Murder in the First Degree?

On August 6, 1996, 16 officers were punished with official reprimands and other non-criminal punishment incident to the death of Commerce Secretary Ron Brown and 34 other Americans in the airplane crash near Dubrovnik, Croatia.
The following article was excerpted from a private letter from Nicholas A. Guarino, former TV Host of Commodities Week, former Arkansas businessman, and editor of Wall Street Underground. We submit it for your own evaluation.

Events at Cilipi Airport, Dubrovnik, Croatia, on the afternoon of April 3, 1996:

• 2:10 Captain Amir Schic lands a twin-engine corporate jet carrying the Croatian Prime Minister and the American Ambassador. It is one of five planes to land routinely on Runway 12 in the hour preceding the scheduled 3:00 arrival of IFOR-21, the Boeing T-43A,[1] carrying Ron Brown and his entourage of American deal-makers.
• 2:15 Businessmen begin to straggle into the lobby, a few carrying umbrellas to ward off the very light to moderate rain. They're early because they're anxious to greet the 35 Americans who at this moment are taking off from Tuzla, Bosnia, 130 miles to the northeast. It is only a 45-minute flight. For those passengers it would usher in eternity.
• 2:30: In the radio shack of the Cilipi Airport, Maintenance Chief Niko Jerkuic, 46, nervously fiddled with the dials of his NonDirectional Radio (NDR) beacon, the only instrument he has to guide approaching planes. In a couple of hours he will be a rich man, the two American operatives told him, if he can quietly send IFOR-21 into Sveti Ivan (St. John's Hill), one of the highest mountains in the area at 2400 feet. Jerkuic will simply shut his beacon down_at the same moment that a decoy beacon is turned on by an American operative sitting near the base of Sveti Ivan. This is an old trick dating back to pirate days. There are some broken clouds at 400 feet; the main cloud is at 2,000 feet. Sveti Ivan rises almost 400 feet into the overcast.
• 2:48 Captain Schic climbs to the control tower to give IFOR-21 a friendly radio greeting and assurance that all is well. He describes the Cilipi weather: visibility 8 kilometers (5 miles), winds still at 14 mph, all flights arriving normally. Flying at about 10,000 feet and 40+ miles away, Co-captains Ashley J. Davis, 35, and Tim Shafer, 33, thank Schic for his words of welcome. These conditions are later described by Newsweek and others as "the worst storm in years" with "visibility just 100 yards." This was refuted by Aviation Week and the Air Force Accident Investigation.[2]
• 2:50 IFOR-21 reports in to Cilipi routinely. It is the last time their voice is heard.
• 2:52 The main regional radar station loses IFOR-21 from its screen.
• 2:52 Jerkuic shuts down his NDR beacon; the decoy powers up.
• 2:54 At Kolocep Island, IFOR-21 is on course as it passes over Cilipi's first beacon, 11.8 miles from the airport, and locks on to the second and final beam that is being transmitted from Sveti Ivan. This changes the plane's actual heading from 119° to 109°, straight into Sveti Ivan. The Cilipi control tower doesn't know the plane is now off course: it has no radar.
• 2:56 The U.S. Air Force AWACS plane keeping track of air traffic in the Bosnian conflict area loses track of IFOR-21 just after it passes over Dubrovnik. Since it is less than a mile off course at this point, no one on the AWACS notes anything wrong.
• 2:58 Aboard the plane, the klaxon of its ground-proximity warning device suddenly blares, but the two or three seconds of warning are far too little. The plane crashes into the rocky hillside and explodes. The tail section remains intact, but the rest of IFOR-21 and its occupants are scattered over the hill. All 35 people aboard are dead except for stewardess Shelly Kelly, who, riding in the tail, sustained only minor cuts and bruises. So far.
• 3:18 U.S. authorities are notified that IFOR-21 is down, location completely unknown. There will be 11 1/2 hours of confusion before arriving at the scene.
• 4:00 In the Republic of South Africa, news reports say that an attempt has been made on the life of Ron Brown's law partner, Tommy Boggs, by unknown assailants in a staged car accident in Capetown. Later, Boggs will refuse to discuss it.
• Later that afternoon, Niko Jerkuic goes home to collect his reward. It is to come three days later: a bullet through the chest, just shortly before he is scheduled to be grilled by the U.S. Air Force accident investigation team. A hit squad wraps his hand around the gun and departs. Like many of the White-water dead, Jerkuic is immediately labelled a suicide even though there's no evidence. A chest wound is a rather rare cause. The quick official reason given for bachelor Jerkuic's death is despondence over romantic troubles. Neighbors and friends deny this and agree that he was not depressed. Like many of his friends who had survived the years of the Bosnian war, he was excited that life was finally getting better.
• 7:20 Four hours and 20 minutes after the crash the first Croatian Special Forces search party arrives on the scene and finds only Ms. Kelly surviving. They call for a helicopter to evacuate her to the hospital. When it arrives, she is able to get aboard without assistance from the medics. But Kelly never completes the short hop. She dies en route. According to multiple reports given to journalist/editor Joe L. Jordan, an autopsy later reveals a neat three-inch incision over her main femoral artery. It also shows that the incision came at least three hours after all her other cuts and bruises.

