NEO Philanthropy launders millions of dollars to promote "social change" by changing the people

This is another in our series we call—know the opposition.

Michele_Lord_7_FAWeb2
Michele Lord, co-President of NEO Philanthropy, working from New York City, funneling big money to change your towns and cities.

A reader recently sent me a Form 990 here for something called NEO Philanthropy which includes a list of dozens and dozens of NO borders groups and immigrant and refugee promoting groups they fund.
As a matter of fact, you should use the list starting on page 35 of the Form 990 as a guide to figure out who organizes against you, American citizens, in your communities.
We bring you this information so that you know, as you build your ‘pockets of resistance,’ that the other side, working with Obama, is rolling in millions of dollars of laundered money to work against you, to change your towns and to change the electorate.  But, do not be discouraged! Take heart and understand you are the David working against their Goliath. (We know how that story ended!)
Use this information to understand who they are.

Why launder money through an organization like this?

There are large private donors who do not want their names associated with groups on this list, so they send their millions to NEO Philanthropy which then doles it out.
We recognize some of the ‘social change’ groups listed on their many pages of groups they fund.  And, by the way, there are groups associated with education and gay rights as well.
Here are just a few we are familiar with (the dollars in parenthesis are for this one year–2013!):

Arab Community Center ($100,000)

Casa de Maryland ($270,000)

Center for American Progress ($175,000)

Colorado Immigrant Rights ($360,725)

Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights ($290,000)

Mass. Immigrant and Refugee Advocacy Coalition ($210,000)

La Raza ($275,000)

National Immigration Forum ($85,000)

Sojourners ($150,000)

Tennessee Immigrant and Refugee Rights Coalition ($469,000)

Welcoming America ($89,000)

The list goes on and on (here).  You might find one in your city or state that you had no idea was even there!

Below is more about NEO from the mouth of its co-President, Michele Lord.

Oh, and one more thing, one branch of NEO is the Four Freedoms Fund originally started by George Soros, see here.
From Skaggscreative (whatever that is!):

Michele Lord
Co-President, NEO Philanthropy

Michele Lord is one of the two presidents of NEO Philanthropy (her co-president is Berta Colón), an innovative non-profit that advances social change. Together, Lord and Colón have created an organization that offers a range of services—organizing collaborative funds and spearheading donor advised funds, to name two—that help donors make visible and lasting change in the social justice space. The goal, Lord says, “is to meet people where they are, and maybe by going there, and going a little deeper there, they may be interested in doing something else. That’s how we see our value-add. It’s a much deeper conversation.” To continue plumbing the depths, read on!

When I first heard of your organization, you were being rebranded. What prompted that change?

The organization has been around for 30 years. Before I came on fourteen years ago, it had a reputation of being a fiscal sponsor. It didn’t have any staff. It didn’t have any budget. We were the backroom for lots of organizations that didn’t have their own 501(c)(3). [Groups that did not want to report to the IRS!—ed]

What do you mean when you say backroom?

We provided financial support, management support and legal support. A lot of groups didn’t want to get their own 501(c)(3). So they couldn’t get foundation dollars. We were able to do it for them. We did their HR as needed, their accounting, all of that. We were known as Public Interest Projects then. I had been working for a very wealthy family in their family office, and I’d become very interested in the whole collaborative idea, of foundations coming together and capitalizing a fund, so that they could do their grantmaking together around a particular strategy. When I came on board, I was very interested in creating a model that would do it differently and better than where I was. We started with one collaborative fund, and now we’ve done over twelve of them. We still work as a fiscal sponsor, and we also do donor advised funds.

So that shift in focus is what inspired you to change the name?

The name Public Interest Projects was essentially picked out of a hat. The original founder, Donald Ross, wanted the organization to be under the radar so that people wouldn’t necessarily know what it did. Before I came, we were always in the back, never in the front. Once we started developing our work, the name became confusing to people. It didn’t say who we were, and it didn’t say anything about our values.

Continue reading here.
To see others in our latest series about those working to change your towns and cities by colonizing them with immigrants and refugees, visit our category The Opposition here.

24-country poll: Majority say immigration has had negative impact on their country

US Presidential candidates!  Pay attention!

From IPSOS:

Toronto, Canada – A new Ipsos global poll finds that fully half (50%) of those citizens surveyed in 24 countries say there are too many immigrants in their country—and almost as many (46%) agree that immigration is causing their country to change in ways they don’t like.

