940’s, some intellectuals (including writers, philosophers, actors and sociologists) had theorized about the possibility of creating an ideally collective future society, so at first many supported the communist seizure of power. By the time they realized what had happened, the many disillusioned intellectuals who did not want to work for the State found that their time was spent trying only to survive by making day-to-day life livable. Working in factories was not something educated people envisioned; it was actually hell, but at least they felt people had jobs, and felt secure.

Dissidence was difficult and considered subversive if it was organized in detail. For example, the Polish dissident Adam Michnik built on the movement established originally to provide legal and material assistance to the families of workers imprisoned after the 1976 strikes.[40].

By 1978 in Poland, he was one of the founders of the Workers’ Defense Committee (KOR), and he called for a strategy of "self-organization" as part of establishing a Community for Social Self-Defense. Later, KOR became the base for a strategically coherent movement of mass organized protest that would become Solidarity. This is how it started the Spring revolution in Poland.

The emergence in Poland of several independent organizations began implicitly to challenge the state power such as the ROPCIO (the Polish acronym for its chapter of Amnesty International), the Nationalist Confederation for Independent Poland, and the incipient Free Trade Union, each with their own publications.

In Czechoslovakia, two important political dissident thinkers emerged by the late 1970s. Vacláv Havel called for people to "live within the truth," independently of official structures, and even to ignore the official political[41]. Vacláv Benda called on population to "remobilize" within the civil society.[42] The break with the regime was implicitly contained in the rhetoric of dissidents, but it never reached maturity under the very effective repression by the state. Only later did it constitute itself into a serious challenge to the communist government.

In Hungary, philosopher György Konrad argued in his 1976 book Antipolitics that all power is antihuman, and therefore so is all politics. He called for de-statification and an antipolitical, democratic opposition in his analysis of the issues of transition in East-Central Europe. But resistance to the State did not come until the late 1970s, intellectuals began to oppose the State’s so-called “remobilization of the population to work for the good of communism.” Analysts abroad then began to observe the cleavage between the official system and an alternative “second society.”[43]

The emergence of an embryonic civil society in the 1970s and the 1980s with semi-autonomies and semi-liberties was possible mostly in the relaxed communist environment of Kadar’s Hungary and Edward Gierek’s Poland, but it never did develop into a truly autonomous alternative to the power of the state – Solidarity in Poland being the exception, but much later.

Political stirrings in Eastern Europe surfaced gradually, first in rather ensconced forms such as "flying university" lectures and Samizdat publications.[44] Later came participation in informal self-educational groups. The rise of organizations that pursued independent activities and the call for establishing individual responsibility became evident in Poland only where the churches led in creating independent space for thought[45].

Stirring of Civic Society, then, was beginning to call for rejection of communism, with KOR and Solidarity in Poland embodying full-fledged and convincing alternative to the communist regime. They provided a spark for Civic Society but could not by themselves bring about the collapse of communist ideology, which would have to wait for the communist system to implode politically and economically in 1989.[46]

Rise of alternative society beyond the reach of authorities had eroded the credibility of the ruling communists, implicitly destroying the monopoly of the state over the society and individuals. Such society had shown a glimmer of life after the 1960s, providing a basis for Civic Society, ironically in the absence of civil society.[47]

The Helsinki Human Rights Accord of 1980 gave hope to dissidents in Czechoslovakia where political activists seized upon Chapter 77 of to anticipate a new type of politics.[48] Eventually they used Chapter 77 to demand human rights, open dialogue, plurality of opinion, and alternative structures, demands that slowly began to weaken communist ideology. The famous Chapter 77 bolstered the call of some Czech intellectuals for free speech, free press, investigative journalism, freedom from arbitrary search and seizure, freedom of movement, and judicial recourse against illegal arrest by the police and military.

Dissidents were literally “vaporized” from their homes in all communist countries.

In Romania, Ceausescu’s extreme repression stunted intellectual protest. Only few individuals such as Mircea Dinescu, Paul Goma, Doina Cornea, and Radu Filipescu took the risk to openly protest against the regime in the late 1970s—but they gained no following. Nor did any organized urban socio-political activity take place in the 1980s.[49] Only very few people dared talk or protest.

Once the communists lost power in Romania, his successor Ion Iliescu promulgated Law 42 in 1990 as his “moral duty” to reward those who had helped defeat the dictatorship. The problem that arose, however, was that former communists bribed their way into the reward system, thus creating division and distrust in society and setting back the rise of consensus which needed to make a qualitative shift from collectivism to individualism.

This further eroded the trust between different segments of the Romanian society.

CHAPTER II: THE ROMANIAN CASE

The Communist republic of Romania, in the 1970s was considered the favorite kid on the Eastern European block. Until the blinding veneer wore off, and a shoemaker, Nicolae Ceausescu started terrorizing the Romanians who did not agree with the communist disaster, and one-Party rule, and the complete payment of the country’s debt to the IMF at the detriment of the famished population. Communism was in fact an utter failure in Romania, and Hungary alike.

The Ceausescu dictatorship (1965-1989) left the country in total chaos. Under the Iliescu regime (1990-1996), debate about modernization of civil society came to life, but effective results were not possible to achieve without the development of a new legal framework.[50]

From 1990-1993, civil society benefited from pent-up demand and expressed itself in an explosion of activity, which simultaneously differentiated and politicized itself during the relative vacuum of power as Iliescu sought to establish his power. This initial explosion was partly the consequence of the fact that political independence was in a sense political

opposition and partly an inclination toward a populist "bottom-up" approach to democratic development.[51]

The first three years of Iliescu’s period were marked by the rise of Western-style NGOs, most hopeful that their mere existence would bring foreign grants. Romanian NGOs involved free association of autonomous persons who volunteered to help raise funds to take up the immediate decline in state social benefits. Only a few NGOs were able to gain foreign funding for their plans which called for, among other things, the teaching of democracy, the operation of orphanages, and the networking of ethnic groups.

By 1992 the profile of NGOs revealed an open separation between political advocacy groups and civic advocacy organizations. All NGOs, however, undertook qualitative changes in their activity to achieve "institutional development, capacity building, and sustainability," the goal being to make the NGOs viable and effective.

The problems of Romania’s nascent civil society are complex. First, there are too few competent leaders to staff both government and NGOs so that Romania can compete effectively in the globalization process. Second, NGO leaders are tending to move into politics and business. Nevertheless, notes Dorel Sandor there is a chance that at least some of those who leave the NGOs will use their influence to support the nongovernmental sector.[52]

Although in Romania the pre-communist 1924 Law 21 on charities has been reinstated in the 1990s, it does not regulate in a specific manner the

nongovernmental bodies. Law 21 only provides a general, vague legal framework and no categories to encompass modern institutions or communities. This permits corruption and produces misunderstanding of what civil society is meant to be.[53]

Crystallization of NGOs in post-communist Romania demonstrates the viable capacity of response to the challenges of transition from a communist country to a democratic country. Having initially appeared when the state was impotent, clusters of nonprofits and civil actors spontaneously filled the gap as government activity sputtered.

As per Freedom House reviews, the year 2016 favored reform as a caretaker,

technocratic government run by Prime Minister Dacian Cioloş initiated some

deep institutional changes. However, whether these policies bear tangible fruit

will largely depend on the new legislature, which was elected at year’s end.

In terms of policy, the Cioloş government can be credited with several policies

initiatives that ranged from improving government transparency and

accountability to tackling the rampant corruption[54].

Romania therefore, is still needs to redefine the separation of powers;

especially give more freedom to judges, whom are restricted to this day from

doing their jobs correctly.

My Participant Observer’s View at the National and

Local Levels in Romania’s 32 Counties

My role as participant-observer of social life began in 1983 as a Foreign Languages student in the Department of Maramures during my University years in Romania has continued till 1989. I was directly connected to a network of civic minded students, and together we wanted to save the Elitelore and Folklore of our superb Transylvanian region, by studying and recording songs, and customs in Maramures County, the most Northern part of Romania.

The communist party elites were proud of the diverse dance assemblies, and poetry that was blooming those years, before things turned tragic in communist Romania.

In December 1989 a handful of communists have derailed Nicolae Ceausescu, and taking advantage of the youth rising against communism, hijacked the revolution and took over the government.

The dictator and his wife, Elena Ceausescu were shot execution style, in a sham of a trial, just so another communist could seize power, Ion Iliescu, a Moscow educated apparatchik who wanted to settle scores with the dictator Nicolae Ceausescu. Iliescu together with his acolytes had hijacked the revolution, and by manipulating the population through the media, especially the TV, took over in an autarchic manner.

