Militant Islam, Obama Admin Forbidden Terms

Posted on June 14, 2016June 14, 2016 by Denise Simon

A distinction needs to be made. Radical extremists are for the force multipliers, those like Anwar al Awlaki. The militants like Mohammed Emwazi are born from the radicals and they are the deadly enforcers of the Islamic doctrine and Sharia.

Don’t blame the FBI for failures, with particular regard to the worst terror attack in American by a gunman, Orlando. Blame the White House. All the Q&A sessions, congressional testimony and press briefings by FBI Director James Comey have had an underlying message, a cry for help, attention and support.

Don’t blame the intelligence community including CENTCOM and the Pentagon for battlefield or rules of engagement failures. That belongs to the entire White House national security team. The Office of National Intelligence has also been affected.

This is not political correctness at all, it is a Barak Obama edict, sensitivity to Islam across our homeland and across the globe. Obama has had a strident mission since he assumed the Oval Office to create a Muslim protective shield. This is beyond dispute.

While not in any chronological order, there are some very key decisions that were made and continue to be made by the Obama administration that affect our national security and this generational war titled the Overseas Contingency Operation.

In April of 2009, Barak Obama delivered ‘The New Beginnings’ speech. In this presentation he spelled out his full agenda in what was to become the long-term mission to elevate Muslims and their organizations at home and globally. The White House objectives have been successful and consequential.

With the new beginning announced, Obama extended his same purpose throughout government agencies, law enforcement and policies as a mandatory doctrine.

‘Just before that Christmas Day attack, in early November 2009, I was ordered by my superiors at the Department of Homeland Security to delete or modify several hundred records of individuals tied to designated Islamist terror groups like Hamas from the important federal database, the Treasury Enforcement Communications System (TECS). These types of records are the basis for any ability to “connect dots.” Every day, DHS Customs and Border Protection officers watch entering and exiting many individuals associated with known terrorist affiliations, then look for patterns. Enforcing a political scrubbing of records of Muslims greatly affected our ability to do that. Even worse, going forward, my colleagues and I were prohibited from entering pertinent information into the database.’ Philip Haney, The Hill.

Directly after the 9/11 attack, the Bush administration did reach out to the Muslim communities to determine who was with peace and national security and who perhaps gave clues of a larger and hidden condition that could be festering that would prove clues to more domestic security challenges.

Then came the Holyland Foundation trial in 2007/2008. The material facts and conditions of the domestic threat, people, money, collaboration and global consequence all converged in a courtroom in Texas.

During the Holy Land trial, FBI Agent Lara Burns testified in court that CAIR was a front for HAMAS. One trial exhibit submitted by federal prosecutors – and stipulated to by the defense in the case – explained that these organizations were dedicated to a “civilizational-jihadist process” to destroy America from within and replace the Constitution with sharia (Islamic law):

The Ikhwah [Muslim Brotherhood] must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and “sabotaging” its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God’s religion [Islam] is made victorious over all other religions. (p. 21)

Federal prosecutors specifically cited this internal Muslim Brotherhood planning document as the strategic goal of these U.S.-based Islamic groups – the very same group advising the Obama Administration. The federal judge in the Holy Foundation case agreed with the case presented by the federal prosecutors had made regarding these organizations, stating in one ruling that “the Government has produced ample evidence to establish the associations with CAIR, ISNA and NAIT with HLF…and with HAMAS.” (p. 14-15) More important details here from the CounterjihadReport.

The Department of Justice under Eric Holder was included in the full protection of the terror networks and associated people. Congressman Gohmert of Texas challenged AG Holder to no avail in a chilling exchange.

Here is where the ‘words matter’ material documentation began. The Obama administration took this agenda to new standard.

In 2009, DHS published via the Office of Intelligence and Analysis Assessment a ‘Rightwing Extremism’ document, pinpointing those that may challenge the Obama Muslim doctrine. Additionally, DHS posted The Department of Homeland Security launched a ‘Do’s and Dont’s bulletin.

The entire complexion of the Department of Homeland Security began to change with new personnel and outreach under Secretary Janet Napolitano. The outreach extended to law enforcement agencies of which LAPD demonstrates.

The order to purge documents, training materials and database was made. The proof is here.

Barak Obama was not finished. In 2015, the White House introduced a strategy for CVE, Counter Violent Extremism.

