o----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Links List2017/10/24--https //www forbes com/sites/legalnewsline/2017/10/24/a-smoking-gun-internal-docs-reveal-obama-dojs-slush-fund-judiciary-chair-says/?sh=2895e0c0cb882017/10/24--https //www forbes com/sites/legalnewsline/2017/10/24/a-smoking-gun-internal-docs-reveal-obama-dojs-slush-fund-judiciary-chair-says/?sh=2895e0c0cb882017/01--https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/115/hr7322021/01/21--https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/biden-doj-to-review-trump-era-rule-banning-slush-fund-payments/ar-BB1cY0ZH2021/02/21--https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/biden-doj-to-review-trump-era-rule-banning-slush-fund-payments/ar-BB1cY0ZH2017/06/07--https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/attorney-general-jeff-sessions-ends-third-party-settlement-practiceInvestors dot com2014/03/10--https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2014/03/how_social_justice_crashed_the_economy.html2010/11/09-- https://www.judicialwatch.org/press-releases/judicial-watch-sues-obama-justice-department-records-slush-funds-favored-groups/2015/06/07--https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/cfpb-diverts-civil-penalty-funds-to-democrat-activist-groups/2017/03/04--https://www.inquisitr.com/4032226/obama-slush-fund-a-look-into-the-beneficiaries/2016/10/12--https://www.complianceweek.com/when-charitable-donations-equal-bribery/2903.articleo good deed goes unpunished—especially if the intent of that deed is bribery.Some legislation or acts listed on this page•ACTS/HR 732 - Stop Settlements Slush Funds Actalso see article Forbes-2017/10/24: “Under H.R. 732, government officials or agents who violate this prohibition may be removed from office or required to forfeit to the government any money they hold for such purposes “to which they may otherwise be entitled.” (Forbes-2017/10/24)•H.R. 469 Sunshine for Regulations and Regulatory and Settlements Act of 2017•H.R. 5063 the Stop Settlement Slush Funds Act-passed House but stalledSome key “players” involved in slush funds for and against themFor, or dismissive (like Alcee’s blocking further legislation efforts)•DOJ - Obama’s DOJ - seen in a negative light here for entering into or enforcing settlements designed to exclude conservative groups•Alcee Hastings (Rep.) D-FL, told fellow lawmakers both bills were “deficient in process and substance.”•Tony West department (West was former Associate Attorney General) a deputy for West made moves for partial diverted slush funds: “West’s team also went out of its way to exclude conservative groups, the internal DOJ documents show…In particular, activist leaders met with a senior official from West’s office in March 2014 to “make the case” that, in settling mortgage-lending cases, the DOJ should make donations “mandatory in all future settlements.”Against [red highlights from PF for emphasis]•Bob Goodlatte, R-VA, House Judiciary Chairman - saw the “smoking gun” of settlement slush fundsGoodlatte has said the need for the legislation arose after an extended judiciary committee investigation found that the DOJ had engaged in a pattern or practice of systematically subverting Congress’ budget authority by using settlements from financial institutions to funnel money to what he describes as “left-wing activist groups.”•Geoffrey Graber appears to have tried to not go along with the diversions•Doug Collins (Rep) R-GAStart HereForbes dot com2017/10/24 Judiciary Chair Claims Internal Docs Reveal Obama DOJ 'Slush Fund'. By Jessica Karmasek[Note from PF: See more under ACTS/HR 732 below]2017/10/24--https //www forbes com/sites/legalnewsline/2017/10/24/a-smoking-gun-internal-docs-reveal-obama-dojs-slush-fund-judiciary-chair-says/?sh=2895e0c0cb88Excerpt: Internal U.S. Department of Justice documents confirm the existence of a department “slush fund” under the Obama Administration and that DOJ officials “went out of their way” to exclude conservative groups, the head of the House Judiciary Committee told fellow lawmakers Tuesday. House Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte, R-VA, made the claim just ahead of a vote by the U.S. House of Representatives on a bill that would prohibit government officials, most notably the DOJ, from entering into or enforcing a settlement agreement on behalf of the United States that provides for a payment or a loan to any person or entity other than the United States, with some exceptions. …In January, the judiciary panel also sent a letter to the DOJ requesting it preserve all documents related to the department’s settlement practices. “It is not every day in Congressional investigations that we find a smoking gun,” Goodlatte told fellow lawmakers Tuesday, pointing to the documents. “Here, we have it.”“…This legislation, however, remains necessary because history shows that we cannot rely on the current DOJ policy remaining in place,” Goodlatte said.