Further necropsies will not happen. Clinton has ordered the cremation of all victims. It is hard to perform autopsies on ashes.

Confusion or Coverup?

None of the explanations advanced explain the impossibility of how two experienced pilots, on a 45-minute flight, could follow an NDR beam (accurate to within two feet at the landing point) and crash 1.6 miles off course.
The official Air Force explanation is that the pilots set the compass 10° off course. That is unlikely. Pilots routinely set the compass right before takeoff. If this explanation were correct, they would not have been on course when they passed the first beacon, 11.8 miles from the airport. Furthermore, they were flying on the NDR signal, not the compass.
Another view is that a nasty crosswind "blew" the plane sideways. Not credible: this would require a wind 90° off from the actual wind. Blown off course 1.6 miles?
Most of the press and officialdom have blamed poor visibility to some extent. To do this, they have to take the ferocity of the rainstorm later that afternoon and evening and move it back in time to the crash hour. Records show the weather from 2:54 to 2:58 PM was well within the normal limits for the landing.[3] And NDR beacons never get blown off course.
Pilot fatigue and strain? Not likely on a 45-minute flight.
Equipment malfunction on a rickety old plane? IFOR-21 was the number two plane in the White House fleet: in essence, Air Force Two. It had carried Hillary and Chelsea Clinton and Defense Secretary William Perry just the week before. Everything about the flight was checked out and rehearsed a week in advance.
None of the "official" explanations hold water. All of them ignore the fact that IFOR-21 did not simply stray off the path at the last moment. It went straight as an arrow to its doom the moment it left the Kolocep Island beacon and picked up the Cilipi beacon.
The problem had to be the Cilipi beacon which was shut down at the right moment and a decoy beacon at Sveti Ivan turned on. Couldn't the air traffic controller shed some light on things? Certainly. But now he, too, has "committed suicide!"
The chief investigator for Pratt & Whitney happened to be at the Paris Air Show on April 3. Since Pratt & Whitney always sends an investigator when a plane powered by their engines has a mishap, the man called his boss in America and was to be sent to the site.
As he was packing, however, his boss called back and said, "Don't go. There's not going to be a safety investigation."
The Air Force had, for the first time in its history, canceled the safety investigation of a crash on friendly soil. There would be a token legal investigation to enable the assignment of blame and then they'd go home.

Where are the Black Boxes?

Within hours of the crash, the Croatian Ministry of Transport announced that they had the black boxes. One and half days after the crash, Croatian TV (plus Russian and French TV) announced that the FDR (flight data recorder) and the CVR (cockpit voice recorder) were safely in the hands of U.S. Marines. The U.S. European Command in Stuttgart, Germany, also stated that a black box was on board.
Later, the Pentagon brass stoutly disputed all this, stating that there were no black boxes aboard. It is difficult to imagine that America's #2 VIP plane had no black box. Veteran Air Force mechanics claim that they never have seen a T-43A without a black box.

Why Hit Ron Brown?