In 1992 in my subsequent travels on behalf of PROFMEX.[55] In Eastern Europe and Russia I have been able to compare the attempts to create new civil society that matches the de-statification and privatization processes.

What was striking to me, as a student of Ethnopsichiatry during the Ceausescu was to realize that the peasants of Maramures, in Northwestern Romania, were bound together in matters of common self-concern. They had developed a rudimentary civil society of their own in which they took decisions and solved problems by themselves in so called "claca.” Moreover, these peasants had survived the "chopping tactics" of the communist polity that had tried to

destroy community spirit. Instead those tactics caused a reaction that reinforced local individualistic energies in most Maramures villages.

This village resistance to collectivization was so particularized in a geographically isolated area, however, that it did and does not provide a model for transition of Romania to a modern pluralistic society. Rather the Maramures experience does suggest that socially-based rural civil society is difficult to destroy because of its dispersed nature. If Buchowski, [56] who is quoted in the epigram at the outset of the chapter had wanted to find civil society in a communist country, he would have done well to visit Maramures to see true collective spirit surviving—not because of the communist dictatorship but to spite it. Thus, my observations directly contradict those of Buchowski. I had researched the following villages in Maramures: Breb, Cuhea or Bogdan Voda, Tisa (or Virismort), Calinesti, and Barsana. “Claca” is definitely the nucleus for bringing civil society together and thrive in the communities of these traditional stupendous villages.

My travels after 1991 took me throughout Romania and especially to the capital and other urban areas in Transylvania, a region that accounts for 30% of the over 3, 500 NGOs founded since 1990. I realized that the NGO sector then in formation had two levels: the well-organized foreign foundations which were organizing to solve general problems at the national level (such as the Soros Foundation, with offices in the regions of Romania) and the Romanian voluntary interest organizations that were then organizing to solve immediate local issues. The latter are what the Romanians call "form without foundation" or original versions of NPPOs that not only transfer the western models, but also are mainly based on genuine social projects, according to Steven Samson vision is based on research in Albania.[57]

Although countries such as Romania need to develop legislation that permit the creation of very diverse organizations that operate with crosscutting and overlapping purposes, post-Ceausescu Romania has failed to do so repeatedly. Indeed, the country’s latest law that attempts to cover NGOs, law

no. 32 of 1994, is not in accordance with the requirement of necessities of reasonable functioning of civil associations.[58]

Even with imperfect law, the concept of civil society now prevalent in Romania implies some kind of formal autonomous organization, made up of thousands of constituent associations and charities organizations that compete with the state.

Some non-governmental organizations and think-tanks do seek to provide a check on the power of the state, however, such as the Center For Political Studies and Comparative Analysis, the Romanian Helsinki Committee, the Romanian Society for Human Rights (SIRDO), the League for the Defense of Human Rights (LADO), Liga Pro-Europa, Antitotalitarian Association-Sighet, Academy for Ethnic Studies in Sighet, Civil Protection Maramures, Titulescu Foundation, Association of Lawyers in Defense of Human Rights (APADO), and Academia Civica Foundation. Others make demands on the state for it to pave the roads, extend electricity to villages, install telephones, and provide general services, but they do so without umbrella legislation that legally authorizes and protects their activities.

What is evident from my investigations in Eastern Europe is that after the initial post-1989 enthusiastic phase, the so-called revolution brought many grants from abroad, especially the U.S., British, and French grant-making NPPOs. Since the mid-1990s, however, such international assistance and donations have slowed markedly. Except for Soros, many U.S. grant-making foundations have turned to fund world problems such as disease, as we see in the Conclusion, leaving NGOs disheartened in countries such as Romania. Without a tradition of being able to raise funds in their own country, NGOs that mushroomed in Croatia, Bulgaria, Hungary, the Czech, Slovak Republics, and Poland as well as Romania have in general not received funds from abroad—they had naively believed that by merely organizing an NGO to solve an important problem that foreign funding would be forthcoming.

The most acute problem faced by Eastern Europe’s NGOs, then, is that of financing their activities as they seek a place in the new institutional order. With the slow pace of privatization in Romania, there is not yet any real base of private corporate funding to make donations to Romanian NPPOs, and

without provision for secure tax deductibility donations to NGOs domestic funding is not feasible.[59]

Given the shortage of funds, some philosophers and practitioners of NPPO activity are requesting the volunteering of time, not the volunteering of money, and they are narrowing the scope of their activity to moral influence rather than charitable activity.[60]

In this situation, I find that Katherine Verdery’s concerns about the limitations on civil society are valid. Very much in the Toquevillean tradition, Verdery argues that the concept of civil society is linked to the political processes and has become, in the Romanian case, interrelated to that of reconnecting to democratic Western European values.[61] She suggests that the ruling political elites, who dominate the public sphere since Ceausescu’s heyday, have achieved symbolic capital by having claimed falsely that they suffered under communism, thus overshadowing other forms of a pluralist civil

society. In important ways civil society still revolves around national symbols and organization left over from communist rule.

The New Ethnic Role for NGOs in Eastern Europe and Romania

NGOs now seek to play a major role in resolving ethnic tensions. Ethnic problems are exacerbated by the fact that most of the countries are heterogeneous in their ethnic and religious composition. In Bulgaria, for instance, about 1 million of the 9 million inhabitants are Turks; Romani account for some 700.000 and another 400, 000 are Muslims.

In Romania, the shares of the 23 million population are Hungarians 7.1%, Romani 7%; in Czech Republic Slovaks are 3%, and Romani are 2.4%. In Slovakia, Hungarians are 10.7%, Romani 1.6%, Czechs Moravian, and Ruthenian more than 2%. [62] (The latter are persons descended from a marriage between any combination of the following: Ukrainian, Hungarian, and Romanian, aka Ruthenians.)

In the Kosovo province of Serbia, 90% of the population is reputed to be ethnic Albanian, and it seeks to drive out the Serbs in order to declare independence or join with Albania.

Where for decades refused to recognize ethnic differences under the Soviet optic, which saw such recognition as divisive, since 1989 there has been radical change. The European Union encourages Eastern European countries to accommodate regional differences in development, tradition, local circumstances, and the current state of systemic transformations. As András Biro, a Hungarian activist has put it: " For the first time in 40 years we are reclaiming responsibility for our lives.”[63]

In Romania, in the immediate aftermath of the 1989, several ethnically heterogeneous villages (Bolintin, Casin, Miercurea Ciuc) saw the burning of the houses of the Gypsy and Hungarian ethnic minority and systematic murders. On March 15, 1990, the Romanian security and miners, in direct complicity with Ion Iliescu, took busloads of Romanians from remote villages to the city of Târgu Mures, telling them that they were needed to save Romanian citizens there from being beaten by Hungarians during the

celebration of Hungary’s Independence Day, March 1st. When the busses arrived, the Romanian villagers attacked the participants of the celebration and besieged the Hungarian minority’s headquarters. It was there that the playwright Andras Sütö lost his eye. Several Hungarians and Gypsies were beaten and jailed for years. In a gesture of historic reconciliation, President Emil Constantinescu released them in 1996 when he took office to try to change the Iliescu policies. Unfortunately, the new president did not investigate or publicly expose this case.

It is ironic that only analysis of this troubling case has come at academic and NGO meetings in the USA.

Without any mediating entity to prevent confrontation, a second incident took place in Cluj and Târgu Mures in July 1990, which led the Soros National Foundation to establish in Cluj an office of its Open Society Network to develop social mediation programs.[64]

The general objectives of the Soros National Foundation in Romania, then, has been that of promoting the following objectives of civil society:

– confidence in a state of law, fair government administration, and independent judiciary;

– democratic election of a new political elite;

– existence of a diverse and vigorous civic spirit;

– the respect of the rights and opinions of minorities by the majority.

With these calming idea, the situation in Cluj changed for the better, especially with the appearance of newsletters dedicated to end ethnic hatred. Further, by publishing, for example, Korunk for Hungarians in the Cluj area it is important especially to the Romania’s border with Hungary, it aided the development of relatively strong non-governmental associations (such as Alma Mater Napocensis of Cluj-Napoca and the Academy for Study of Ethnic Conflict-Sighet,) all seeking to prevent and buffer ethnic tensions.

Soros had been the main source of funding for civil society in Romania since 1989, and one of its major contributions has been to

Source: Gautier, Pirotte, “Les Associations de Type O.N.G. en Roumanie. Premiers regards sur l’arene locale du développment á Iasi” (Moldavie Bucharest & Iasi): Université de Liége, June 14 – July 4, 1999, (manuscript.)