…Under H.R. 732, government officials or agents who violate this prohibition may be removed from office or required to forfeit to the government any money they hold for such purposes “to which they may otherwise be entitled.”…In June, U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions issued a memo to all DOJ components and 94 U.S. Attorney’s Offices prohibiting them from entering into any third party settlements. “When the federal government settles a case against a corporate wrongdoer, any settlement funds should go first to the victims and then to the American people -- not to bankroll third-party special interest groups or the political friends of whoever is in power,” Sessions said. “Unfortunately, in recent years the Department of Justice has sometimes required or encouraged defendants to make these payments to third parties as a condition of settlement. “With this directive, we are ending this practice and ensuring that settlement funds are only used to compensate victims, redress harm, and punish and deter unlawful conduct.”…Goodlatte praised Sessions for his decision. “The practice is wrong no matter which party is in power,” he said at the time. “Attorney General Session’s integrity stands in stark contrast to the behavior of Obama Administration officials who used their position to funnel billions of settlement dollars to their political allies.” He echoed that statement following his bill’s passage Tuesday. “Regardless of which party is in the White House, subverting Congress to funnel money to outside organizations is unacceptable and unconstitutional,” Goodlatte said. “I applaud the passage of this bipartisan bill that bans settlement payments to non-victim third parties permanently for future administrations. There should be no excuse or justification for this banned behavior, and I urge my colleagues in the Senate to defend Congress’s constitutional interests and support H.R. 732.”https //www forbes com/sites/legalnewsline/2017/10/24/a-smoking-gun-internal-docs-reveal-obama-dojs-slush-fund-judiciary-chair-says/?sh=2895e0c0cb88ACTS, PROPOSED LEGISLATURE, etc.H.R. 732 Stop Settlements Slush Funds Act“the DOJ had engaged in a pattern or practice of systematically subverting Congress’ budget authority by using settlements from financial institutions to funnel money to what he describes as “left-wing activist groups.’”See: 2017/01-10--https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/115/hr732Bill Introduced in January 2017Bill passed October 2017 238-183231 Republican votes, 7 Democrat, Democrat made up all 183 no votesBob Goodlatte-House Judiciary Chairman, R-VA, major proponentAlcee Hastings, US Rep, D-FL, one detractorHouse Judiciary and Financial Committees involvedAmericans for Limited Government, a Fairfax, VA-based conservative nonprofit looking on or involvedTony West: Former Associate Attorney General Tony West involved in negativityGeoffrey Graber, former deputy associate attorney general and director of the Residential Mortgage-Backed Securities, or RMBSJustice Dept EmailsThe Stop Settlements Slush Funds Act of 2017, or H.R. 732, was introduced in January On Tuesday evening -- after hours of discussion -- the House voted mostly along party lines, 238-183 in favor of the bill. Of the “yes” votes, 231 were Republican and seven were Democrat. Democrats made up all 183 “no” votes. Eleven members did not vote…House Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte, R-VA, made the claim just ahead of a vote by the U.S. House of Representatives on a bill that would prohibit government officials, most notably the DOJ, from entering into or enforcing a settlement agreement on behalf of the United States that provides for a payment or a loan to any person or entity other than the United States, with some exceptions…But Goodlatte, who introduced H.R. 732, said new internal DOJ documents “tell a different story.” Goodlatte has said the need for the legislation arose after an extended judiciary committee investigation found that the DOJ had engaged in a pattern or practice of systematically subverting Congress’ budget authority by using settlements from financial institutions to funnel money to what he describes as “left-wing activist groups.”…But U.S. Rep. Alcee Hastings, D-FL, told fellow lawmakers both bills were “deficient in process and substance.”Hastings criticized Republicans for putting forth such “pointless and partisan” legislation, given that Barack Obama is no longer in office and that other, more important issues demand the attention of federal lawmakers.He also argued that a House Judiciary Committee investigation “yielded no credible evidence.”