No. They don't seem to be part of it at all. Perhaps we should review the differences?
The newspaper article presents information objectively and professionally. In reading the article, it turns out that Chavira was accused of misappropriating funds but that accusation was made by a convicted felon and it was false. The organization in the article, NAHF, indicates there was no wrongdoing. That seems to be the bottom line right there. There is no lunatic conspiracy in the newspaper article. It's a pretty straight forward report about a felon making an erroneous accusation about someone. I did laugh at this quote though:
"I guess if I was Rodney Castro PhD, it might make a difference" Well, yeah, Rodney. The felony thing is usually a pretty good indication of character and whatnot.
Meanwhile, the blog presented Chariva as guilty and then attempted to work backwards using deranged versions of events to support the desired conclusion. The blogger invents nefarious activity where it turns out there was none. T
he writing style is pretty hapless but as far as I can tell, the blogger believes this is all part of a conspiracy for this Phoenix Monarch Group to get a management contract for Jobing.com Arena. Except, the PMG would not qualify as a sole source provider. The City Council could not just award a city contract to PMG (not even a Latino majority with a hidden agenda could pull that off...) The competitive bid process would be required by code. The blog completely whiffs on even that most elementary aspect of government procurement and contracting law. The blog creates this crackpot theory but the end game of the conspiracy isn't even possible. That pretty much makes the author a blithering idiot, wouldn't you say?
Not really. I demonstrated the racist nature of Clark's literature. But I'll defer to you, if you'd prefer to continue denying it, I'm cool with that. Not my city, not my representative, not my problem.