Unfortunately, the past decade (2005-2015) he is being strongly despised by the nationalists in Romania because of his Hungarian extraction. But his legacy of institutions, and prominent people who graduated from these schools and universities will remain strong and help transparency in a country fraught with corruption.

Table 6.2

Activities Cost
1. Human Resource and institutional analysis 8,730
2. Identification of the Working Groups 8,700
3. Training seminars for the Working Groups 92,340
4. Seminar on Education 2000+ mission and strategy 30,340
5. Seminar on Managing change 31,000
6. Seminar on School Improvement 31,000
7 Working Groups activities 6,100
8. Public Information 18,300
6. General Program activities 5,695
9. Education 2000+staff development and training 8,300
TOTAL 148,165

establish the “Education Development Project,” which has evolved into the Erasmus Educational success.

Since 1997, the Soros National Foundation has been explicitly promoting the linkage of education to the Romanian market economy; and for example, it has created the Iasi Job Placement Service to serve as a model for other cities and towns.[65] Viktor Orban, the Hungarian Prime Minister has attacked Soros, accusing him of imposing, interfering and “making politics”

In 1999 the Soros Quantum Fund for summer training at Sinaia of educational leaders involved in the funding of the Central European University, and other civic engagement and civil society institutions for investigative journalism, and watchdog NGOs.

Regardless of the efficacy of the seminar, it was apparent to me that the attendees developed a professional attitude to their studies, during which they spent the whole of each day for a week, with few breaks. The esprit de corps created at this Soros seminar was amazing, certainly motivating the attendees to return to the communities and promote the role of civil society as part of educational renewal in Romania.

The Soros Foundation’s branches in Bucharest, Timisoara, Iasi, and Cluj have become autonomous organizations, the activity of which will focus on the following domains: education, health policies and services, law reform, economic development (rural

microlending)[66], ethnic minorities, community safety and mediation, rural assistance, regional cooperation, training and consultancy, arts and culture. All these new systemic changes are composed of an interacting intricate network of professionals in all domains within a dynamic, flexible and easily adaptable network.

The Impact of U.S. Foreign Aid to Romania

In addition to the major funding to Romania provided by Soros, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) entered the scene. Whereas Soros funded Civic Society to organize an effective, modern civil society, USAID funded government development projects.

Thus, the question arose in Romania: to what extent should Eastern European nations be copying or moving toward a Western trajectory of development-based NGOs? The question was complicated because the Romanian government began to establish QUANGOs (state supported NGOs) in order to siphon foreign funds to official purposes and away from the NGOs.[67]

U.S. foreign aid to Romania has been marked by controversy because assistance focused on democracy overemphasized by the U.S. political model and focused narrowly on NGOs involved in political education (such as the Democracy Network program). Thus, Carothers has argued that U.S. aid has slowed real political reform in Romania, actually prolonging the agony of the Romanian economic and political system. By creating harmful dependency relations and not targeting environmental societies, the ethnic associations, religious organizations, cultural diversity, that are the real basis of democracy, marked a great leap backward.[68]

Against this backdrop, some Romanian “ultra-nationalists” demanded that their countries return to its own “organic evolutionary path,” eschewing the funds provided by USAID to rebuilding of the dimensions of social plurality. [69]

Ironically, then, both the USAID representative Carothers and the ultra-nationalists opposed USAID, if for different reasons, and the amount such assistance was considerably reduced by the late 1990s.
The conflict of USAID’s role only complicated a confused picture about the meaning of free-market democracies, mainly because of the failure of East Europeans and Russians to completely demythologize the Leninist ideology.[70] Although Dorel Sandor claims that the rebuilding and reemergence of segments of Romanian civil society has played a crucial role in the liberation from communist ideology, other analysts such Cohen and Arato (1992) are skeptical, implying that only 15% of NGOs are active.

The Romanian test case I had been pursuing has lead me to one success story.

Leadership came from the Romanian Canadian journalists in the form of a global organization of Romanian journalists around the world.

This is a successful global organization, and below you can find how our organization has put together the Bylaws:

BYLAWS

The International Romanian Journalists & Mass- Media Association of Romanians all over the world

(IRJ&MMA)

A 501(c)(3) Non-Profit Organization

Founders: Octavian PAUN, Olga LAZIN, Ecaterina CIMPEAN, Daniel Ionita, and Veronica PAVEL LERNER

IRJ&MMA – International Romanian Journalists & Media Association in Conference and after debate, on March 22, 2013, concluded the followings:

SECTION I: Name and Location of the Head Office

The organization’s name is IRJ&MMA- International Romanian Journalists & Media Association from all over the world.

The Head Office address is 10811 Ashton Ave Suite #101, Los Angeles, CA 90024 U.S.A.

Here are the Chapters of an exemplary organization, and I am including it in here as a workable and functioning model to inspire the readership to open their own Not-for-Private-Profit organization:

CHAPTER I

Scope and principles of the organization:

Art. 1. Identification:

In the first video conference of Romanian journalists which was held on April 10th 2013 and, after the discussions, it has been established that a new organization named IRJ&MMA is to be registered in Los Angeles.

The Head Office is at: 10811 Ashton Ave, suite #101, Los Angeles, CA 90024 U.S.A.

a) The International Romanian Journalists & Mass Media Association (IRJ&MMA) is a nongovernmental and a non-political association. It gathers physical and juridical persons in accordance with the American Legislation for an unlimited period of time. It has a registered HO, with the given address above. The activity of this association is based upon this present Regulation and other future documents that will be approved in conformity with the present one; the location of HO can be changed if approved by the Board of Directors;

b) IRJ&MMA represents the voice of Romanian speaking Journalists from all over the world and has as a priority the people’s right to be well informed;

c) IRJ&MMA is independent of all the ideological, political governmental and religious bodies; it represents and gives support its members in all the matters related to journalism. It also promotes the local (continentals and regional) groups belonging to this Association;

d) The journalists understand the need of an International Integration in a democratic manner to promote human rights. They also promote their native country, Romania by defending the international freedom of press and information in compliance with international laws.

Art.2. Scope:

IRJ&MMA intends to create an appropriate legal and economic environment for the journalists in their professional endeavors. It promotes the good relations with the civil society and with the public authorities from each member’s country of residence. It encourages the promotion of freedom of expression, professional ethics and defends the fundamental human rights, and all other the values of journalism.

Art.3. Principles of Organization:

IRJ&MMA is organized based on principle of liberty of association, of professional solidarity and professional ethics of the press. It holds the activities in accordance with the international laws and regulations regarding the journalism and the press.

Art.4. Attributes:

IRJ&MMA has the following attributes:

a) It is an organization created by independent amateur and professional journalists according to the specific of its members’ and organization’s activities;

b) It is a non – profit organization: no activity is designed to bring profit to its members.

CHAPTER II

Art. 5. Objectives:

IRJ&MMA has established the following objectives in order to obtain a public recognition and a moral and civic authority for the journalists:

a) To defend with specific methods the interest of journalists in their relations with any institution all over the world;

b) To insure a good communication and cooperation between its members and by doing it, to promote and support the loyalty in the competition on the market and to help keeping alive the common interests of its members;

c) To solve the specific problems that could arise in breaking the norms of journalists’ professional ethics;

d) To take an immediate strong attitude against any situation in which state institutions injure in any way the free access to information, the freedom of press and the activity of journalists’ profession;

e) To initiate or participate at the drafting of legal proposals regarding the exercise of the journalist profession or the relations between the press and central or local administrative state authorities from all over the world;

f) To become the main legal and authorized institution of Romanian journalists all over the world based on prestige, territorial and professional coverage as well as on its authority and international structure;

g) To actively participate for the improvement of the quality of the press in Romanian from all over the world by exercising the journalism in good faith;

h) To collaborate with the Universities specialized in this domain, e.g. UCLA in Los Angeles, CA.

CHAPTER III

The members of IRJ&MMA

Art.6. Journalists and Investigative Journalism:

(1) At present in IRJ&MMA’s Bylaws, and in all the others, the term journalist designates the physical person who is engaged in active journalism, paid or not, and as a professional or amateur.