Globe with immigrants
Like it or not (mostly NOT!), here they come!

Against a backdrop where 81% of citizens indicate that over the last five years migrants have increased in their country (and just 30% say immigrants make their country a more interesting place to live) only one in five (21%) citizens surveyed say immigration has had a positive impact on their country; only three in 10 (28%) say immigration has been good for their economy.

Further, half (50%) say immigration has placed too much pressure on public services in their country.

And almost half (45%) of global respondents believe immigrants have made it more difficult for their own people to get jobs in their country (and just 41% say priority should be given to immigrants with higher education and qualifications to fill shortages in professions.)

Here are the averages for each of the questions and the percentage of Americans feeling the same way (go have a look at your country!):

 

81% of citizens indicate that over the last five years migrants have increased in their country…

US 69%

Half (50%) say there are too many immigrants in their country…

US 49% (More education needed as not enough Americans know how high the numbers are!)

And almost as many (46%) agree that immigration is causing their country to change in ways they don’t like…

US 43% (This number doesn’t jive with the following areas in the survey.  They must have asked it first!)

Only one in five (21%) say immigration has had a positive impact…

US 25%  (So this means 75% of US respondents must be saying immigration has a negative impact!)

Only three in 10 (28%) say immigration has been good for the economy of their country…

US 30%    (Tell Grover Norquist and the Koch Brothers!)

And half (50%) say immigration has placed too much pressure on public services in their country…

US 58%

Almost half (45%) say immigrants in their country have made it more difficult for their own people to get jobs…

US 48%

Four in 10 (41%) believe priority should be given to immigrants with higher education and qualifications to fill professions shortages…

US 35%

Only three in 10 (30%) say immigrants make their country a more interesting place to live…

US 41%

Go here for lots more numbers!  Fascinating stuff!
The politicians in places like Italy, France, Germany and Belgium better darn well pay attention!  And, LOL! I laughed to see that the Saudis, the Chinese and the Japanese weren’t particularly stressed by immigration—-of course not!  They hardly take in any immigrants!

Obama could use supposedly temporary 'humanitarian' parole to get more Syrians admitted to US

I expect this dreadful news is because the UN/US State Department (and the resettlement contractors) are hopping mad at the slow screening process for those who have been submitted for consideration as permanent refugees.  I see parole as a way around serious security screening.
By the way, the percentage of Syrians entering as refugees (so far) still stands at about 94% Muslim for those being placed all over the country.  We are not saving the Christians in any big way!

Senator Dianne Feinstein
As a leading member of the Jihad Caucus, Senator Dianne Feinstein is happy to bring California more immigrants—Syrian Muslims this time!

Here is the latest news about possible parole for Syrians, from Breitbart (hat tip: Rosemary):

The Obama administration says it may reconsider the use of parole for certain Syrian nationals in addition to its Syrian refugee resettlement effort.

In written responses to Senate Judiciary Immigration and the National Interest Subcommittee Republicans obtained by Breitbart News, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services reveal that the U.S.’s effort to resettle thousands of Syrian refugees might not be the only process it will use to bring displaced Syrians to the U.S.

“At the request of more than 70 members of Congress in 2013, USCIS considered whether to establish a parole program for Syrians in Syria but decided that establishing such a program was not warranted. However, as the situation continues to evolve and USCIS continues to engage with stakeholders, USCIS may reconsider the use of parole for certain Syrian nationals,” USCIS wrote in its response to the subcommittee’s question probing whether USCIS is considering a parole program for Syrians.

The State Department has estimated that by the end of FY 2015 the U.S. will have admitted between 1,000-2,000 Syrian refugees. Parole for Syrians, if used, would supplement the refugee resettlement effort.

Parole is an immigration benefit that is intended to be imparted on a case-by-case basis for “urgent humanitarian reasons” or “significant public benefit” for those foreigners who would otherwise be ineligible for entry. It is intended to be a temporary admission, and parolees are expected to depart the U.S. once the reasons for their parole have ended.

More here….
Remember readers that the contractors started out pushing for 12,000-15,000 for this year, and now they and the Jihad Caucus in the Senate would like to see 65,000 as Obama’s parting gift to America.

So where are we?