Ron Brown was, by all accounts, just a charming fellow working very hard to promote U.S. business. Why would anyone want to kill him? And who would have the resources to do it by bringing down a large White House airplane?
The answer, in brief, is that Ron Brown was going to prison and had threatened to bring Bill Clinton down with him. He was up to his neck in numerous major scandals: Whitewater, the Denver airport mess, Mena, the Keating Five, Lillian Madsen and her Haitian prostitutes, etc.
Twenty-two Congressmen wrote Clinton in February of 1995 demanding that he fire Brown. At the time of his murder, Brown was under investigation by: a special prosecutor in the Justice Department; the FDIC; the Congressional Reform and Oversight Committee; the FBI; the Energy Department; the Senate Judiciary Committee; and even his own Commerce Department Inspector General.
Involved in over a dozen major scandals, Brown was, among other things, Clinton's point man to bring Iranian Muslims and their weaponry into the Bosnia war. That broke the U.S.-endorsed arms embargo. The money for the arms was most likely from Commerce and Agriculture-slush fund money channeled to U.S. manufacturers, thence to U.S. friendly nations and firms overseas, thence to Iran.
The arms included heli-copter gun-ships, stinger missiles,[4] land mines, anti-aircraft guns, anti-tank weapons, grenade launchers, and other quality weaponry.
The last nail in Brown's coffin was pounded four days before the crash. The FBI and the IRS subpoenaed as many as 20 witnesses for a serious new grand jury probe of Brown in Washington.[5] The February 8, 1996 Washington Post reported that Brown had retained top legal gun Reid Weingarten, a former high official in the Justice Department, as his criminal attorney. You don't pay his prices ($750 an hour) unless you know a criminal indictment is coming and you're probably going to jail.
Janet Reno appointed Daniel Pearson as Brown's special prosecutor.[6] When she gave him blanket permission to investigate anything, Brown angrily demanded that Clinton force her to withdraw Pearson. But Reno couldn't do that; she had been backed into a corner by Representative William F. Clinger, Jr., who is chairman of the House Government Reform and Oversight Committee, and who had possession of incriminating documents on Brown.
According to confidants who insist on anonymity, when Clinton indicatedhe couldn't comply, Brown went ballistic. His fatal mistake was telling Clinton that he wasn't going to take the rap. He was going to finger Bill and Hillary instead.
From that point on, Brown was a dead man walking. Like Vincent Foster before him, Brown knew too much. More than any man in Washington, he knew where all the money went for the payoffs, bribes, scams, money laundering, cover-ups, participation fees, hush money and side deals_all the way from one-man operations to vast multinational trade treaty deals.
The phoney suicide fake-out used on Foster could not be repeated, of course. But an airplane "whack" is always viewed as an accident. This was not the rag-tag "Arkansas Mafia" that followed Clinton to Washington. This was the muscle squad of the establishment.
Is it possible that 34 innocent Americans were murdered to silence Commerce Secretary Ron Brown? Was this another in a series of cover-ups spanning 13 years and involving our current President?
This article was excerpted from a letter from Nicholas A. Guarino with confirmation by James W. Nugent, the Publisher of Wall Street Underground. The full report also includes details of the 56 Clinton dead: the unknown and deadly side of the Whitewater Scandal. You can obtain a complete report by contacting the address below and then form your own conclusions. You may also want to review the following video documentaries:

• The Clinton Chronicles (now also in book form)
• The Mena Connection: Drugs, Money Laundering, and the Making of a President
• Obstruction of Justice

These are all available from the producers at (800) 828-2290.

The ValuJet Crash Another Attempted Hit?

Chuck Hays, CIA contract operative, was supposed to be on the ValuJet that crashed in May. He was the one who broke the news that Vince Foster had received $2.73 million from Switzerland just before his death. It was put into a U.S. slush fund bank account that he controlled, but it was designated as a "U.S. Treasury Escrow Account."
After his death, the number of the account was found in his wallet. Hays was a key source to Jim Norman, former senior editor of Forbes, who wrote disclosures in Media Bypass.
Hays's name was on the ValuJet manifest, but he was unable to catch the flight. Lucky.

Remember what the Clintons did to Serbs all for money and power

 

1. To appease the Islamic world for our daily bombing of Iraq. President Clinton wanted to prove to the Muslim world that we really cared and that we were willing to destroy a Christian people to prove it.

