For church members & the public, COPA / Central Coast Interfaith Sponsors Inc. is not a good bang for the buck based on info from Charity Navigator.
Look at the numbers:
COPA expenses: Seventy-nine percent or roughly 4 out of 5 dollars pays for Personnel ($288 K) and General/ Administrative ($18.8 K). Only 21% [$80,400 / $387,233] goes for Program Costs. Wow!
$288 K pays for three full-time COPA organizers in the 2018-19 Budget. Central Coast Interfaith Sponsors Inc. is another name for COPA in the Santa Cruz and Monterey CA area.
COPA/ Central Coast Interfaith Sponsors Inc. is housed at a Lutheran church in Watsonville, CA and pays about $19 K for General and Administrative costs.
How to evaluate the numbers:
Program Expenses: The majority of charities listed by Charity Navigator – seven out of ten non profits – spend at least 75% of their expenses directly on their Programs. That means the organization should spend no more than 25% of their total expenses on administrative overhead and fundraising costs.
COPA / Central Coast Interfaith Sponsors Inc. reverses the percentages recommended by Charity Navigator with expenses for Program accounting for only 21% and Personnel/ Administrative expenses accounting for 79%. Wow. That’s a reversal!
Check for evidence of commitment to accountability and transparency:
Website: The best charities are transparent and accountable to the public. You should be able to see evidence of this in the information they provide on their web site. Can you readily find information about the charity’s staff and Board of Directors? Did the charity publish its financial information such as its most recently filed Form 990 or audit?
Transparency: Low. One must search to find connections to COPA’s founding organization — the Industrial Area Foundation (IAF) of Chicago, Illinois COPA is a long standing affiliate of IAF. And there’s no mention of community activist Saul Alinsky who wrote the guiding principles for progressive socialists i.e., Rules for Radicals. One might think it interesting to churches that Alinsky dedicated his book to Lucifer.
Open Borders is one goal of COPA / IAF / Central Coast Interfaith Sponsors Inc.
Churches connected with COPA in Santa Cruz and Monterey CA fund open border immigration policies. Exactly how much dues each church affiliate pays COPA is not readily available.
COPA recently held a conference on immigration “reform” in Monterey, CA (4/9/2018). No specifics as to number of attendees is provided on their website.
The Catholic church in CA is a long time supporter of open borders. Five of the seven churches in Santa Cruz County & neighboring two counties which act as as the governing board of COPA are Catholic.
Other supporters of COPA include several Episcopal churches, i.e., St. John’s in Aptos, Calvary in Santa Cruz and St. Mary’s by the Sea in Pacific Grove.
Aptos Psychologist: COPA goes to church leaders and gets their “buy in” and them uses that buy in to contact parishioners and teach Alinsky progressive socialist goals.
What is COPA? On November 2, 2009 Freedom Advocates wrote, “COPA targets congregations and unsuspecting parishioners…”
What COPA currently says: It’s Mission is “to develop the leadership skills of ordinary people …. to engage effectively in public life …with power to negotiate with public and private sector leaders … to change the economic, social, political and cultural pressures on their families …
COPA has 22 member institutions in Santa Cruz, Monterey and San Benito Counties — including “many religious groups” they say.
Per COPA’s website (4/2018) Pete Scudder of Scudder Roofing said about obtaining workers, “there is no system. There is no line. No way anyone come here legally unless they have a lot of money….Scudder Roofing construction company hires 90% Hispanics. Scudder Roofing seeks to sponsor ‘citizen applications for workers’.
Back to general discussion of COPA / Central Coast Interfaith Sponsors Inc.
It’s vital to look at how charities are rated for financial health and transparency. Neither COPA aka Central Coast Interfaith Sponsors Inc is rated by Charity Navigator. That’s because their financials are too small for Charity Navigator.
What if all the legs of the founding organization — IAF — were examined by Charity Navigator? What if COPA was transparent about its socialist progressive agenda? Would parishioners and the public support COPA / Central Coast Interfaith Sponsors Inc?
It’s best to view COPA and Central Coast Interfaith Sponsors Inc. for what they are — community organizing entities which seek progressive socialist goals.