Art. 7 Membership and Who can become member:

Any physical or juridical person can become a member of IRJ&MMA if:

a) Promotes the professionalism and moral values of the journalism, and the civic and social responsibilities of this activity. He/she should have an experience of at least two years in mass-media and show a journalist ability and attachment to this association;

b) Agrees and respects this Journalists’ Policies and Regulations Act (PRA), Deontology Code and others Association’s regulatory documents.

c) Takes part in members’ activities;

d) Keeps the confidentiality over the internal principles of Association. If the Board of Directors receives, verbally of by writing, more than two complaints regarding a member that doesn’t complying with the PRA, he/she is immediately excluded.

e) Pays the annual fees for membership.

(2) The applications for IRJ&MMA membership are approved in conformity with the procedure described in the Status: a signed and dated form must be submitted by the applicant together with ID electronic picture. The IRJ&MMA Secretary will keep track of the applications in a designated register;

CHAPTER IV

Art. 11. IRJ&MMA High Management

1. The High Management includes:

· The Head of Association; or the President

· The Board of Directors;

· The General Assembly;

· Vice-presidents and Chiefs of Departments

· Active independent journalists;

· Mass-media (Institution Radio, TV, and the Press online)

· Photo-cameraman

· Marketing.

· Governors representing the 5 continents Asia, Europe, Africa, Australia & Oceania, North America and South America are elected by the General Assembly on each continent for a two-year mandate.

1.1-The Head of Association (see Annex no.1) is not elected by the IRJ&MMA General Assembly. This function has an unlimited duration and is independent of place and time.

Art.12 General Assembly:

(1) The General Assembly is the organism of deliberation for IRJ&MMA. It includes all the members that had been admitted based on the statutory procedure described in Art. 7(2). The members of General Assembly meet at least once a year.

(2) Convocation:

a) The call for General Assembly can be done on-line by the President or by the Vice-President (Olga M. Lazin);

b) The call for each member is made by the Secretariat of IRJ&MMA by fax, email, currier or by post at least 15 days before the meeting.

c) The announcement will include the agenda and the date, time and place (Skype or Google+) of the meeting.

Art. 13. The Board of Directors:

(1) The Board of Directors is the head of IRJ&MMA;

a) The Head of IRJ&MMA is not elected. Its nomination is valid for an unlimited and undetermined period of time;

b) The Board of Directors will grow when IRJ&MMA will have over 100 subscribed members.

(2) Decisions:

a) The Board of Directors takes decisions that are mandatory for all members;

Art.4. The President of IRJ&MMA:

(1) The President of IRJ&MMA is also the President of the Board of Directors.

(2) The President of IRJ&MMA has the following duties:

a. Calls for and moderates the General Assembly and Board of Directors meetings;

b. Presents reports and notes to the General Assembly regarding the general problems of the Association;

c. Represents the Association in the social relations with the local, central and international public authorities, with the physical and juridical persons and in the courts.

(3) The President of IRJ&MMA has also other duties established by the General Assembly or y the Board of Directors.

(4) The President of IRJ&MMA can delegate some of his tasks to members of the Board of Directors when necessary;

(5) The President of IRJ&MMA is exercising his/her attributions by issuing tasks.

Art.14.1-The Prim Vice-President IRJ&MMA-has the same tasks as the President IRJ&MMA

Art. 14/ A. The Censors Committee:

(1) IRJ&MMA have a Censors Committee that includes three members, one president and two censors. They are elected by the General Assembly for a 4-year mandate. The members of the Board of Directors cannot be censors.

(2) The Censors Committee has the following duties:

a. Annually and when needed, it verifies the way in which the financial and accounting operations occur. It presents proposals for avoiding possible irregularities;

b. Verifies the administration and discharge of Association’s treasure;

c. Presents reports to the General Assembly regarding the financial and accounting activities and about the administration and discharge of Association’s treasure;

d. Submit to the General Assembly the discharge of Board of Directors from the financial duties; establishes the responsibilities in case of irregularities. The president of the Censors Committee participates to the Board of Directors meetings.

e. Activates in all tasks mentioned by the Policies and Regulations Act or given by the General Assembly.

Art. 14/ B. Membership fees

· The annual fee is $30 USD

· IRJ&MMA will have a bank account in Los Angeles, California, where the HQ is located. Two members will have the right to sign for this bank account.

CHAPTER V

The rights and duties of IRJ&MMA members (International Romanian Journalists & Mass- Media Association)

Art. 15. Rights and duties:

(1) the members of IRJ&MMA have the following rights:

a. To elect or to be elected in the Board of Directors in conformity with the procedures of the present Act and internal regulations; “To participate at and make proposals for the General Assembly meetings and debates;

b. To request and justify the addition of an item to the Agenda for General Assembly regular meetings;

c. To vote for or against any problem under debate in these meetings;

d. To have unlimited access to information regarding Association’s activities and decisions;

e. To participate to any activity organized by the Association;

f. To benefit of the moral and professional support from the Association.

Art.16. Resignation and Sanctions

(1) Any member can resign or retire from membership by submitting a written letter to the Association Secretariat.

(2) The failure to comply with the Deontology Code of Journalists that had been approved by the General Assembly has as consequence the sanctions conforming to the Policies and Regulations Act of the Association.

(3) When a written complaint from one member against another is received, the Board of Directors will analyze the situation. The both parts will be interviewed and a decision will be made in conformity with the internal Regulations and the Deontology Code of Journalists.

Art. 17. The decision of Association’s dissolution

(1) The decision of Association’s dissolution is made by the General Assembly in the same manner and following the same procedures as when the Association was constituted.

(2) After listening the Board of Director’s report, the General Assembly decides dissolving the IRJ&MMA respecting the legal procedures.

(3) The General Assembly will decide, in conformity with the laws, about the destination of material goods, if they exist. The goods could be transmitted to private or public juridical persons that have the same scope as IRJ&MMA.

Art.18. the Association’s dissolution:

(1) The Association dissolution takes place when it appears the impossibility of carrying out its scope and after three months after finding it, the scope had not been changed. The Dissolution can also be provoked by the impossibility of building of a General Assembly or Board of Directors in conformity with the Act of Policies and Regulations and this situation is not changed within one year. The dissolution also is declared if the members’ number falls under the legal limit.

CHAPTER VI

Art. 19. Final dispositions

Art. 20. Reimbursement of fees:

(1) The members that withdraw or are suspended from IRJ&MMA will not be reimbursed for any fees, contributions or taxes.

Art. 21. The Association Identity:

(1) IRJ&MMA – International Romanian Journalists & Mass- Media Association

It has its own stamp, seal and logo.

(2) For its visibility, the Association has opened an account on Facebook: “Grupul Jurnaliștilor Români de Pretutindeni” – (the Group of Romanian Journalists from around the World). IRJ has a web site and, if affordable, it publishes an annual bulletin (magazine) for distribution to the members. The Association intends also to print the annual reports of the Board of Directors.

Art. 22. Marketing

(1). The Association built this compartment of marketing for international publicity for the customers that want to advertise their products and services throughout the members’ publications. If the Association participates in this publicity, its benefit will be 10% of the price and 90% will be distributed to the publications that made the advertising.

Art. 23.

The present Document “Policies and Regulations Act” started to be valid on 25th of April 2013, after IRJ&MMA is registered at the appropriate charitable institution in Los Angeles, California, as a (501) c 3 organization.

The Canadian American and Romanian Foundation functions just like any American

Not-for-Private profit organization which makes it a model for globalization of civil society.

MEXICO AS A MODEL FOR NPPO LEGISLATION

The course of NGO history in Mexico has taken a very different course than in Romania for two reasons: First, proximity to the USA and the world largest cache of grant-making NPPO fund; and second, the acceptance of President Carlos Salinas (1988-1994) and the U.S. government under Bill Clinton to accept the offer of the U.S. Council on Foundations to help change Mexico’s Tax Exempt Organization laws The goal of change was to makes Mexico’s TEOs compatible with the laws of the USA, thus encourage the flow of NPPO funds from the USA to aid in the development of civil society and Civic Action.

Although some sectors of Mexican society were worried about expanding the role of

NGOs because they have been seen mainly as human rights organizations,[71] the main tasks of the NGOs seeming to monitor human rights violations,[72] in reality the NGO situation has become more complicated in Mexico.

There were various causes to the rise of Mexican NGOs.

First during the 1980s, dozens of NGOs tried to accommodate hundreds of thousands of Central American immigrants who arrived fleeing authoritarian governments in El Salvador, Guatemala, Peru, and Nicaragua.

Second the earthquake of 1985 impelled the mobilization of independent civil movements and NGOs to become the backbone of a renewed civil society. That same year the National Autonomous University of Mexico created a movement for the Defense of the Rights of Faculty; and in 1988 the Government of Aguascalientes established a governmental Commission for Human Rights, at the suggestions of its NGO sphere.