 

 

 

2. The Saudis wanted the first Islamic country in the belly of Europe, and Clinton wanted cheap oil and Saudi money. The Saudis had signed a letter of intent to buy $6 billion worth of Boeing aircraft. The day after we bombed the Serbs in 1995 based on the self-inflicted Markale market place massacre by Bosnian Muslim forces, the Saudis signed on the dotted line. A coincidence? I don't think so. This is what Yossef Bodansky, author of "Bin Laden: The Man Who Declared War on America," had to say in his 1995 book, "Offensive in the Balkans:"

 

 

 

- "Phase Three started with the self-inflicted major terrorist provocation. On Friday 5, 1994, a major explosion rocked the Markale -- Sarajevo's main market place -- causing heavy casualties. What was immediately described as the ubiquitous "Serb mortar shell" was actually a special charge designed and built with help from HizbAllah experts and then most likely dropped from a nearby rooftop onto the crowd of shoppers. Video cameras at the ready recorded this expertly-staged spectacle of gore, while dozens of corpses of Bosnian Muslim troops killed in action (exchanged the day before in a 'body swap' with the Serbs) were paraded in front of cameras to raise the casualty count.

 

 

 

- "This callous self-killing was designed to shock the West especially sentimental and gullible Washington, in order to raise the level of Western sympathy to the Bosnian Muslims and further demonize the Serbs so that Western governments would be more supportive of Sarajevo's forthcoming aggressive moves, and perhaps even finally intervene military."

 

 

 

There were other reports from European newspapers such as The [London] Sunday Times," with headlines that read, "Serbs 'not guilty' of massacre, Experts warned US that mortar was Bosnian" (1 Oct. 1995), and "US Framed Serbs for Market Bombing," from the Stoneyhill Center, a British think tank (Oct 1995). No such headlines appeared in US national newspapers.

 

 

 

3. Clinton needed a new mission for NATO. The Soviet Union had collapsed and if you recall, the NATO Treaty was a collective security agreement between member nations that if one NATO nation were attacked by the Soviet Union (CCCP), other NATO members would go to its defense. In violation of International law, the NATO Treaty, the UN Charter and without the approval of Congress, Clinton and his administration, along with Serb-hating Madeline Albright, Wesley Clark, Richard Holbrooke and the rest of the Clinton gang, bombed tiny Yugoslavia that did not attack us or any NATO nation, was never a threat to us, nor did it have weapons of mass destruction.

 

 

 

One graphic example of Madeleine Albright's animosity towards the Serbs was the time she was entering the United Nations building as US ambassador and a Serb called out and asked why she was doing these terrible things to the Serbs. She answered, "Because they deserve it!" A more humorous account regarding Ms. Albright is the story of how the war in the Balkans really began. During a meeting of Madeleine Albright with the all-male NATO ministers, she asked the question, "Well gentleman, do we make love or do we make war?" Of course, the answer was unanimously for war.

 

 

 

4. Clinton couldn't let this pip-squeak of a nation defy The New World Order.

 

 

 

5. Our wag-the-dog president had to have a diversion from his affair in the Oval Office with a woman young enough to be his daughter.

 

 

 

6. Clinton also needed a war to prove he was a wartime president in the mold of FDR in order to put to rest his draft-dodging days and his contempt for the US military. The propaganda against the Serbian people has not been equalled since Hitler's Minister of Propaganda, Joseph Goebbels, said, "If you tell a big enough lie and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it." In civil wars all sides do terrible things, but in this war all blame fell on the Serbs. President Clinton was (and continues to be) the biggest con artist this nation has ever seen and it is unfortunate that the American people believed every word uttered by him regarding the events in the Balkans even though over 75% of the American people believed him to be a liar. The fate of the Serbs from Bosnia to Kosovo was sealed.

 

 

 

It is a sad reflection on all Americans what William Jefferson Clinton did to the Serbian people in our name. Sadder still is the realization that if he were able to run for president again he might very well be elected.

Oral Roberts University Case Another Threat to Religious Schools


The effort of a former student at Tulsa, Oklahoma’s Oral Roberts University (ORU) demonstrates the continuing threat to a religious-based institution's ability to carry out the mission for which the school was founded. In the case of ORU, and the multitude of evangelical Christian colleges and universities across the nation, the secular progressives clearly want to force them to at least water down that mission, if they cannot get them to simply vanish.
Shane Windmeyer, executive director of Campus Pride, a pro-LGBT organization, was blunt. “Taxpayers should definitely not have to pay for a private college to openly discriminate against anyone.”
Sabrina McGhie was a student at ORU who entered into a same-sex "marriage" relationship with Ophelia Bradford and changed her name to Sabrina Bradford. But when McGhie first entered ORU in 2011, she signed — like all other ORU students — a Code of Honor Pledge. By signing, McGhie promised to refrain from “unscriptural sexual acts,” which were defined to include same-sex marriage.