Fiscal year 2015 ends in just short of 8 weeks (on September 30th) and in the calendar year of 2015 we have admitted 878.  Since the first of January 2012 (the year I arbitrarily chose as the beginning of the present Syrian conflict) we have admitted 1,213 Syrian refugees.   (See Refugee Processing Center data base, here)
Of those, 1,138 practice some form of Islam giving Muslims a 94% share of the total Syrians admitted so far.  I don’t expect that percentage to change much as long as we are taking the refugees chosen for us from UN camps.
Here are the top ten states receiving mostly Muslim Syrians so far as of August 1, 2015 (go here for our previous accounting). Red number is the number resettled as of the beginning of July.

Texas (146)    (137)

California (139)    (133)

Illinois (106)   (93)

Michigan (81)   (59)

Arizona (79)    (73)

Florida (70)    (60)

Pennsylvania (65)   (65)

New Jersey (58)   (39)

Massachusetts (47)   (44)

Tied for tenth place:

Kentucky (42)   (not recorded because not in the top ten in July)

North Carolina (42)   (42)

Go here to see the 14 Senators that comprise the Jihad Caucus pushing Obama to admit more Syrians.

I really think it would be only fair if all the Syrians were sent to the home states of the fourteen, don’t you?
However, ten of the 14 are not even getting Syrians in any large numbers, but four are getting their wish and their states are in the top ten:
Dianne Feinstein (D-CA)  Yippee I’m getting Syrian Muslims!
Dick Durban (D-IL) The leader of the pack is getting his share! Dropping them in Chicago because diversity will bring strength to that city!
Ed Markey (D-MA) I wonder how many will go to Markey’s home town.
Robert Menendez (D-NJ) The guy worried about the Iranians will have some Syrian Muslims in his home state.
 

Is there a plan to resettle Somali refugees in St. Maries, Idaho? How does one find out?

St. Maries Idaho
St. Maries Chamber of Commerce: “…our quant little town.” http://stmariesidaho.org/things-to-do/

Yesterday a reader sent this:

Last night I was told that Somali Refugees are going to be placed in St. Maries, Idaho sometime in September, the person who told me swore it was from a very reliable federal government connected source. I haven’t yet confirm this but would like to get the word out that refugees are NOW coming to North Idaho.

I don’t know if it’s true or not, but decided to use the information to make several key points.
One of the first questions people ask me in interviews or when speaking somewhere is this question:  How do I find out if my town is targeted for resettlement?
The answer is you won’t find out until someone leaks the information.  The program is wrapped in secrecy by the federal government and its contractors (aka Volags).
Those leaking the information may be employees of the local health department or the local school board which as “stakeholders” may get a little heads-up (we are talking weeks or a couple of months, certainly not a year).
Elected officials who may be seen as “welcoming” might also have a little warning.   And, sometimes the leakers are affiliated with some of the left-leaning churches in town where church leaders are too excited by what they see as their good fortune to stay quiet.
By law the contractors and their handlers at the state level (Jannus Inc. in Idaho) are required to “consult” with the community, but that really only means they consult with those they see as friendlies.

If you are wondering about your town, start asking around!

Also, one indicator about whether your town could be targeted is if some large industry is nearby, or planning to move to the area. Look especially for meat packing plants.  And, in Twin Falls, Idaho the Chobani yogurt plant most likely was looking for refugee laborers.  The ‘non-profit’ contractors work closely with local industries to supply big businesses with cheap immigrant workers.
You might want to ask people involved with the local Chamber of Commerce if they know of any plans!  The Chamber at the national level is outright in support of Open Borders and amnesty.

Why might there be some truth to this rumor? Why might a town like St. Maries be a target?

The proximity of a town to an already existing resettlement site is one good indicator.  The State Dept. informed me once that a 100-mile radius to an existing resettlement office would make the site fair game.  St. Maries is not near the main resettlement hubs in Idaho—Boise and Twin Falls which have received the bulk of the 6,000 plus refugees that Idaho has received since the beginning of Obama’s term in office.***
However, St. Maries is about 50 miles from the World Relief office in Spokane, Washington!  Contractors are getting desperate to find new and fresh territory as some existing sites are experiencing ‘resistance.’   Twin Falls is an important ‘Pocket of Resistance’ now so it would be no surprise for Idaho to “welcome” refugees further north.
If World Relief in Spokane is involved in placing refugees in Idaho soon, then they know right now that it could happen because they are in the process of preparing their R & P Abstract for the feds as the new fiscal year is fast approaching on October 1.  It should be legally required that those Abstracts be available to the public in advance of new resettlements!
Go here to the list of existing resettlement contractors and see if one is located near you.