Per D Souza both Barrack Obama and Hilary Clinton — both students of Alinsky — implemented Saul Alinsky’s political tactics.
Remember Obama’s promises that “you can keep your doctors…” and that “insurance premiums costs were going down …” Then Obama took over health care and 1/6th of private economy. Check out D. Souza on YouTube.
Is Obama the principal person behind the Trump/ Russia collusion story?
Clinton had a simple message why people should elect her — that Trump was “unfit”. Prior to the election that was her message to the American public. That’s about all she had to say. Her message did not sell sufficient for her to win the election.
Within 24 hours of losing the election Hilary Clinton’s campaign put out the message that Trump’s victory was not on the up and up — that he obtained it unfairly due to the Russians. Due to Trump/ Russian involvement in our elections.
What we know now is that Hilary Clinton paid for and created information — none yet collaborated — that Trump supposedly performed unfit behavior. That is what is referred to as the Trump/ Steele dossier aka ‘Golden Showers’.
So first Hillary calls Trump ‘unfit’ and then she pays money and supplies information to create information to supposedly support her contention.
Now the evidence points towards Obama as is the person behind it all. And it appears that Obama’s motive was and is to protect himself.
Remember the basic facts about Obama. He was a Chicago politician. He won his first elections by spreading ‘dirt’ about his opponents. He was a community organizer. He has a law degree and taught constitutional law.
Remember all of Obama’s promises that he did not keep…. such as ‘you can keep your doctor…’
Obama promised the American public that Hilary Clinton would be treated the same as any other American. And then Obama exonerated Hilary Clinton and Obama expected his Justice Dept and FBI to also exonerate Hilary Clinton. Which they did.
The facts keep tumbling out.
What’s especially troubling is that mainstream press, i.e., New York Times and Washington Post prefer to suppress or ignore the story.
Does he rub your back OK? What over diner do Mueller’s FBI agents Page and Strzok –involved in the Trump investigation — say to spouses? ‘Pass the peas?’
What do FBI agents Strzok and Page — both married to different people — say to their spouses over dinner tonight (Dec. 13, 2017) now that it comes out what they have been doing [having a sexual affair] and sending text communications back and forth about their dislike of Trump. And how to save the country from a possible President Trump.
Do Page and Strzok say, ‘Pass the peas?’ On Wed. FBI agent Page and her husband Barrow left their home to do what they do, i.e, get children where they have to go.
Clearly, Special Investigator Mueller did not check out the political bias of those he put on his crack team. Clearly Mueller did not do his homework. Now it’s unraveling … Why did Mueller put the lead FBI agent Stzok involved with the Clinton emails [he sat in on the interviews and recommended changing the language so more supportive of Clinton] also on the team investigating Trump? That was Mueller’s bad decision.
How does the Page/ Strzok sexual affair and their communications back and forth impact the image of the FBI and USA federal government. Both Strzok and Page were and are pro-Clinton and anti-Trump and have been so for a long time.
And – very importantly also — how does the publicity about all this impact their children and their families?
Yes – this info may impact the Mueller investigation of Trump.
Typical Obama — a $1.5 BILLION library without books.
The Obama library provides document access from any computer anywhere. World wide.
Which means that the Obama library ‘picks up’ the internet address of all persons world wide accessing it. Quite a coup for connecting forever with persons supporting Obama’s policies.
There’s a time when excesses build to reach Nero and Caligula levels, and as presidential libraries go, the Obama Library on the South Side of Chicago seems to have hit that tipping point.
The Obama Library is on track to cost $1.5 billion, three times the $500 million it was projected to cost, and quite a bit of that will be borne by taxpayers. Yet it won’t contain…any library materials. It won’t even be hooked up to the National Archives system – on account of it being too cheap to want to pay the six-figure costs of that purpose.
All it will have is online document access, which can be reached from any computer anywhere. There will be nothing special about coming to the Obama library to do any kind of presidential research. What’s more, it’s a great way to cherry-pick which documents can be seen among the Obama papers and which cannot. Is this library really about what libraries are about, which is to say scholarship of the historical record? Not in Obama’s case. He’d probably rather no one remember the details of his many failures in office, which those records could show.