…Financial Services committees…Americans for Limited Government, a Fairfax, VA-based conservative nonprofit, commended Goodlatte for his release of the internal DOJ documents.Tony West…The internal documents show that a deputy for former Associate Attorney General Tony West -- who now serves as executive vice president of government affairs, general counsel and corporate secretary for PepsiCo Inc. -- asked colleagues about settlements in negotiation. “Can you explain to Tony the best way to allocate some money to an organization of our choosing?” the deputy wrote in a November 2013 email. West’s team also went out of its way to exclude conservative groups, the internal DOJ documents show…In particular, activist leaders met with a senior official from West’s office in March 2014 to “make the case” that, in settling mortgage-lending cases, the DOJ should make donations “mandatory in all future settlements.” This follows a letter requesting that the DOJ offer banks “enhanced credit” for making donations. A few months later, the department announced major bank settlements requiring mandatory donations to community groups and offering enhanced credit for these donations. In an August 2014 email, recipient organizations then discuss how they can “thank” West for the money. One organization, in the correspondence released, suggested a resolution and a formal plaque -- and even threw out the idea of having a statue of West built so they could “bow down to this statue each day after we get our $200,000+.” The documents are contrary to the DOJ’s sworn testimony. In a July 2014 email, a senior official explained that the DOJ reworded a draft mandatory donation provision to achieve the aim of “not allowing Citi to pick a statewide intermediary like the Pacific Legal Foundation [PLF],” which the official explained “does conservative property-rights free legal services.” The documents also show outside groups lobbied the DOJ directly to obtain such incentives. Justice Dept. Emails"The Justice Department emails released by Goodlatte show that only approved left-wing groups were eligible for the banks to make payouts to as part of their settlements, overtly excluding deemed to be too conservative,” President Rick Manning said in a statement. “What's worse, is that the settlements often gave the banks double credit if they gave money to the left-wing groups rather than paying the government. Meaning, every $10 million to left-wing groups was counted the same as $20 million to the government.Manning said Goodlatte was right to seek to defund such third-party settlements, calling them “nothing more than political payola” to radical, left-wing groups.“Goodlatte’s disclosures show once again that there wasn’t single area of government that Obama did not corrupt into being a part of a left-wing funding machine,” he said. “Obama's Justice Department effectively appropriated federal funds to these third-party groups without Congressional approval, violating Article I of the Constitution as this was a revenue stream to the government that was then illegally diverted to political ends.“The actors who signed off on those political allocations should be subjected to the full weight of the law, including loss of pension and at the very least significant fines.”GruberGeoffrey Graber, former deputy associate attorney general and director of the Residential Mortgage-Backed Securities, or RMBS: Working Group at the DOJ, had told Congress in February 2015 that the department “did not want to be in the business of picking and choosing which organization may or may not receive any funding under the agreement.” Graber now serves as a partner at Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC and is a member of the firm’s consumer protection practice group.2017/10/24--https //www forbes com/sites/legalnewsline/2017/10/24/a-smoking-gun-internal-docs-reveal-obama-dojs-slush-fund-judiciary-chair-says/?sh=2895e0c0cb88H.R. 469 Sunshine for Regulations and Regulatory and Settlements Act of 2017Introduced in Jan. 2017US Rep Doug Collins R-GA introduced this: “unacceptable to shortchange victims.” An identical bill -- the Stop Settlement Slush Funds Act, or H.R. 5063 -- passed the House in the last Congress by a vote of 241-174, but then stalled… U.S. Rep. Doug Collins, R-GA, who introduced the Sunshine for Regulations and Regulatory Decrees and Settlements Act of 2017, or H.R. 469, in January, said during debate Tuesday that it is simply unacceptable to “shortchange victims.” Similarly to Goodlatte’s legislation, the sunshine bill inhibits the ability of federal agencies to participate in back-door sue-and-settle arrangements with special interest groups, which circumvent established regulatory processes. “It’s a problem we’ve seen grow,” Collins said of the settlement agreements, adding that it’s a “scenario that should concern everyone.”https //www forbes com/sites/legalnewsline/2017/10/24/a-smoking-gun-internal-docs-reveal-obama-dojs-slush-fund-judiciary-chair-says/?sh=2895e0c0cb882021MSN2021/01/21 Biden DOJ to review Trump-era rule banning 'slush fund' payments. Jerry Dunleavy 2021/01/21--https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/biden-doj-to-review-trump-era-rule-banning-slush-fund-payments/ar-BB1cY0ZHExcerpt: N.C. City Official Removed After Refusing to Address Black Professor as ‘Doctor’…A