Third, coincidentally trends outside Mexico saw both service and advocacy NGOs increase dramatically around the world in numbers, diversity, and strength. Most important was the rise of issue-networks,[73] which united geographically dispersed NGOs to focus on

specific issues such as human rights. Thus, Mexican NGOs could support a common cause, say, in Argentina.[74]

Fourth, underlying and paralleling the phenomenon of issue-oriented NGOs has been the growth of the infrastructure-building NGOs that construct organizational and technological links for networking among activist NGOs, regardless of what specific issue upon which each NGO may be focused.[75] Diversification of Mexican human-rights organizations, pro-democracy NGOs, and indigenous-rights NGOs gained strength throughout the 1980s.

In an effort to seek a modern legal framework for Mexican NGOs, the Convergence of Civil Organizations was born in the 1990s.

Simultaneously more networks of NGOs had emerged with different purposes, and in 1994 they began to play a grand role at national level. One major coalition signed the “Pacto de

Guadalajara,”[76] which resulted in offering a workable alternative to public housing politics, literally bringing in the state as a promoting agent to finance housing for underprivileged Mexicans.

The Chiapas 1994 rebellion attracted the focus of civil rights groups and sparked one of the most observed Mexican presidential elections in the country that same year. In both events the NGOs played a crucial role.[77] Furthermore, Global Exchange’s exposure of criminal activity by police groups in the State of Guerrero called attention to the fact that “local and national human rights organizations fear that the increased activity by the federal army and the state police forces is part of a strategy to stifle the growth of

opposition political movements."[78] In this networking of NGOs, then, we can recognize features such as: collective investigation, consensual decisions, and implementation of the agreements through action committees.

The NGOs further expanded by incorporating the theme of electoral democracy on the agenda of social change and, for the first time in Mexico’s history NGOs helped mobilize voters by the millions, a movement that finally on July 2, 2000, saw the Official Party lose power after nearly 71 years.

Nowadays there are more than almost 5,000 NGOs in all states, with over 180 were being located in Mexico City. [79] The states of Jalisco, Veracruz, and Oaxaca have the most effervescent NGOs activities.[80]

Although, as in Romania, Mexican NGOs are facing the same problems of financing and a poor philanthropic tradition, however, the new government that took office on December 1, 2000, has promised to “unfreeze” in Congress the proposed Mexican law to more fully authorize the legal operation and protection of NGOs.[81]

Although the proposed law is hardly perfect, it constitutes an advance.

Unlike Romania, Mexico has succeeded together with the USA in designing the first international standard for TEO (Tax Exempt Organization) law.

By adopting and adapting the U.S. model, Mexico has gained more than direct access to the world’s largest pool of funds available from grant-making foundations; it can now encourage U.S. companies investing in Mexico to make donations tax deductible in both countries against their Mexican profits. (Mexico has not yet established the U.S. NPPO “privately” funded by a limited number of donors that would allow establishment of an NPPO in Mexico by an U.S. company.)

Most importantly, NPPOs that register under the new TEO law that has been effectively in place since the mid-1990s receive automatic recognition by the U.S. IRS. The first such achievement in world history, we can see in Table A, in the Conclusion of this article.

As suggested in this Chapter, Globalization since the 1989 fall of the Berlin Wall and the subsequent collapse of the statist model has speeded the growth of NPPOs in such formerly statist countries as Mexico and Romania. Both of these countries have suffered from outdated laws, but Mexico has advanced domestically and internationally in its TEO law, hence Romania’s interest in the Mexican Model as the only one in the world that has been rooted in the same type of Latin Law to be reformed.

That the attempt to create new civil society is well underway in Eastern Europe is manifest in the numbers. As of 1999 I found in Romania 13,000 more NGOs registered than in 1992. As of 1994, Salamon found in Poland several thousand foundations that were registered with governmental authorities, in Hungary some 7,000 foundations and 11,000 associations.[82]

The Romanian government has made it pretty difficult to open an NGO, or a Foundation in RO. It takes more than a week for registration papers to go through the Ministry of Justice.[83] The proof of the primary patrimony, bylaws and articles of incorporation, criminal records of officers, IDs of the founding members, and proof of the name reservation to quote just a few.

The Open Society Foundation–Romania is continuing its support for the integration of the Romanian society in the European Union in a new systemic environment, within a new organizational structure, made up of local activists.

The Decentralized Bi-National Model

And last, but not least, the El Paso Community foundation represents the decentralized model: El Paso Juarez International Classic, which ended in 2001.

The El Paso Foundation’s Board of Directors are from both sides of the border: U.S. and Mexican leaders work together in a bi-national manner to bring prosperity to the border communities. U.S. tax laws had been harmonized and perfected by Mexican and American partners in this fortunate case. More partnerships in the civic sector are needed, not walls on the U.S.-Mexican border.

My field research has revealed that countries such as Mexico and Romania have had difficulty in understanding and adopting U.S. tax law, which is the basis for standardization because of problems in analysis of how U.S. economic sectors interrelate.

U.S. analysts themselves have failed to articulate the relations among economic sectors, thus confusing the way in which policy analysts interpret U.S. law to the world. I hope this work has dispelled all the unknowns in the works of the U.S.-Mexico Model.

Hence, I encourage here use of the term Not-For-Private Profit (NPPO) to specify that profits can be made but not diverted for private use. Such profits can be used only for the tax-exempt purposes for which any organization is founded, including the expenses of

running the organization (salaries, travel, rent, etc.) as well as invested to increase the size of the NPPO and ensure its continued existence.

As part of my contribution to globalization studies, I here redefine U.S. societal spheres as being four:[84]

1. Government (State) Sphere (centralized and Decentralized)

2. Private Sphere

3. Mixed State/Private Sphere

4. Philanthropic Sphere (often erroneously called the “Third Sector”)

Confusion about definition of societal sectors comes when analysts fail to take into account the role of the Mixed state/private sector, which for so many years has come to provide a “theoretical bridge” between government and the private business, especially in England and the USA, as well as to keep inefficient and corrupt statism in power, especially in Latin America and Eastern Europe. Given the “third-way” ideology espoused by diverse leaders in different times (for example, Juan Domingo Perón in Argentina in the 1940s) and England’s Tony Blair (1990s), such a concept is not helpful because it is by now empty of meaning.

I seek to show in a new light the relation of the profit and not for-private-profit sectors, the latter funded by the former. Further, I develop new analysis here to help citizens everywhere to understand the roles of government, which must include the study of GONGOs (governmentally organized NGOs), QUANGOs (quasi-autonomous NGOs) as well as to understand that “non-profit organization" does not preclude such organizations from earning profits but rather require that the profits must be used for the purposes chartered and not for private gain.

With regard to meaning of words, one final statement is in order. I do not use the word “public” per se because it has two distinct meanings. For formerly statist societies, “public” means government or government-owned. For non-statist societies such as the USA, the word’s meaning depends on context: “broad general public,” in the context of philanthropic analysis; “public utility” owned or regulated by the government, in the context of economic analysis. Hence in discussion here I discuss foundations as “broadly supported by the general public”; and I do not use “public foundation” which could give the idea of government-owned foundation.

Professors for Mexico, at UCLA have laid the basis for a Research Foundation, totally decentralized, named PROFMEX. It stands for Professors studying Mexico and The World.

Here are the articles of Incorporation:

ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION PROFMEX- THE CONSORTIUM OF U.S.

RESEARCH PROGRAM ON MEXICO

The name of this corporation is Profmex – The

Consortium of U.S. Research Programs for Mexico.

II.

A. This corporation is a nonprofit public benefit

corporation and is organized for the private gain of any

person. It is organized under the Nonprofit Public Benefit

Corporation Law as a public organization and charitable purposes.

B. Specifically, the exclusive purposes of this

corporation are to support and foster and to advance interest

in and knowledge about Mexican studies. The purposes of

the corporation are limited to those satisfying the requirements

for an exemption from Federal income tax under Section

50l(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, or the corresponding

provisions of future Federal tax law.

III.

The name and address in the State of California of

this corporation’s initial agent for service of process

is: Stephen J. Cogut, Esq., c/o Brobeck, Phleger & ·

Harrison, 444 South Flower Street, Suite 4300, Los Angeles,

California 90017.

IV.

A. This corporation is organized and operated

exclusively for educational and literary purposes within the

meaning of Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code.

B. N~ substantial part of the activities of this

corporation shall consist of carrying on propaganda or otherwise

attempting to influence legislation, and the corporation

shall not participate or intervene in any political

campaign (including the publishing or distribution of

statements) on behalf of any candidate for public office.

v.