Then comes the foreign policy of Obama. All deference to Iran began before Obama assumed the White House in 2009 and continues today. Secret back channels to Iran using Ambassador Burns began in 2008. Further, there is Iraq and Syria with Islamic State. Documents here on ISIS prove the intelligence and forecasts were known, available and delivered.

This would not be complete without mentioning China, Russia or North Korea where policies are non-existent.

The Paris attack was a slaughter and Obama found it wise to snub the solidarity march with other world leaders.

Obama touted Yemen as one of his successes but the country collapsed. Finally, the Obama policy doctrine crumbled and the cause was fully explained here. Obama wilfully recoiled as he and Hillary did on Benghazi.

It really no longer matters that Barak Obama, Hillary Clinton or John Kerry refuse to use key terms to describe militant Islam, the entire well verse and informed world have defined it for them. What does matter beyond the words are the policies and refusals of missions, strategies and conditions to keep America, her interests and allies safe.

It is no wonder there is no global respect for the Obama administration and there is much less to fear from her.

In summary, Obama owns this terror, owns this jihad and owns the death as well as the genocide. This is his legacy, he owns it as his own scarlet letter.

POTUS, No Executive Order to Close Gitmo

Posted on June 13, 2016June 13, 2016 by Denise Simon

Official offers details on Gitmo detainees who kill more Americans

An official who spoke to CNN Thursday put the numbers at fewer than 15 who went on to attack Americans or coalition forces in Afghanistan. The number of Americans killed in these attacks is believed to be in the single digits, according to the U.S. official, who is familiar with the matter.

“Because many of these incidents were large-scale firefights in a war zone, we cannot always distinguish whether Americans were killed by the former detainees or by others in the same fight,” the official said. More here.

USN: The White House was unable to come up with a strong legal strategy for executive action in this case, as the White House teams did in the cases of gun control and immigration executive orders, even though Obama serves as commander-in-chief and the office that he occupies traditionally has wider latitude in military matters. Obama sent a closure plan to Congress in February.

Report: Obama Administration Is ‘Not Pursuing’ an Executive Order to Close Guantanamo

TheBlaze: The Obama administration is not planning to use an executive order to close the military prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, after officials determined that such an order would not be a “viable” strategy, “sources familiar with the deliberations” told Reuters.

According to Reuters, the decision “narrows the already slim chances that President Barack Obama can fulfill his pledge to close the notorious offshore prison before leaving office in January.”

While campaigning for president in 2008, then-Sen. Barack Obama promised to close the controversial facility if elected. Earlier this year, the president announced a plan to close the facility that was met with opposition in Congress.

The source told Reuters that the administration won’t pursue an executive order to close the facility, although the president is eager to close the prison.

“It was just deemed too difficult to get through all of the hurdles that they would need to get through, and the level of support they were likely to receive on it was thought to be too low to generate such controversy, particularly at a sensitive (time) in an election cycle.”

Myles Caggins, a spokesman for the White House National Security Council, told Reuters, “The administration’s goal is to work with Congress to find a solution to close Guantanamo.”

Related reading: Obama Submitted the Plan to Close Gitmo, Rejected

Related from the White House in 2011:

THE WHITE HOUSE Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release March 7, 2011

FACT SHEET: NEW ACTIONS ON GUANTANAMO AND DETAINEE POLICY

Chinese Govt Makes Millions of Fake Social Media Posts

Posted on June 13, 2016June 13, 2016 by Denise Simon

Sounds just like Russia…and China has an army that is assigned to keep up the espionage against the West.

Red astroturf: Chinese government makes millions of fake social media posts

“50-cent” posters aim to distract from dissent rather than confront it.

arsT: Data scientists at Harvard University have found that the government of the People’s Republic of China generates an estimated 448 million fake social media posts per year. The posts are an effort to shape online conversations by citizens and to distract them from sensitive topics “and change the subject”—largely through “cheerleading” posts promoting the Chinese Communist Party and the government.

The research, conducted by Harvard professor Gary King and former Harvard graduate students Jennifer Pan and Margaret Roberts and supported by Harvard’s Institute for Quantitative Science, made use of a goldmine of propaganda content. This included a leaked archive of e-mails sent to the Zhanggong District Internet Propaganda Office from 2013 to 2014 that showed government workers’ documentation of completion of fake post work, including screen shots. The research also analyzed social media posts on Chinese websites from 2010 to 2015.