police trainer's event was canceled after video resurfaced of him telling…President Biden's team said he will be instructing his attorney general to review a Trump policy prohibiting the Justice Department from using tens of millions of dollars in bank settlement payments that Republicans criticize as a “slush fund” to leftist groups.2017Justice dot gov 2017/06/07 Attorney General Jeff Sessions Ends Third Party Settlement Practice. Press Release Number: 17-613Excerpt: Attorney General Sessions today issued the attached memo to all Department of Justice components and 94 United States Attorney’s Offices prohibiting them from entering into any agreement on behalf of the United States in settlement of federal claims or charges that directs or provides for a settlement payment to non-governmental, third parties that were not directly harmed by the conduct.“When the federal government settles a case against a corporate wrongdoer, any settlement funds should go first to the victims and then to the American people— not to bankroll third-party special interest groups or the political friends of whoever is in power,” said Attorney General Jeff Sessions. “Unfortunately, in recent years the Department of Justice has sometimes required or encouraged defendants to make these payments to third parties as a condition of settlement. With this directive, we are ending this practice and ensuring that settlement funds are only used to compensate victims, redress harm, and punish and deter unlawful conduct.”Under the last Administration, the Department repeatedly required settling parties to pay settlement funds to third party community organizations that were not directly involved in the litigation or harmed by the defendant’s conduct. Pursuant to the Attorney General’s memorandum, this practice will immediately stop.Justice dot gov2017/06/07--https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/attorney-general-jeff-sessions-ends-third-party-settlement-practiceInvestors dot com2015/06/07 CFPB Joins Justice In Shaking Down Banks For Democrat Activist Groups2015/06/07--https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/cfpb-diverts-civil-penalty-funds-to-democrat-activist-groups/MSN2021/02/21 Biden DOJ to review Trump-era rule banning 'slush fund' payments. Jerry Dunleavy https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/biden-doj-to-review-trump-era-rule-banning-slush-fund-payments/ar-BB1cY0ZHExcerpt: Former Attorney General Jeff Sessions issued a directive in June 2017 titled the “Prohibition on Settlement Payments to Non-Governmental Third Parties." The policy was made part of the Justice Department’s manual by early 2018, and a final version of the rule was entered into the Federal Register in December 2020.The Biden executive order appears to be designed to review and possibly change it. Sessions said settlements "are a useful tool for Department attorneys to achieve the ends of justice” but that “it has come to my attention that certain previous settlement agreements involving the Department included payments to various non-governmental, third-party organizations as a condition of settlement with the United States.” The former attorney general said “these third-party organizations were neither victims nor parties to the lawsuits” and the Justice Department “will no longer engage in this practice.”2021/02/21--https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/biden-doj-to-review-trump-era-rule-banning-slush-fund-payments/ar-BB1cY0ZHInquistr dot com2017/03/04 Obama Slush Fund: A Look Into The Beneficiaries. By Thea Condrad.2017/03/04--https://www.inquisitr.com/4032226/obama-slush-fund-a-look-into-the-beneficiaries/2014MSN2021/02/21 Biden DOJ to review Trump-era rule banning 'slush fund' paymentsJerry Dunleavyhttps://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/biden-doj-to-review-trump-era-rule-banning-slush-fund-payments/ar-BB1cY0ZHThe Justice Department reached a multibillion-dollar plea agreement in 2014 with Citigroup and Bank of America for their role in the 2008 global financial crisis. As part of the deal, the banks were instructed to donate tens of millions to housing-related charities and other nonprofit groups, some of which had a left-wing bent, though some of the groups were not victims themselves.2010Judicial Watch dot org2010/11/09 Judicial Watch Sues Obama Justice Department for Records on Slush Funds for “Favored Groups”https://www.judicialwatch.org/press-releases/judicial-watch-sues-obama-justice-department-records-slush-funds-favored-groups/ Excerpt from Judicial Watch-2010/11/09: Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, announced today that it has filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the Obama Department of Justice (DOJ) to obtain information about a DOJ policy that directs large sums of cash settlements from DOJ Civil Rights Division discrimination lawsuits to organizations that are not officially connected to these lawsuits (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of Justice (No. 10-1783)). According to Judicial Watch’s lawsuit, filed on October 25, 2010: In August 2010, Judicial Watch commenced an investigation into [the DOJ’s] practices regarding the distribution of leftover settlement funds to ‘qualified organizations’ not otherwise connected with the settled litigation. [Judicial Watch] sought this information in furtherance of its educational mission after learning of an apparently novel settlement arrangement used in two recently settled cases brought by the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department, United States v. AIG Federal Savings Bank and Wilmington Finance, and United States v. Sterling. Byron York, “Justice Department steers money to favored groups,” The Washington Examiner, August 5, 2010. According to Mr. York’s report, in the past, when the Civil Rights Division filed discrimination lawsuits against banks or landlords, such cases often resulted in a settlement whereby the defendant put aside a sum of money to compensate the particular victims ofthe alleged discrimination. In these two recently settled cases, however, [the DOJ] agreed not only to put aside money for the victims of the alleged discrimination, but also to provide money to “qualified organizations” approved by the Justice Department which are not connected to these lawsuits nor alleged to be victims of discrimination by the defendants.2010/11/09-- https://www.judicialwatch.org/press-releases/judicial-watch-sues-obama-justice-department-records-slush-funds-favored-groups/RELATED TOPICS2014American Thinker2014/03/10 How Social Justice Crashed the Economy. By Michael Bargo, Jr.https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2014/03/how_social_justice_crashed_the_economy.htmlExcerpt: Ever since FDR’s New Deal initiative, Democrats have gathered electoral support through the distribution of federal program dollars. They justify their spending by saying it is done to pursue “social justice” and “fairness.” The great political value of these concepts is that they are open-ended; they do not imply, nor do they allow, any limits.Ever since FDR’s New Deal initiative, Democrats have gathered electoral support through the distribution of federal program dollars. They justify their spending by saying it is done to pursue “social justice” and “fairness.” The great political value of these concepts is that they are open-ended; they do not imply, nor do they allow, any limits.While Republicans have struggled to convince voters that open-ended federal spending will eventually hurt working Americans and the poor, the mortgage crash of 2008 may provide such an opportunity. This is because the mortgage changes promoted by the standards of social justice and fairness had a clear beginning, middle, and implosive end.Compliance week dot com2016/10/12 When charitable donations equal briberyhttps://www.complianceweek.com/when-charitable-donations-equal-bribery/2903.articleo good deed goes unpunished—especially if the intent of that deed is bribery.Nu Skin Enterprises—a Provo, Utah-based developer and seller of personal care products and dietary supplements—learned this lesson the hard way when it became the target of a rare enforcement action for violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act resulting solely from a charitable contribution intended to influence a foreign official.The Securities and Exchange Commission charged Nu Skin with violating the internal controls and books and records provisions of the FCPA after Nu Skin’s Chinese subsidiary inaccurately recorded the payment as a “donation” in its books and records. On Sept. 20, Nu Skin agreed to pay $765,688 without admitting or denying the allegations.LACKING BILATERALITY or UNIVERSALITY From Notes/Current Commentary 2020/02/08:Continue watching for phony lawsuits rigged by groups claiming rights on racial lines. It is often more of an industry filled with collaborators. NEW MEXICO OR NAVAJO NATION, US - LAWSUITSThis will likely get its own section shortly; the tribal, other non-white lawsuits and scholarship bundles as a preferential player/racket motifNote: several of the resources below are from “faith” based websites, usually of the conservative Christian sort. Although there are likely biases with mis/disinformation, take into consideration what they are saying, then do facts checking separately. What we need to understand is that just because something is “far right” or coming from a strong religious orientation, it still can have authentic, useful and verifiable information. In addition, some of these groups might be the only ones accurately reporting the scoop on Islamic extremists and other groups in the USA.Justia(2008) US v. Navajo Nation - Supreme Courthttps://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/556/287/OCTOBER TERM, 2008UNITED STATES V. NAVAJO NATIONSUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATESOfficial Citation 556 U.S. 287 Docket No. 