I would like to appeal to all of you to send me any rumors you might hear about refugees being resettled in a town near you.

I’ll post the information, even if we have no firm information to go on.  We have a category I haven’t used much here, called ‘Rumors’ and what you hear will be cataloged there.  We would rather run down the rumors than to completely miss getting the news out about a prospective  new resettlement site.  Once a site is up and running they are hard to stop especially as the contractor will begin bringing in the relatives and if you object you will be chastised for wanting to interfere with family reunification.
This post is also archived in our new ‘Pockets of Resistance’ category for all of you wishing to learn more about what is happening around the country.
*** Idaho has received 6,158 refugees since January 2009 when Obama took office (data here).  The majority of those went to Boise and Twin Falls.  Although they received many more smaller numbers of certain ethnic groups the largest numbers came from Bhutan (1,159), Burma (1,223), Iraq (1,101), DR Congo (753), Somalia (625), Afghanistan (203), Sudan (194), Iran (157), and Uzbekistan (77).  Idaho has also gotten several of the first group of Syrians (23).
One of those Uzbeks is on trial on terrorism charges, here.  By the way, look at this, were they expecting trouble surrounding the trial?

Expert asks: Why are refugee resettlement contracting agencies not being audited?

Dan Cadman, a fellow at the Center for Immigration Studies with 30 years of service at INS/ICE, asks a question I’ve asked and many are asking around the country:  why are the federal resettlement contractors, which gobble-up millions of federal dollars every year, not being financially audited? 
Taxpayers of America have a right to know just exactly how the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, for instance, is spending our money.
Years ago I was told by a senior State Department official that financial audits of contractors just aren’t done.  They are only audited with program audits I was told—you know, like that easy to manipulate accounting about how many refugees in their care got jobs.  Things like that.

bob_carey_large_photo_1
This is Bob Carey the new director of the Office of Refugee Resettlement. He came to ORR from the International Rescue Committee, a contractor. Maybe someone should ask Mr. Carey where the fiscal audits are filed especially the ones for his former employer which received over $330 million from taxpayers in one recent year! http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/orr/resource/staff-directory

According to Cadman, it is already the law that the contractors must be fiscally audited.  Any pro-bono lawyers out there?

Here is Cadman today at the Center for Immigration Studies (hat tip: Richard at Blue Ridge Forum):

The Department of Justice Office of Inspector General (DOJ OIG) has issued a report on its audit of two grants funded by DOJ’s Office on Violence Against Women (OVW) and Office of Victims of Crime (OVC) to a Georgia entity called Tapestri, Inc., which describes its mission as “end[ing] violence and oppression in refugee and immigrant communities”, according to the report.

Though required by law, audits of immigrant and refugee-related grants are rare.

He goes on to describe that particular audit finding, then this:

OMB Circular A-133, and its accompanying yearly compliance supplements, lay out specific requirements for fiscal audits of grantees and contractors receiving federal funds across the array of cabinet departments and agencies, such as the Office of Refugee Resettlement within the Department of Health and Human Services, whose Refugee and Entrant program is governed by CFDA 93.566 for the 2015 compliance supplement.

[….]

This is the third time of late that I’ve spoken to financial issues relating to awards granted to various organizations for sheltering and protection programs of refugees, alien entrants, and sundry migrants (including unaccompanied minors and families who have crossed the border illegally). These programs that receive huge amounts of taxpayer funding (see here and here) — and by huge, I mean billions of dollars.

Yet, with the exception of the DOJ OIG, I find little evidence of audits being undertaken, despite the vast dollar amounts or the clearly articulated OMB requirements. Certainly they are not readily to be found on public websites of the various OIG offices, nor those of the offices of primary responsibility within Homeland Security or Health and Human Services.

How could this be? Why has OMB not chastised the remiss agencies? Why has the Government Accountability Office not singled them out? Is the public not entitled to know who is receiving hundreds of millions in federal dollars, and how they are being spent?

I hope this is useful information for our growing number of ‘Pockets of Resistance.’