Previously, posts like these were believed to be the work of what observers have called the “50-cent Party”—named for what some believed the posters are paid by the state for their propaganda work. As it turns out, the posts analyzed by King and his co-researchers were likely mostly written for free as an extra duty of government employees.

And while the “50c” posts had long been assumed to be focused on attacking critics of the government and the Party, the researchers found instead that “the Chinese regime’s strategy is to avoid arguing with skeptics of the party and the government, and to not even discuss controversial issues. We infer that the goal of this massive secretive operation is instead to regularly distract the public and change the subject, as most of these posts involve cheerleading for China, the revolutionary history of the Communist Party, or other symbols of the regime.” In essence, the fake posts are a government-sponsored “astro-turfing” campaign—an attempt to create the impression of a grassroots groundswell of support for the Party and the government.

The term “astro-turfing” first became widely used to online public relations efforts by Microsoft as the company was fighting a government anti-trust case through the Microsoft-funded group Americans for Technology Leadership, though the term had been used in the past to describe off-line fake grassroots efforts. It has become a common (but unethical) political and marketing practice—particularly as companies try to shape online reviews and comments about their products and services. But none has engaged in this practice on the scale of the Chinese government’s campaign, which used government workers to spread happy talk about the Party and state. Of the posts analyzed from the Zhanggong archive, the researchers found 99.3 percent were contributed by one of more than 200 government agencies. Twenty percent of those posts were posted directly by employees of the Zhanggong Internet Propaganda Office, with smaller percentages coming from other regional and municipal government agencies.

As for the allegation that these astroturfers get paid by the government for their posts, the researchers noted, “no evidence exists that the authors of 50c posts are even paid extra for this work. We cannot be sure of current practices in the absence of evidence but, given that they already hold government and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) jobs, we would guess this activity is a requirement of their existing job or at least rewarded in performance reviews.”

Yup, there is more….

Defence forces on alert after Chinese cyber attack

TheNewIndianExpress: An alert has been issued to the Indian Army, Navy and Air Force that a Chinese Advanced Persistent Threat (APT) group called Suckfly, based in Chengdu region, is targeting Indian organisations. India’s defence establishment is its prime target.

Suckfly is involved in carrying out cyber espionage activities by sending out a malware called Nidiran.

According to the alert, Suckfly has stolen certificates from legitimate software developing firms in South Korea and is using them to camouflage its attacks. “Sensitive information from targeting computers and networks is exfiltrated, and this information is being used to undermine the national security and economic capabilities,” the alert issued from the Ministry of Defence states.

APT is a network attack in which an unauthorised person gains access and stays there undetected for a long period of time. The intention of an APT attack is to steal data instead of causing damage to the network or organisation.

“It has successfully carried out cyber espionage by infecting computers of both government and commercial houses of India involved in e-commerce, finance, healthcare, shipping and technology. Targeting of military personnel cannot be ruled out, keeping in mind the sensitive nature of data being handled by them,” the alert adds.

What is alarming for security agencies is that the cyber attack was carried out from the headquarters of China’s People’s Liberation Army. Chengdu Military Command is in charge of security along India’s eastern sector in the Tibet region, including Arunachal Pradesh. Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar had visited Chengdu Military Command during his visit to Beijing in April.

Saudi Key Funder of Hillary Clinton Campaign

Posted on June 13, 2016June 13, 2016 by Denise Simon

Primer:

Foreign nationals or foreign money cannot pay for or lobby for any ballot measures either. Document here from the FEC Commissioner.

From the Federal Election Commission website: The ban on political contributions and expenditures by foreign nationals was first enacted in 1966 as part of the amendments to the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA), an “internal security” statute. The goal of the FARA was to minimize foreign intervention in U.S. elections by establishing a series of limitations on foreign nationals. These included registration requirements for the agents of foreign principals and a general prohibition on political contributions by foreign nationals. In 1974, the prohibition was incorporated into the Federal Election Campaign Act (the FECA), [HTML] [PDF] giving the Federal Election Commission (FEC) jurisdiction over its enforcement and interpretation.