07-1410Huffington PostNavajo Nation - Wells Fargo Lawsuit(2017/12/14) By Hayley Miller.https://www.huffpost.com/entry/navajo-nation-wells-fargo-lawsuit_n_5a328f94e4b091ca2685f112The lawsuit claims the bank manipulated Navajo elders into opening savings accounts they didn’t need.The Navajo Nation, the largest Native American tribe, has settled a trademark suit brought against the apparel retail chain Urban Outfitters Inc over use of the tribe’s name in company merchandise, the two sides said on FridayGrant County Beat(2019/01/14)https://www.grantcountybeat.com/news/non-local-news-releases/48678-ag-balderas-announces-settlement-of-over-200-million-with-walgreens-over-fraudulent-over-dispenToday, Attorney General Hector Balderas announced a settlement of $209.2 million dollars against Walgreens over their fraudulent dispensing of insulin pens around the nation. New Mexico is joined by the United States, the District of Columbia, and all other 49 states in settling allegations against Walgreens Boots Alliance (Walgreens). The agreement in principle resolves allegations that Walgreens knowingly engaged in fraudulent over-dispensing of insulin pens to Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries. Walgreens operates the largest retail pharmacy chain in the U.S., with 8,309 locations across all 50 states.“Out-of-state multi-billion dollar corporations must not be allowed to take advantage of New Mexican families,” said Attorney General Hector Balderas. “My Medicaid Fraud division is dedicated to fighting for New Mexicans, and we will not rest as the most vulnerable New Mexicans are faced with unfair attacks from all sides.”https://www.reuters.com/article/us-navajo-urbanoutfitters-idUSKBN13D2QATalcum Power Cancer Lawsuit - Johnson and Johnsonhttps://www.nmag.gov/uploads/PressRelease/48737699ae174b30ac51a7eb286e661f/AG_Files_Suit_Against_Manufacturers_of_Talcum_Powder.pdfsee also-Attorney General Balderas today filed a lawsuit in the First Judicial District Court of New Mexico against four corporations that manufactured, advertised, and sold talcum powder products, including baby powder, which contained hazardous and carcinogenic asbestos to New Mexicans. The defendants named in the lawsuit are Johnson & Johnson, Johnson & Johnson Consumer Companies, Inc., Valeant Pharmaceuticals International Corporation; and Valeant Pharmaceuticals North America LLC. “Our office will take immediate action any time a corporation misleads a New Mexican consumer or endangers the health and safety of our families,” said Attorney General Balderas. “These products have been targeted at minority groups, especially Black and Hispanic women and children, with false messages about their safety, and I will hold these companies accountablehttps://www.nmag.gov/uploads/PressRelease/48737699ae174b30ac51a7eb286e661f/AG_Files_Suit_Against_Manufacturers_of_Talcum_Powder.pdfhttps://www.talcumpowdercancerlawsuit.com/news/new-mexico-sues-johnson-&-johnson-for-targeting.aspNATIVE AMERICAN HISTORY WITH SEPARATE THEORY OF TIMELINE IN AMERICATime(2015/07/21) There's a New Theory About Native Americans' Origins. By Tanya Basuhttps://time.com/3964634/native-american-origin-theory/Native American Origin TheoryExcerpt: The timeline Rasmus and his colleagues propose goes something like this: About 23,000 years ago, a single group splintered off from an East Asian population. The group, hailing from northeast Asia, crossed the Bering Land Bridge between northeast Asia and Alaska, eventually making their way to the rest of the Americas. About 13,000 years ago—much more recent than previous theories—Native Americans started to split into different groups, creating the genetic and cultural diversity that exists today.https://time.com/3964634/native-american-origin-theory/SCHOLARSHIPS, GRANTS LACKING BILATERALITYThe Commonwealth Times - Independent Press of Virginia Commonwealth University2011/09/22 Race-based scholarships outdated and unfairhttps://commonwealthtimes.org/2011/09/22/race-based-scholarships-outdated-and-unfair/Excerpt: In today’s world, we’ve outgrown “leveling the playing field” in relation to affirmative action. The idea was good when, as a country, we were still accepting diversity and coming out of an age of discrimination, but we’ve moved past that into a modern era of accepting people as they are.Affirmative action should no longer be used in determining who is given scholarships by universities. Recipients of these awards should be determined solely by their academic record and financial need. This process would be fairer and have a true sense of equality.While I do support diversity, scholarships shouldn’t be based on race. Schools often award scholarships to minorities when students who aren’t of a minority are just as deserving. To prevent this, schools need to have guidelines as to what constitutes a full ride or partial scholarship. This way, we can be assured that all students who receive scholarships are judged by the same objective criteria.If