McGhie’s received a marriage license in Tulsa County in January 2015 — to marry another woman, in apparent violation of the code. ORU was apparently unaware of the same-sex marriage relationship until after she accepted a job offer from the Oklahoma Department of Human Services. When ORU became aware of the situation, they refused to allow her to enroll for the fall semester 2015.
Alyssa Bryant, attorney for Sabrina Bradford, is not sure whether Bradford will sue ORU. Bradford told the Tulsa World that the gender of her partner should not matter, regardless of the provisions of the honor code, arguing it made no sense. “You shouldn’t be persecuted for being married to someone that you love,” Bradford contended.
Bryant said she believes the school could be in violation of the federal statute known as Title IX, which prohibits sex-based discrimination in education. Title IX states, “No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving federal financial assistance.”
But there are three types of religious institutions that can apply for an exemption from the provisions of Title IX, under criteria used by the Office of Civil Rights of the U.S. Department of Education. One is a “ministerial exemption,” in which the institution trains ministers and other members of the clergy. This is based on the First Amendment’s protections of freedom of religion, which limits the degree to which government can interfere with such core church functions, such as hiring (or educating) personnel considered integral to the practice of the religion.
A second exemption is an institution that requires its faculty, student, or other staff to belong to the religion by which it claims to be controlled. A third exemption is that the institution is controlled by a religious organization, or is an organization that is committed to the doctrines of a particular religion, and that members of its controlling body are appointed by the controlling religious organization, and that it receives a significant amount of financial support from the controlling organization.
While this specific ORU case has to do with a woman who has entered into a same-sex “marriage” relationship, religious institutions of higher education are also contending with the latest challenge to their beliefs: transgenderism. Nearly three dozen religious institutions have asked the federal government for an exemption from laws that protect “transgender” students, under the interpretation that “discrimination” against a man who “self-identifies” as a woman, or vice-versa, is a violation of the Title IX prohibition of discrimination on the basis of sex.
In 2014, the U.S. Department of Education issued guidelines specifically protecting “transgender” students under Title IX. Under these orders, schools are to respect the student’s gender identity. So if a biological male who self-identifies as a female wishes to join a girls-only class, he can do so. If a biological male wishes to use the women’s restroom, he should not be denied. The memo states that all such students must be treated with their “gender identity in all aspects of the planning, implementation, enrollment, operation, and evaluation of single-sex classes.”
Many administrators at Christian institutions are concerned that pressure will be brought for them to house legally married same-sex couples, as a result of the Supreme Court case in 2015, which declared “same-sex marriage” legal in all 50 states.
At George Fox University, a Quaker school, a transgender student's request to move from female housing to male housing was denied. The student, who was offered a single apartment on campus, filed a complaint with the Office of Civil Rights at the federal Department of Education, but the case was dismissed as the college already had an exemption, allowing it to follow its own guidelines having to do with transgender students, based on its religious mission. Biola University, located in California, issued a new ban on transgender students. “In employment and in student life, we regard sex at birth as the identification of the given biological sex of each member of our constituency. We will not accept as valid alterations of one’s sex at birth based on experiential variation or medical intervention.”
Biola explained their stance as based on the fact that “Jesus Christ himself affirmed this in his teaching correcting abuses of divorce stating at the beginning the Creator made them male and female.”
Biola’s waiver request is still pending.
Several schools, such as Anderson University in South Carolina, associated with the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC), have adopted similar language, contending that certain provisions of Title IX would not be consistent with the SBC’s “religious tenets regarding marriage, sex outside of marriage, sexual orientation, gender identity, pregnancy, and abortion.”
Southern Baptists have contended with this issue for a long time. When “sex change” operations were performed in the 1970s at Baptist Hospital in Oklahoma City, that state’s Baptist organization called for a halt, eventually selling the hospital to Integris.