This brochure has been developed to help clarify the rules regarding the political activity of foreign nationals; however, it is not intended to provide an exhaustive discussion of the election law. If you have any questions after reading this, please contact the FEC in Washington, D.C., at 1-800-424-9530 or 202-694-1100. Members of the press should contact the FEC Press Office at 202-694-1220 or at the toll free number listed above.

Except where otherwise noted, all citations refer to the Act and FEC regulations. Advisory Opinions (AOs) issued by the Commission are also cited.

The Prohibition

The Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) prohibits any foreign national from contributing, donating or spending funds in connection with any federal, state, or local election in the United States, either directly or indirectly. It is also unlawful to help foreign nationals violate that ban or to solicit, receive or accept contributions or donations from them. Persons who knowingly and willfully engage in these activities may be subject to fines and/or imprisonment.

Who is a Foreign National?

The following groups and individuals are considered “foreign nationals” and are, therefore, subject to the prohibition:

Foreign governments;

Foreign political parties;

Foreign corporations;

Foreign associations;

Foreign partnerships;

Individuals with foreign citizenship; and

Immigrants who do not have a “green card.”

Deleted official report says Saudi key funder of Hillary Clinton campaign

#USA2016

MEE: Deputy Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman reportedly said Saudi has enthusiastically funded Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign

Saudi Arabia is a major funder of Hillary Clinton’s campaign to become the next president of the United States, according to a report published by Jordan’s official news agency.

The Petra News Agency published on Sunday what it described as exclusive comments from Saudi Deputy Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman which included a claim that Riyadh has provided 20 percent of the total funding to the prospective Democratic candidate’s campaign.

The report was later deleted and the news agency has not responded to requests for comment from Middle East Eye.

It is illegal in the United States for foreign countries to try to influence the outcome of elections by funding candidates.

The Washington-based Institute for Gulf Affairs has re-published the original Arabic Petra report, which quoted Prince Mohammed as having said Saudi Arabia had provided with “full enthusiasm” an undisclosed amount of money to Clinton.

“Saudi Arabia always has sponsored both Republican and Democratic Party of America and in America current election also provide with full enthusiasm 20 percent of the cost of Hillary Clinton’s election even though some events in the country don’t have a positive look to support the king of a woman (sic) for presidency,” the report quoted Prince Mohammed as having said.

The US Federal Election commission reports that over the past two years Clinton has raised a little more than $211.78m. Twenty percent of this sum is $42.35m.

A screenshot of the English report published and then deleted by the Petra News Agency

The report was published on the eve of Prince Mohammed making an official visit to the United States.

The Saudi Press Agency reported on Monday that the senior royal was due to fly to Washington where he will meet officials to discuss US-Saudi ties.

He will remain in the American capital until 16 June, when he will travel to New York for meetings with financial companies, the Saudi Gazette reported.

Prince Mohammed will discuss regional issues with American officials, and he will hold talks with the financial companies about his vision for diversifying Saudi Arabia’s economy away from oil dependency.

Links between Saudi Arabia and the Clinton family, including with Hillary’s campaign, are well reported.

In 2008, it was revealed that the Gulf kingdom had donated between $10m and $25m to the Clinton Foundation, a charity set up by Hillary’s husband and former US President Bill Clinton.

Last year the Centre for Studies and Media Affairs at the Saudi Royal Court paid public relations firm the Podesta Group $200,000 for a month-long project to provide “public relations services”.

The Podesta Group was founded in 1988 by brothers John and Tony Podesta. John Podesta is the chair of Hillary Clinton’s campaign to become the next US president.

Hillary Clinton’s campaign did not respond to a request for comment at the time of publication.

The Govt Loans/Grants You Will Never Know About

Posted on June 11, 2016June 11, 2016 by Denise Simon

Nothing about the fraudulent machinery in government can be described in a headline or in 140 characters and that is especially true when it comes to the Clinton’s and that pesky State Department.

This could read like a Hillary-wood script but it does have some familiar fingerprints as well from those of Barack Obama’s mother, Ann Dunham.