two students have similar resumes, one should not be given the upper hand based on their race alone. Guidelines would prevent situations like this and make the student aware of what exactly must be done to earn a scholarship. There would be no loopholes, and every student would have an equal chance at qualifying. As they say, “May the best man win.”The state of our economy is another reason we should move away from affirmative action. Every year, universities raise tuition to even higher numbers. Students and their families simply can’t afford this, and many graduate from school with thousands of dollars of debt. Financial aid is key to every student’s life, and awards like scholarships should take a student’s need into account over their race. All students could use more money for school – no matter their race – which is why schools shouldn’t take race into account when determining scholarships.Scholarships should be determined on your academic record. If you have good grades, and the university sees you have potential, they’ll want you at their school regardless of race. Those with the highest GPAs or rigorous workloads should be rewarded for their efforts with scholarships.It’s simply not fair to have one student benefit from a scholarship when another has the same qualifications. A university would not deny a minority a scholarship because they’re a minority, which makes affirmative action outdated.A university should feel confident that when they award a scholarship, they get their money’s worth. The best way to decide this is by awarding students who have demonstrated their abilities inside and outside the classroom and their commitment to education. By taking out a factor such as race in determining scholarships, they’d be more fairly awarded.https://commonwealthtimes.org/2011/09/22/race-based-scholarships-outdated-and-unfair/Bartleby dot com (this is a source with a likely “faith” based bias, use due diligence in checking out the facts)Affirmative Action An Unfair Advantage for Minoritieshttps://www.bartleby.com/essay/Affirmative-Action-An-Unfair-Advantage-For-Minorities-P37VDY4CFL9XExcerpt: Affirmation Action Produces Negative Reactions In the early 1960’s, President Kennedy issued an executive order to ensure that government contractors hire and treat employees without regard to race, creed, color, or national origin. This executive order was issued so that all would have equal opportunities when qualified especially in regard to higher education and employment. However, it wasn’t until President Johnson issued his executive order in 1965 that it was developed and enforced. Affirmative action was meant to level the playing field so women, minorities, disabled, and other groups that are discriminated against would have same opportunities as those who were not typically known to experience discrimination. Since its inception, issues have been raised regarding reverse discrimination. Affirmative action has given an unfair advantage to minorities when applying for employment and higher education by focusing on gender and race instead of performance, calls into question minorities’ qualifications, and results in the further division of minorities in society by race, gender, or disability. Affirmative action was created to help end discrimination in the work place and in educational opportunities, but has given an unfair advantage to minority https://www.bartleby.com/essay/Affirmative-Action-An-Unfair-Advantage-For-Minorities-P37VDY4CFL9XWND (this is a source with a likely “faith” based bias, use due diligence in checking out the facts)2016/01/17 Islamist running 140 tax-funded charter schools in U.S. Casts broad net of influence over la. By Leo Hohman.https://www.wnd.com/2016/01/islamist-running-140-tax-funded-charter-schools-in-u-s/Excerpt: Muhammad Fethullah Gülen is a Turkish Islamist, writer and preacher with a secret plan for bringing Shariah law to America. But the schools -- which have innocent-sounding names like the Horizon Science Academies in Illinois, Harmony Schools of Excellence in Texas, Dove Science Academies in Oklahoma and Magnolia Science Academies in California -- have long been the subject of investigations into alleged corruption scandals involving influence peddling and visa abuse.Daily Caller 2015/12/28 Mosque Linked To Muslim Brotherhood Has Received Millions In Federal Grants. By Chuck Rosshttps://dailycaller.com/2015/12/28/mosque-linked-to-muslim-brotherhood-has-received-millions-in-federal-grants/Excerpt: A Kansas City mosque owned by an Islamic umbrella organization with deep ties to the U.S. arm of the Muslim Brotherhood has received millions of dollars in federal grants over the past several years, according to a federal spending database.The Islamic Center of Greater Kansas City has received $2,739,891 from the Department of Agriculture since 2010, a Daily Caller analysis has found. The money largely went to the mosque’s Crescent Clinic to provide services through the Women, Infant