Jim Davids, a law professor at Regent University (formerly the ORU law school, before it moved to Virginia), explained that the threat against distinctly Christian institutions is very real. He gave an example of “a young man who thought he was a woman” who sued California Baptist University, “when the school dismissed him for lying on his admission application that he was female.”
What has caused this explosion of cases? Shapri LoMaglio, vice president for government and external relations at the Council for Christian Colleges and Universities (CCCU), blamed the infamous Supreme Court decision which declared same-sex marriage as legal. LoMaglio said it has caused “a sea change” for housing issues at Christian colleges.
Another cause for the assault on traditional standards is the use by the Left of the word “discrimination.” In a larger sense, “discrimination” is value-neutral. At its core, the word simply means to choose one thing over another. For example, a man chooses one woman over all others to be his wife, and she chooses him over all other men to be her husband. But because the word has been associated with something irrational, rather than rational — such as racial discrimination — it can now be used as a weapon against long-held Christian beliefs. Thus, if a Christian college holds that sex outside of a heterosexual marriage is sin, they can be charged with “discrimination” by those who believe otherwise. Immediately, probably a majority of the public, conditioned to react negatively to the word discrimination like Pavlov’s dogs, react accordingly. But just because something is discriminatory does not mean it is bad. One would hope that one who is married would discriminate against all others except their spouse. Actually, that is what couples vow to do on their wedding day — discriminate in favor of their spouse against all others.
It is quite clear that many who hold contrary views on these matters from Christian colleges, like ORU, are not content to simply live and let live. They want to impose their view upon all of society, including Christian colleges and universities. It is not as if those who have different views from evangelical and Catholic institutions have no other colleges to go to.
We do not have to guess how these social radicals intend to force submission to students who openly live in homosexual lifestyles or claim to be a different gender than their biological status. They want to dry up the funding for these Christian schools.
Paul Southwick, a lawyer who has represented students expelled for practicing deviant lifestyles, told The Column. “The trend of religiously affiliated, but publicly financed, colleges receiving exemptions from the U.S. Department of Education in order to discriminate against LGBTQ students and employees is disturbing. While we are seeing increased protections for transgender, intersex and LGB students through Title IX, we are also seeing the protections of Title IX gutted at the very institutions where students need those protections the most.”
In other words, Christian colleges are in the crosshairs for their opposition to accepting the homosexual or transgender lifestyle. And the weapon to be used against them is money, stripping them of the ability to receive tuition from their students who attend their schools by obtaining federal grants. Shane Windmeyer of Campus Pride explicitly called for an end to public funds being used by students at private Christian schools who “discriminate” against LGBTQ students.
He decried the nearly $130 million in annual taxpayer funds that go to Christian colleges and universities. “If a college receives public funding, it should have to follow public laws. The government should be perfectly within its rights to make taxpayer funded aid to these colleges contingent on compliance with generally applicable nondiscrimination laws. If a college wished to continue discriminating against LGBTQ students and employees, it could do so on its own dime.”
This should provide a cautionary flag for those who favor government vouchers for education below the college level. Private secondary and elementary schools would surely be the next targeted, if they received vouchers.
Southwick suggested other ways to intimidate colleges and universities into compliance, including filing a complaint with accreditation institutions. While in the abstract, accreditation seems like a reasonable way to validate college diplomas (to keep down fraudulent degree mills, for example), the brutal truth is that liberals have used accreditation as yet another way to advance their liberal agenda. For example, colleges and universities are often bullied into hiring fewer white males so as to secure accreditation. Maybe they are not that blunt, but they are reprimanded for failing to practice “diversity.”
And the Christian colleges and universities live under the cloud that these radicals will eventually find a leftist federal judge somewhere who will simply decide the religious exemptions of Title IX are supposedly unconstitutional.