At a confirmation hearing before the United States Senate Foreign Relations Committee, US Secretary of State designate Hilary Clinton, while speaking briefly about President-elect Barack Obama’s mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, implied that microfinance would be an important part of the Obama administration’s agenda. Senator Clinton noted that Ann Dunham had worked on microfinance in Indonesia and that she had been scheduled to attend a microfinance forum at a United Nations conference in Beijing in 1995, which Ms. Clinton attended. Ms. Dunham, however, could not make it to the conference as she was diagnosed with cancer that eventually claimed her life few months after the conference. MicroCapital recently reported on Ann Dunham’s work as a researcher and practitioner of microfinance in Indonesia and her philosophy on the empowerment of women as a means to address poverty. Hilary Clinton also expressed similar sentiments at the hearing where she stated how, through her work on microfinance around the world, she had ‘seen firsthand how small loans given to poor women to start small businesses can raise standards of living and transform local economies’. Much more from MicroCapital.

Disgraced Clinton Donor Got $13M in State Dept. Grants Under Hillary

Hillary Clinton’s Department of State awarded at least $13 million in grants, contracts and loans to her longtime friend and Clinton Foundation donor Muhammad Yunus, despite his being ousted in 2011 as managing director of the Bangladesh-based Grameen Bank amid charges of corruption, according to an investigation by The Daily Caller News Foundation.

The tax funds were given to Yunus through 18 separate U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) award transactions listed by the federal contracting site USAspending.gov. Much more here.

U.S. Doesn’t Track if Millions in Biz “Loans” to Refugees on Public Assistance Are Repaid

The U.S. government gives refugees on public assistance special “loans” of up to $15,000 to start a business but fails to keep track of defaults that could translate into huge losses for American taxpayers, records obtained by Judicial Watch reveal. The cash is distributed through a program called Microenterprise Development run by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Office of Refugee Resettlement.

Since 2010 the program has granted thousands of loans to refugees that lack the financial resources, credit history or personal assets to qualify for business loans from commercial banks. Most if not all the recipients already get assistance or subsidies from the government, according to the qualification guidelines set by the Microenterprise Development Program. It’s a risky operation that blindly gives public funds to poor foreign nationals with no roots in the U.S. and there’s no follow up to assure the cash is paid back. The idea behind it is to “equip refugees with the skills they need to become successful entrepreneurs” by helping them expand or maintain their own business and become financially independent.

Earlier this year, Judicial Watch submitted a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to HHS for records related to the refugee business loan program. Specifically, JW asked for the number of loans that are written off per year and the amount of the write-off per defaulted loan. Unlike commercial banks or other lending institutions, HHS doesn’t keep track of default rates on loans issued through the Microenterprise program. This is astonishing considering that these are taxpayer dollars being furnished in the form of loans to foreign nationals granted refuge in the United States. An HHS official told JW the agency doesn’t have a tracking system in place to provide figures involving loan defaults. However, the agency is “preparing to collect this information in the future,” according to the records obtained by JW from the agency.

What we do know is that from 2010 to 2015, HHS gave a total of 3,096 of these so-called micro loans, the records show. In 2015 a record 558 loans were granted to refuges but it’s not clear for what amount. At the high end, if all 558 loans made last year were for the full $15,000 available to each refugee that would mean that HHS can’t account for an astounding $8.37 million. Here’s the rest of the breakdown, according to the records furnished by HHS as a result of JW’s FOIA request; in 2010 the agency granted 550 micro loans; in 2011, 541; 2012, 437; 2013, 466; 2014, 544. That’s a big chunk of change. The last year HHS filed an official annual report on this questionable cash giveaway was 2011. No official records have been made available to the public since then, which is why JW launched an investigation. According to the 2011 annual report, which resembles a promotional brochure, the default rate is only 3% but no further details or breakdown is offered making the information less than credible.

HHS is not the only government agency doling out huge sums of cash for this cause, though its focus on refugees appears to be unique. Others, such as the U.S. Agency of International Development (USAID), the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Department of Labor (DOL) also dedicate hundreds of millions of dollars to various microenterprise causes. For instance, in one recent year alone USAID spent $223 million on microenterprise development activities, according to figures released by the agency. The USDA also allocates large sums to provide loans and grants to microenterprise development through a special “Rural Microloan Revolving Fund”and the DOL regularly pours lots of money into various microenterprise projects that are promoted as workforce investments in areas with high rates of poverty.