The property of this corporation is irrevocably

dedicated to educational and literary purposes, and no part

of the net income /assets of this corporation shall -ever

inure to the benefit of any director, officer or member

thereof or to the benefit of any private person. Upon the

dissolution or winding up of the corporation, its assets

remaining after payment, or provision for payment, of all

debts and liabilities of this corporation shall be distributed

to a nonprofit fund, foundation or corporation which

is organized and operated exclusively fol. educational

purposes and which has established its tax-exempt status

under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, or the ·

corresponding provisions of any future Federal tax law.

VI.

The name of the existing unincorporated association

now being incorporated by the filing of the articles is The

Consortium of U.S. Research Programs for Mexico (PROFMEX).

DATED: signed by Incorporator

I hereby declare that I am the person who executed

the foregoing Articles of Incorporation, which execution is my act and deed.

2. Internal Revenue Service

District Director

Date: JUN 1, 1984

Profmex the Consortium of U.S.

Research Programs for Mexico

1201 Campbell Hall. UCLA

Los Angeles, CA 90024

Department of the Treasury

Employer Identification Number:

Accounting Period Ending:

October 31

Foundation Status Classification:

170(b)(l)(A)(vi) and 509(a)(1)

Advance Ruling Period Ends:

October 31, 1985

Person to Contact: I. Hill

Contact Telephone Number:

(213) 688-4889

Based on information supplied, and assuming your operations will be as stated

in your application for recognition of exemption, we have determined you are exempt

from Federal income tax under section 50l (c) (3) of the Internal Revenue Code.

Because you are a newly created organization, we are not now making a final

determination of your foundation status under section 509(a ) of the Code. However,

we have determined that you can reasonably be expected to be a publicly supported

organization described in section 170(b)(l)(A)(vi) and 509(aJ(I) .

Accordingly, you will be treated as a publicly supported organization, and not

as a private foundation, during an advance ruling period. This advance ruling period

begins on the date of your inception and ends on the date shown above.

Within 90 days after the end of your advance ruling period, you must submit to

us information needed to determine whether you have met the requirements of the

applicable support test during the advance ruling period. If you establish that you

have been a publicly supported organization, you will be classified as a section

509(a) (1) or 509(a) (2) organization as long as you continue to meet the requirements

of the applicable support test. If you do not meet the public support requirements

during the advance ruling period, you will be classified as a private foundation

for future periods. Also, if you are classified as a private foundation, you will

be treated as a private foundation from the date of your inception for purposes of

sections 507(d) and 4940.

Grantors and donors may rely on the determination that you are not a private

foundation until 90 days after the end of your advance ruling period. If you submit

the required information within the 90 days, grantors and donors may continue to –

rely on the advance determination until the Service makes a final determination of

your foundation status. However, if notice that you will no longer be treated as a

section 509(a)(l)** organization is published in the Internal Revenue

Bulletin, grantors and donors may not rely on this determination after the date of

such publication. Also, a grantor or donor may not rely on this determination if he

or she was in part responsible for, or was aware of, the act or failure to act that

resulted in your los s of section 509(a)( l )** status, or acquired knowledge

that the Internal Revenue Service had given notice that you would be removed from

classification as a section 509(a)(l)** organization.

P.O. Box 2350, Los Angeles, CA 90053

** and section 170(b)(l){A)(vi).

Letter 1045(00) (Rev. 10-83)

If your sources of support, or your purposes, character, or method of operation

change, please let us know so we can consider the effect of the change on your

exempt status and foundation status. Also, you should inform us of all changes in

your name or address.

As of January 1, 1984, you are liable for taxes under the Federal Insurance

Contributions Act (social security taxes) on remuneration of $100 or more you pay

to each of your employees during a calendar year. You are not liable for the tax

imposed under the Federal Unemployment Tax Act (FUTA).

Organizations that are not private foundations are not subject to the excise

taxes under Chapter 42 of the Code. However, you are not automatically exempt from

other Federal excise taxes. If you have any questions about excise, employment, or

other Federal taxes, please let us know.

Donors may deduct contributions to you as provided in section 170 of the Code.

Bequests, legacies, devises, transfers, or gifts to you or for your use are

deductible for Federal estate and gift tax purposes if they meet the applicable

provisions of sections 2055, 2106, and 2522 of the Code.

You are required to file Form 990, Return of Organization Exempt from Income

Tax , only if your gross receipts each year are normally more than $25,000.

If a return is required, it must be filed by the 15th day of the fifth month after the

end of your annual accounting period. The law imposes a penalty of $10 a day, up to

a maximum of $5,000, when a return is filed late, unless there is reasonable cause

for the delay.

You are not required to file Federal income tax returns unless you are subject

to the tax on unrelated business income under section 511 of the Code. If you are

subject to this tax, you must file an income tax return on Form 990-T, Exempt

Organization Business Income Tax Return. In this letter, we are not determining

whether any of your present or proposed activities are unrelated trade or business

as defined in section 513 of the Code.

You need an employer identification number even if you have no employees. If

an employer identification number was not entered on your application, a number

will be assigned to you and you will be advised of it. Please use that number on

all returns you file and in all correspondence with the Internal Revenue Service.

We hope this letter could help resolve any questions about your exempt status

and foundation status, you should keep it in your permanent records.

If you have any questions, please contact the person whose name and telephone

number are shown in the heading of this letter.

Sincerely yours,

cc: Stephen J, Cogut

Letter 1045(00) (Rev. 10-83)

internal Revenue Service:

Date: NOV. 20, 1985

PROFMEX THE CONSORTIUM OF US

RESEARCH PROGRAM ON MEXICO

1201 CAMPBELL HALL UCLA

LOS ANGELES, CA 90095

Dear Applicant:

Department of the Treasury

0MB Clearance Number:

1545-0057

Employer Identification Number:

95-3905866

Contact Person:

CIOLEK, THERESE A

Contact Telephone Number:

213-894-4152

Our Letter Dated:

June 15, 1984

This modifies our letter of the above date in which we stated that you

would be treated as an organization which is not a private foundation until the expiration of

your advance ruling period.

Based on the information you submitted, we have determined that you are

not a private foundation within the meaning of section 509(a) of the Internal

Revenue Code, because you are an organization of the type described in section

509(a)(l) and 170(b)(l)(A)(vi). Your exempt status under section 501(c)(3) of

the code is still in effect.

Grantors and contributors may rely on this determination until the

Internal Revenue Service publishes a notice to the contrary. However, a

grantor or a contributor may not rely on this determination if he or she was

in part responsible for, or was aware of, the act or failure to act that

resulted in your loss of section 509(a)(l) and 170(b)(l)(A)(vi) status, or

acquired knowledge that the Internal Revenue Service had given notice that

you would be removed from classification as a section 509(a)(l) and

170(b)(l)(A)(vi) organization.

Because this letter could help resolve any questions about your private

foundation status, please keep it in your permanent records.

If you have any questions, please contact the person whose name and

telephone number are shown above.

Sincerely yours,

District Director

Letter 1050( CG)”.

Another model is represented by the El Paso Community Foundation, a bi-national community Foundation.

The El Paso Community Convener, is a grant maker, and a Leadership forming foundation, which excels through its philanthropic services to the broader community of the two neighboring nations.

The U.S. – Mexican model is the blueprint, and way of the future for civil society around the world.

An American Academic, Professor James W Wilkie has set up his own research NPPO, named PROFMEX. I had been working for 28 years with PROFMEX Academics and had been a leader in running many Conferences and Seminars with Professor Wilkie at the El Paso Foundation, as well as at many “Autonomous” Universities in Mexico.

This is how the articles of Incorporations look for PROFMEX, and this is a model Not-For-Private -Profit Foundation established, as I have already mentioned in Los Angeles, California. This is a network of 89 Universities focused on research on Mexico and The World.