and Children nutrition program, known as WIC….The most recent federal payment — in the amount of $327,436 — was handed out Oct. 1.Property records show the mosque is owned by the North American Islamic Trust (NAIT), which acts as a financial holding company for Islamic organizations. It offers sharia-compliant financial products to Muslim investors, operates Islamic schools and owns more than 300 other mosques throughout the U.S. Founded in 1973 as an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood-backed Muslim Students Association, NAIT’s most controversial connection is to the 2007 and 2008 Holy Land Foundation…And while the Obama administration has largely remained agnostic towards the organization, the British government released a scathing report earlier this month noting that the Muslim Brotherhood remains supportive of Hamas and that much of its ideology and many of its tactics “are contrary to our values and have been contrary to our national interests and our national security.”Some American politicians, such as Florida Rep. [crscore]Mario Diaz-Balart[/crscore] and Texas Sen. [crscore]Ted Cruz[/crscore], seem to agree with that sentiment. Both Republicans introduced legislation this year to designate the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist group.NAIT has other ties to the Holy Land Foundation case. Its newly-appointed executive director, Salah Obeidallah, was a founding member and former president of the Islamic Center of Passaic County in Paterson, N.J.In the 1990s, the imam at that mosque was Mohammad El-Mezain, a founding member of the Holy Land Foundation who was sentenced to 15 years in prison for helping fund Hamas. Obeidallah has said that he was not aware of El-Mezain’s terror funding activities.In being owned by NAIT, the Kansas City organization is in company with numerous mosques with ties to known terrorists, terror sympathizers and fundamentalist Islamists.Purportedly backed by money from Saudi Arabia and supporting a fundamentalist branch of Sunni Islam known as Wahhabism, NAIT holds the deed to the Islamic Society of Boston, which operates the mosque attended by Dzhokhar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev, the so-called Boston Marathon bombers.It also controls the Islamic Center of San Diego, which was attended by Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi, two al-Qaeda members who helped fly American Flight 77 into the Pentagon on Sept. 11, 2001.According to a 2002 Newsweek investigation, members of the San Diego mosque helped the two terrorists obtain housing, driver’s licences and social security numbers. They claimed not to have known about the men’s terror plans.NAIT also owns the Dar Al-Hijrah mosque in Fairfax Co., Va. — a known hotbed of terrorist activity. Al-Qaeda recruiter Anwar al-Awlaki served as imam at that location in 2001 and 2002. He was killed by an American drone in Yemen in 2011.The Islamic Center of Greater Kansas City has its own loose links to terrorist activities. The mosque made news earlier this year when it held the funeral for Nadir Soofi, one of the two jihadis who attempted to pull off a terrorist attack in Garland, Tex. Soofi, who was 34, and his accomplice, 30-year-old Elton Simpson, opened fire outside of an art exhibit featuring cartoons of Muhammad, but were killed by a security guard.Both Soofi and Simpson attended the Islamic Community Center in Phoenix, which land deeds show is owned by NAIT.That particular mosque posted $100,000 bond for Simpson following his 2010 arrest for lying to FBI agents about his plans to travel to Somalia to join a terrorist group. Simpson was given three years probation in that case.The Islamic Center of Greater Kansas City has also hosted Imam Khalid Yasin, an American-born convert to Islam, who has publicly supported sharia law and claimed that homosexuals should receive the death penalty.As a May 2010 Yahoo! message board post shows, Yasin visited the Islamic Center of Greater Kansas City and other area mosques that month to hold a series of lectures and workshops about Islam.That was nearly two years after Yasin touted the virtues of sharia law and capital punishment in a speech at a British mosque.
•Start Here•Links List•Acts, BIlls-brief-some legislation or acts listed on this page•Some key “players” involved in slush funds for and against them•Acts, Bills-more detailoH.R. 732 Stop Settlements Slush Funds Act▪Bob Goodlatte-House Judiciary Chairman, R-VA, supporter▪Alcee Hastings, US Rep, D-FL, one detractor▪House Judiciary and Financial Committees involved▪Americans for Limited Government, a Fairfax, VA-based conservative nonprofit looking on or involved▪Former Associate Attorney General Tony West involved in negativity•executive ▪Geoffrey Graber, former deputy associate attorney general and director of the Residential Mortgage-Backed Securities, or RMBS•
Settlement Slush Funds*(Fund-1)
Resources and Input Policing, Borders, Drugs, Cartels and System Corruption