But hold on….there is more and there is some tracking, well maybe. FieldUs

Hillary Clinton will speak at featured event at Aspen Ideas Fest and the break out sessions at the Aspen Institute

Structuring and Sustaining the Relationships that Support US Microenterprise Programs, 64 page document here.

Then comes the Office of Refugee Resettlement and the ‘microenterprise’ grants and loans. Just a sampling below from FY 2015.

Microenterprise Development Grants

Fiscal Year 2014/2015

Categories:: Microenterprise Development

GRANTEE NAME	CITY	STATE	END DATE	AMOUNT	CONTACT
Anew America Community Corporation	Berkeley	CA	9/29/17	$200,000	Viola Gonzales 1918 University Avenue, Suite 3A Berkeley, CA 94704-1051 510-540-7785 x301
Pacific Asian Consortium	Los Angeles	CA	9/29/16	$215,000	Namoch Sokhom 1055 Wilshire Blvd. 900B, Los Angeles, CA 90017 213-989-3265
Opening Doors, Inc.	Sacramento	CA	9/29/16	$190,000	Debra Debonot 1111 Howe Avenue, Suite 125, Sacramento, CA 95825 916-492-2591
Community Enterprise Development Center	Denver	CO	9/29/16	$250,000	Sisay Teklu 1600 Downing Street, #750, Denver, CO 80218-1412 303-569-8165
Mountain States Group	Boise	ID	9/29/17	$125,000	Ron Berning 1607 W. Jefferson St., Boise, ID 83702 208-336-5533 x230
Jewish Family & Career Services	Louisville	KY	9/29/16	$174,008	Judy Freundlich 2821 Klempner Way, Loiusville, KY 40205 502-452-6341 x224
Coastal Enterprise, Inc.	Portland	ME	9/29/17	$125,000	John E. Scribner 2 Portland Fish Pier, Suite 206, Portland, ME 04101 207-535-2915
Massachusetts Office of Refugee & Immigrants	Boston	MA	9/29/17	$250,000	Scott W. Levin 600 Washington Street, 4th Floor, Boston, MA 02111-1704 617-727-7888
Arab community Center for Econ. & Social Services	Dearborn	MI	9/29/17	$207,733	Sonia Harb 2651 Sauline Court, Dearborn, MI 48120 313-945-8139
Hmong American Partnership	St. Paul	MN	9/29/17	$230,000	Boa Vang 1075 Arcade Street, St. Paul, MN 55106-3213 651-495-1507
International Institute of Metropolitan St. Louis	St. Louis	MO	9/29/16	$245,998	Suzanne Lelaurin 3654 S. Grand, St. Louis, MO 63118 314-773-9090 x150
Community Center for New Americans	New York	NY	9/29/16	$250,000	Yanki Tshering 120 Broadway, Suite 230, New York, NY10271-002 212-898-4112
International Rescue Committee	New York	NY	9/29/17	$220,000	Jennifer Sime 122 East 42nd Street, New York, NY 10168 212-551-2924
International Rescue Committee	New York	NY	9/29/16	$175,000	Jennifer Sime 122 East 42nd Street, New York, NY 10168 212-551-2924
The University of North Carolina at Greensboro	Greensboro	NC	9/29/17	$216,267	Valera Francis 1111 Spring Garden Street, Greensboro, NC 27412-5013 336-334-5878
Women’s Economic Self-Sufficiency team	Alburquerque	NM	9/29/16	$200,000	Agnes Noonan 609 Broadway, NE, Alburquerque, NM 87102-2334 505-292-6666
Economic and Community Development Institute	Colombus	OH	9/29/16	$250,000	D. Craven 1655 Old Leonard Avenue, Columbus, OH 43219 614-559-0106
Women’s Opportunities Resource Center	Philadelphia	PA	9/29/17	$195,000	Hadi White 210 Chestnut Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103 215-564-5500
ECDC Enterprise Development Group	Arlington	VA	9/29/16	$250,000	Kevin Kelley 901 S. Highland Street, Arlington, VA 22204 703-685-0510 x225
Diocese of Olympia	Seattle	WA	9/29/17	$225,000	Greg Hope 1610 South King Street, Seattle, WA 98144 206-323-3152
SNAP Financial Services	Spokane	WA	9/29/16	$216,189	Kerri Rodkey 3102 W Fort George Wright Drive, Spokane, WA 99224-5203 509-456-7106 x112