The Officers are nominated from around the world, as listed here:

Board Executive Officers, Members, Directors
PRESIDENTE Mundial y Chair of the Board

James W. Wilkie, UCLA

james.wilkie

VICEPRESIDENTE- Ejecutivo

Jesús Arroyo Alejandre, U de Guadalajara

jesusarroyoalejandre

VICEPRESIDENTE – Académico

Alejandro Mungaray, UABC

mungaray

VICEPRESIDENTE Educación Superior

José Z. García, New Mexico State University

josegarc

VICEPRESIDENTE – Asuntos Binacionales

Ismael García Castro, Universidad Autónoma de Sinaloa

ismael

TESORERA

Maria Herrera-Sobek, UC Santa Barbara

sobek

VICEPRESIDENTE – Tecnología Internet y Telefonía

Gabriel Camarena García, Converse México

camarenagabriel

CHIEF OPERATIONS OFFICER

Raúl P. Lomelí-Azoubel, SaberEsPoder

rlomeli

SECRETARIO EJECUTIVO

Germán Vega, Ernst & Young-Mexico

german.vega

DIRECTOR OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

Olga M. Lazín, UCLA

olazin

MESA DIRECTIVA:

Sylvia Ortega Salazar, U. Pedagógia

Alan S. Alexandroff, U. Toronto

Margaret C. Boardman, U. of Notre Dame

Norman E. Borlaug,† Premio Nobel

Patricia Galeana, UNAM

Paul Ganster, San Diego State Univ.

Ronald G. Hellman, CUNY

Edmundo Jacobo Molina, U. Autónoma Metropolitana (D.F.)

Boris Koval, Moscow Institute, Russia

Kevin J. Middlebrook, U. of London

Robert Mundell, Premio Nobel

Raymund Paredes, Texas Educ. Commissioner

Ricardo Romo, President, U. of Texas, San Antonio

Clark W. Reynolds,† Stanford

Miguel Rivera-Ríos, UNAM

Soichi Shinohara, Doshisha Univ., Japan

Jiang Shixue, Beijing Research Institute

Clint E. Smith, Stanford University

Eugenio Valenciao, PROFMEX-Buenos Aires

Mónica Verea Campos, UNAM

ADMINISTRADOR

José Luis Bátiz López, UCLA

josebatiz

COORDINADORES TEMATICOS:

Adriana Patricia López Velasco, Publicaciones

George Baker, Energía

Garrick Wilkie, PROFMEX Films

Noemí Azoubel, Esq, Estudios Legales

Jorge Gamboa Patrón, Estudios Turismo

Argelia Anaid Buitrón Blancas, Estudios Especiales

Olga Magdalena Lazin, GIS Demographic

George Feldman, Esq, Migration Studies

Louis Enoff, Política Internacional

Bernardino González, Seguro Social

We are huge a network of 800 Universities, all interested and focused on Mexico and entire Latin America, 23 Spanish -speaking countries. All members are bilingual, and meetings take place around the world. I have organized 8 meetings in Mexico City and Morelia, Michoacán.

Research and Publications are our main tasks, and we are meeting annually

in Europe, the U.S., or Latin America. Including we had opened up a PROFMEX office in Romania (city of Cluj), Hungary, and as far as Russia, in St. Petersburg in 1995.

There is a PROFMEX office in the Capital of Mexico too. I had been working for 27 years

With PROFMEXISTAS, and contributed much to the globalization of this great organization.

Our NPPO is an Organization that comprises Americans as well as Latin Americanists[85]. also, a bi-national Research Organization in that we have major headquarters in Los Angeles, and also in Mexico City, next to El Torre Latino-Americano.

Membership is free. If you are a Latino, or Latina you can join us anytime, also online.

One can see civil society in action, old images, and of course new visions. Civil society is the realm of freedom; therefore, it is the first and major condition of democracy. I think primarily about civil society that is the object of my obligation. According to Edward Shils considered that such a generous amount of civility, and a concern for the common good.

Both Civil Society and Civic engagement have been stunted in much of the world by “statism,” or the situation that occurs when a nation-state comes to own more than half of the country’s gross domestic product (GDP). Statism also involves governmental development of extensive laws and rules which stultify and discourage the role of citizens. Just like in Romania such is the case up to this day.

To explain the rise of statism in Romania and Brazil, Joseph Love, in his book entitled Crafting the Third World: Theorizing Underdevelopment in Romania and Brazil[86], focuses on showing how the rise of state power was justified by "nationalists," who sought to explain the poverty of their countries by blaming the "capitalist" model and especially the "gradual globalization" of markets led by the USA. Such statism not only caused economic stagnation but set back seriously the role of civil society in Latin America and Eastern Europe, subjecting the regions to dictatorships of political as well as social poverty.

In my view, it is only since their return to globalization, this time at fast-track speed, that regions such as Latin America and Eastern Europe have begun to fight wasteful centralism, especially through the rise of new civil society. In this process of recovery, Mexico and Romania have "capitalized" on U.S. funds (both from the U.S. governmental and philanthropic sectors) as well as ideas (such as basing citizen-led activism in tax-exempt organizations such as NGOs).

As part of my analysis of globalization, I argue that the concept includes not only the flow of Profit-Making Funds (needed to finance and conduct business affairs), but also includes the flow of Non-Profit Funds (needed to build Civic Society and human capital as well as to protect human rights and the world’s physical environment.)

America operates with the advantage of being able to enact one standard law for Non-Profit Organizations (NPPOs) whereas the EU is only beginning to do so in such areas as taxation and pensions and has been unable to do so at all for NPPOs, where 15 national legal standards prevail.

My field research has revealed that countries such as Mexico and Romania have had difficulty in understanding and adopting U.S. tax law, which is the basis for standardization because of problems in analysis of how U.S. economic sectors interrelate.

U.S. analysts themselves have failed to articulate the relations among economic sectors, thus confusing the way in which policy analysts interpret U.S. law to the world. Thus, the concept “Non-Profit” has been mistranslated as “No Profit,” as we will see in this study.

Hence, I encourage here use of the term Not-For-Private Profit (NPPO) to specify that profits can be made but not diverted for private use. Such profits can be used only for the tax-exempt purposes for which any organization is founded, including the expenses of running the organization (salaries, travel, rent, etc.) as well as the re-investment of funds to increase the size of the NPPO and ensure its continued existence.

As part of my contribution to globalization studies, I here

redefine U.S. societal spheres as being four:[87]

1. Government (State) Sphere (centralized and Decentralized)

2. Private Sphere

3. Mixed State/Private Sphere

4. Philanthropic Sphere (often erroneously called the “Third Sector”)

Confusion about definition of societal sectors comes when analysts fail to take into account the role of the Mixed state/private sector, which for so many years has come to provide a “theoretical bridge” between government and the private business, especially in England and the USA, as well as to keep inefficient and corrupt statism in power, especially in Latin America and Eastern Europe. Given the “third-way” ideology espoused by diverse leaders in different times (for example, Juan Domingo Perón in Argentina in the 1940s) and England’s Tony Blair (1990s), such a concept is not helpful because it is by now empty of meaning.

I seek to show in a new light the relation of the profit and not for-private-profit sectors, the latter funded by the former. Further, I develop new analysis here to help citizens everywhere to understand the roles of government, which must include the study of GONGOs (governmentally organized NGOs), QUANGOs (quasi-autonomous NGOs) as well as to understand that "non-profit organization" does not preclude such organizations from earning profits but rather require that the profits must be used for the purposes chartered and not for private gain.

With regard to meaning of words, one final statement is in order. I do not use the word “public” per se because it has two distinct meanings. For formerly statist societies, “public” means government or government-owned. For non-statist societies such as the USA, the word’s meaning depends on context: “broad general public,” in the context of philanthropic analysis; “public utility” owned or regulated by the government, in the context of economic analysis. Hence in discussion here I discuss foundations as “broadly supported by the general public”; and I do not use “public foundation” which could give the idea of government-owned foundation.

Profits made by fundraising must be used for the purposes chartered and not for private

gain. Any charity or NPPO can make money but has to reinvest it in the completion of the outlined goals of the organization, to benefit the multitudes, like PROFMEX is a great example of this exceptional modus operandi.

The U.S.-Mexican model is the blueprint for a transparent, and efficient civil polity.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Thank you for reading my book.