Firenze Sage writes: Will Michelle get space for her rutabaga garden?
“It’s important because there are people who are saying about President Trump’s claim, ‘Oh, it could never happen.’ Well, frankly, it happened to me,” Kucinichtold Fox News on Friday. Also on Friday, the former congressmanpenned an article on Fox Newsdescribing the incident — a phone call in his congressional office from a foreign leader had been tapped in 2011, and he listened to a recording of it in 2015.
“Members of Congress ought to be aware that my experience was that my phone wasn’t safe in a congressional office,” Kucinich, who served in the House of Representatives from 1997 to 2013, said. “Now, if they can do that to a member of Congress, they can certainly do it to a presidential candidate, and they can do it to private citizens as well.”
The former congressman learned that he had been wiretapped two years after leaving office, when he was approached by The Washington Times. “The newspaper’s investigative reporters called me, saying they had obtained a tape of a sensitive telephone conversation that they wanted me to verify,” Kucinich wrote. “When I met them at a Chinese restaurant in Washington, they played back audio of a call I had taken in my D.C. congressional office four years earlier.”Kucinich recalled that the call had been from Saif el-Islam Qaddafi, a high-ranking official in Libya’s government and a son of the country’s ruler, Moammar Qaddafi. “At the time I was leading efforts in the House tochallenge the Obama administration’s war against Libya,” the former congressman recalled. “The Qaddafi government reached out to me because its appeals to the White House and the State Department to forestall the escalating aggression had gone unanswered.”
Firenze Sage: Well so much for the most transparent govt in history.
Personal life of Valarie Jarrett: She married and divorced a doctor and has one daughter. In 1983 Jarrett married William Robert Jarrett, son of Chicago Sun-Times reporter Vernon Jarrett. She attributes her switch from a private to a public career to their daughter Laura’s birth and her own desire to do something that would make their daughter proud.
To one reporter’s emailed question about her divorce, she replied, “Married in 1983, separated in 1987, and divorced in 1988. Enough said.” In a Vogue profile, she further explained, “We grew up together. We were friends since childhood. In a sense, he was the boy next door. I married without really appreciating how hard divorce would be.” William Jarrett died in 1993 at age 40, and at the time of his death was director of obstetrics and gynecology at Jackson Park Hospital.
School bathroom decisions given back to states by Trump. That’s not authoritarian.
Lost in most of the coverage of President Trump’s decision to rescind the Obama administration’s transgender mandates is a fundamental legal reality: The Trump administration just relinquished authority over gender-identity policy in the nation’s federally funded schools and colleges.
In other words, Trump was less authoritarian than Obama. And that’s not the only case.
Trump nominated Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court, a man known not just for his intellect and integrity but also for his powerful legal argument against executive-branch overreach. Based on his previous legal writings, if Gorsuch had his way, the federal bureaucracy could well face the most dramatic check on its authority since the early days of the New Deal.
Trump nominated H. R. McMaster to replace Michael Flynn as his national-security adviser. McMaster made his name on battlefields in the Gulf War and the Iraq War, but he made his name as a scholar by writing a book, “Dereliction of Duty,” that strongly condemned Vietnam-era generals for simply rolling over in the face of Johnson-administration blunders and excesses.
In his view, military leaders owe their civilian commander in chief honest and courageous counsel — even when a president may not want to hear their words.
When the Ninth Circuit blocked Trump’s immigration executive order (which was certainly an aggressive assertion of presidential power), he responded differently from the Obama administration when it faced similar judicial setbacks.
Rather than race to the Supreme Court in the attempt to expand presidential authority, it told the Ninth Circuit that it intends to rewrite the order to address the most serious judicial concerns and roll back its scope.
Authoritarianism is defined by how a president exercises power, not by the rightness of his goals.
The above is from the National Review.
Monterey Bay Forum: So far, Trump’s bark is much louder than his bite. He certainly controls the news narrative of the day. What will come tomorrow?