If you liked this, you also want to read:

1. “Is Soros a Robber Baron or A Philanthropist?” Kindle LLC

3. “Dr Olga’s American Dream Come True: memoirs of An Expat” Kindle LLC

4. “History of Mexico Since Colonial Times” Kindle LLC, 2018

5. Civic and Civil Society in the U.S., Mexico and Romania.

6. Decentralized Globalization: Free Trade, U.S. Philanthropy, published by Authorhouse in 2017.

Copyrighted Ó Dr Olga Magdalena Lazin

ALL MY BOOKS HERE< CHOOSE YOURS

Dr Olga Essentials: ISBN 978-970-27-0713-4

http://www.amazon.com/shops/olazin

PROFMEX – DIRECTOR RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT : http://www.profmex.com

LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/olgaandrei/

http://www.olgalazin.com

http://www.decentralizedglobalization.com

AMAZON STORE: http://www.amazon.com/shops/olazin

http://www.globalsisterhood.org/circles/dr-olga-westwood-sister-circle/admin/edit-details/

http://dr-olga-essential-oils-blends.business.site/

Books: http://www.drolgacoaching.self-esteemfirstdrolga.com/2018/04/amazon-kindle-direct-publishing-dr-olga.html

DrOlga books 2.pdf

COLLEGE DROPOUTS SPEAK OUT: IN CALIFORNIA

Here

The new dropout crisis. The decline in the high-school dropout rate has been one of the big educational successes of the last few decades. About 16 percent of high-school students fail to graduate on time, down significantly from previous decades, with the biggest drops among Latinos and African-Americans. It’s a sign that progress really is possible in education.
If anything, in fact, the biggest dropout crisis is no longer in high schools. It’s in colleges.
Chad Aldeman of Bellwether Education Partners — a group that advocates for narrowing educational gaps — tweeted a telling chart recently. It showed the total number of college and K-12 dropouts in the United States, going back to the early 1990s. I’ve reproduced the chart in the web version of this newsletter.
It’s a good news/bad news story. About a decade ago, the number of college dropouts exceeded the number of K-12 dropouts, and the two have continued to move in opposite directions since then. And if you focus only on high-school dropouts — excluding people, many of whom are immigrants, who dropped out earlier and never reached high school — there are now about twice as many college dropouts as high-school dropouts.
There are multiple causes of the college-dropout boom. K-12 schools certainly deserve a substantial amount of blame, because they produce too many ill-prepared students. But colleges — and policymakers — deserve a lot of blame, as well. For years, higher education paid far too little attention to results. That’s starting to change, as Tina Rosenberg has described in several Times Op-Eds, but there is still an enormous amount of work to do.
The worst part of the college-dropout problem is the cost to students. The returns on a college degree are very large, in terms of money, health and happiness. And a growing share of college dropouts come from low- and middle-income families, which means that colleges’ low graduation rates are stifling upward mobility. I went into more detail in a recent column.
The United States was able to make progress on the high-school dropout crisis partly because of how much attention it received from educators and policymakers over the last few decades. I hope we’re on the verge of giving a similar amount of attention to our college-dropout crisis.
Department of disagreement. At National Review, Ramesh Ponnuru takes issue with my newsletter on the recent Supreme Court decision on arbitration and suggests people read Walter Olson of the Cato Institute praising the decision. The Times editorial board, by contrast, takes issue with the decision.
Speaking of National Review … A clarification: In yesterday’s newsletter, I quoted an Elizabeth Evans tweet pointing people to a National Review article criticizing the N.F.L. She asked me to clarify that her tweet simply repeated the article’s subhead and did not contain her original words. (As it happens, David French — the author of that N.F.L. article — has a new Op-Ed on the same subject.)
The full Opinion report from The Times follows.
Our Opinion Roundup

Summer’s Great Escape

By KATHLEEN O’BRIEN

Reflecting on the simple joy we get from diving into water.

Dr Olga Essentials: ISBN 978-970-27-0713-4

http://www.amazon.com/shops/olazin

PROFMEX – DIRECTOR RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT : http://www.profmex.com

LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/olgaandrei/

http://www.olgalazin.com

http://www.decentralizedglobalization.com

AMAZON STORE: http://www.amazon.com/shops/olazin

http://www.globalsisterhood.org/circles/dr-olga-westwood-sister-circle/admin/edit-details/

http://dr-olga-essential-oils-blends.business.site/

Books: http://www.drolgacoaching.self-esteemfirstdrolga.com/2018/04/amazon-kindle-direct-publishing-dr-olga.html

MY book is available in the Kindle Store!

From: Kindle Direct Publishing <kdp-no-reply>
Date: Thu, May 24, 2018 at 5:24 AM
Subject: Your book is available in the Kindle Store!
To: olgalazin <olgalazin>

Hello dear Readers:

Congratulations, your book “Globalization Is Decentralized: Mexico and Romania Compared” is now live and available* for purchase in the Kindle Store and enrolled in KDP Select! If you republished your book, your changes will be live in 72 hours.

We hope you enjoy the benefits of KDP Select. In addition to your KDP royalties, you’ll earn a share of the monthly global fund from Kindle Unlimited and the Kindle Owners’ Lending Library for each page a customer reads in your book for the first time. Plus, you can use the book promotion tools, including Kindle Countdown Deals, time-bound promotional discounting on Amazon.com or Amazon.co.uk, or a Free Book Promotion.

Here are additional resources to help you promote your book and reach more readers:

Kind regards,
The Kindle Direct Publishing Team

Like us on Facebook, follow us on Twitter, and check out our YouTube channel.

*Please note that the product description may take up to 24 hours to appear on the detail page, and links to the book’s physical counterpart may take up to 24 hours. Visit our Help page for information on how the detail pages are linked. If you are resubmitting your content file or updating your book details, the changes should display within the next 72 hours.

This is a transactional message regarding your account. Your subscription preferences will continue to be honored for all future commercial emails from Kindle Direct Publishing.

©1996-2018, Amazon.com, Inc. or its affiliates. All Rights Reserved. Amazon and Kindle are trademarks of Amazon.com, Inc. or its affiliates. 410 Terry Avenue North Seattle, Washington 98109 U.S.

r.html?C=2P41P6DKR1640&M=urn:correios:msg:201805241224434eb1924e3c7e48a6b2e8b2a80b60p0na&R=3PX2IWD2CMQMI&T=E&U=https%3A%2F%2Fimages-na.ssl-images-amazon.com%2Fimages%2FG%2F01%2Fnav%2Ftransp.gif&H=NWUY3DAAJ3D5SYVN0R8A34CAQVUA

The fighter we need in Congress

Is a California’s

From: Elizabeth Warren <info>
Date: Thu, May 24, 2018 at 4:01 PM
Subject: The fighter we need in Congress
To: Olga andrei <olgalazin>

Elizabeth Warren for Senate 2018
Olga,

Democrat versus Democrat always makes for tough fights, but when one Democrat launches nasty, personal attack ads on another Democrat, it gets really painful. People should win based on who has the best ideas – not who slings the most mud.

That’s why I’m writing to you again about Democrat Katie Porter, who is running for Congress in a flippable district in Orange County, California. With less than two weeks to go until the California primary, another Democrat has launched a series of outrageous and desperate attacks on her.

I’ve known Katie for almost 20 years – and she fights from the heart. She isn’t afraid of personal attacks, or big Wall Street banks, or Donald Trump and his pro-billionaire policies. I have no doubt about that.

But Katie does need help to set the record straight and fight back against this ambush before the June 5 primary.

Donate to Katie Porter’s campaign now and help her finish this primary strong, flip a winnable Republican seat, and take back the House in 2018. Even $5 makes a difference.

Katie was my student – and after she graduated, we worked together for years studying why millions of working American families were going broke. Like me, Katie became a bankruptcy law professor, and now she teaches at UC Irvine.

After the 2008 economic crisis, Kamala Harris (then California Attorney General) appointed Katie to a job fighting to hold the big banks accountable and help Californians who lost their homes. She took on Wall Street and helped tens of thousands of cheated families get some relief.

Katie is THE fighter we need in Congress – and she’s got a real shot at winning this thing. The CA 45th Congressional District went blue for Hillary in 2016 by five points. The Republican Congresswoman who holds the seat has voted with Donald Trump 98.6% of the time – including votes to repeal health care for millions of Americans, defund Planned Parenthood, and gut the rules on Wall Street. Orange County deserves better.

We can count on Katie to fight for Medicare for All, women’s reproductive rights, and common sense gun reform. And she’ll stand up to Big Oil, big banks, and other powerful interests.

But first, Katie needs to win her primary – and to do that, she needs to fight back against the ugly personal attacks and win on June 5th. Please donate now – whatever you can afford – to help send Katie Porter to Congress.

Katie’s been a great partner for years – and I’m happy to have the opportunity to continue working with her in Congress to fight for America’s families.

Let’s show Katie that we have her back by getting her over the finish line. And most importantly: remember to vote on June 5!

Thanks for being a part of this,

Elizabeth

DONATE NOW
fb tw ig yt
Paid for by Elizabeth for MA
All content © 2018 Elizabeth for MA, All Rights Reserved
PO Box 290568, Boston, MA 02129
This email was sent to olgalazin
We’ll miss you, but you can always unsubscribe.

open.gif

English For Academic Purposes GlobalTM EAPG