Kansas Defies Obama on Syrian Refugees


Led by Governor Sam Brownback (shown), the state of Kansas informed the Obama administration this week that it is defying its dictates for Kansas to cooperate in the resettlement of refugees from Syria. In a letter to Robert Carey, director of the Office of Refugee Resettlement, Brownback wrote, “The State of Kansas hereby withdraws its Refugee Resettlement Program State Plan and terminates its participation in all federal refugee resettlement grants and programs, effective at the earliest possible date.”
Brownback added that he was taking his action to “protect the safety and security interests of the State of Kansas.”
Beginning in November 2015, Brownback attempted to work with the federal government to address security concerns related to resettlement of some refugees in Kansas. “We made a reasonable request of the Obama Administration to provide us with information we need to help protect the safety and security of Kansas,” Brownback said. “Because the federal government has failed to provide adequate assurances regarding refugees it is settling in Kansas, we have no option but to end our cooperation with and participation in the federal resettlement program.”


Brownback and several other governors asked the White House in November of last year to share vetting information as President Obama pledged to take in 10,000 Syrian refugees. The administration refused to do so, citing the privacy rights of the refugees!
More than 30 states have expressed some resistance to the plan of importing Syrian refugees, mostly for security concerns. At least two of the Paris terrorists made their way into Europe, claiming to be “refugees” from Syria, which is in the midst of a civil war. The two terrorists entered Greece posing as Syrian refugees in September, made their way to France, where they joined in the preparation, arming, and execution of a massive terrorist attack three months later. A Syrian informant has revealed that over 4,000 ISIS fighters have already been smuggled into Western nations, hiding among “innocent refugees.”
Jeh Johnson, secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), has admitted, “We don’t know a whole lot” about Syrian refugees now entering America, and that DHS lacks an “active protocol” for properly screening them.
While the 1980 Refugee Act, passed at the urging of President Jimmy Carter, handed over to the federal government great powers in the importation of refugees, the states are considered an essential element in the settlement process. If the states simply refuse to cooperate, it is unlikely that many, if any refugees are likely to be moved to uncooperative states.
Obama is demanding that the states “step up” and do their part in the resettlement of the refugees from Syria.
Maryland Governor Larry Hogan, a Republican, “seeks to halt” resettlement in his state. Democrat Governor Steve Bullock of Montana insists that refugees requesting settlement in Montana will be denied if there are safety concerns. Governor Matt Mead of Wyoming, a Republican, rejects a “lackluster system that allows terrorists to slip through the cracks.”
After Texas Governor Greg Abbott, a Republican, said his state will not accept any Syrian refugees, Robert Carey, director of the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) responded, “States may not deny ORR-funded benefits and services to refugees based on a refugee’s country of origin or religious affiliation. Accordingly, states may not categorically deny ORR-funded benefits and services to Syrian refugees." He added that states that persist in their refusal are violating the law and “could be subject to enforcement action.”
Texas, like Kansas, was defiant. “The Health and Human Services Commission [of Texas] will continue to follow the directive of Gov. Abbott, which calls for the State of Texas to not participate in the resettlement of Syrian refugees,” responded a spokesman for the commission, Bryan Black.
It is not like Texas has not already admitted refugees in the past. More than 200 Syrian refugees had been resettled in Texas by the end of last August. Overall, 70,000 refugees from 78 countries are living in Houston alone!
Brownback initially attempted to cooperate with the Obama administration, asking more than once for Homeland Security to provide documentation and files on individual refugees, but the Obama administration flatly refused to comply. Brownback explained why he has decided to cease any cooperation with Obama’s plans. “As governor, my priority has been and will continue to be the safety and security of Kansans. Kansas remains a state that has always been welcoming to refugees, but we must take prudent and responsible actions to protect our communities.”
In February, Brownback issued an executive order, directing state agencies to use the official list of the U.S. Department of State of countries identified as state sponsors of terrorism in identifying whether a particular refugee should be deemed to present a safety and security risk. Those nations are Iran, Sudan, and Syria.
The executive order noted “federal charges” were filed in Texas and California against terrorist operatives that entered the United States as refugees, and that such admission of some refugees into Kansas “presents an unacceptable risk to the safety and security of the State of Kansas, and thus State government must take action to ensure that it does not assist in the relocation of such refugees to Kansas from anywhere in the world.”
Because of such concerns, Brownback's order states, “No department, commission, board, or agency of the government of the State of Kansas shall aid, cooperate with, or assist in any way the relocation of refugees that present a safety and security risk to the State of Kansas, until such time as an adequate vetting process is in place with adequate assurances to the State.”
Brownback explained why he had to resort to defiance. “The State of Kansas has specifically requested, from multiple agencies and levels of the federal government, access to all documentation and files concerning any individual refugee relocated or proposed to be relocated from Syria to Kansas. There has been no response to these requests, which were made directly to the White House, the Department of State, the Department of Homeland Security, and the Office of Refugee Resettlement.”
Brownback made public a letter he had received from Secretary of State John F. Kerry, assuring the Kansas governor that refugees are undergoing a “rigorous security vetting process,” which is “extraordinarily thorough and comprehensive.” According to Kerry, the process is “the most robust screening process for any category of individuals seeking admission into the United States,” and is “multi-layered and intensive.”
In an attempt to persuade Brownback to accept refugees, he cited “the new government of our neighbor to the north, Canada,” which has pledged to accept 25,000 Syrian refugees in 2016. Of course, the new Trudeau government is known as a very liberal one, much like the one in that Kerry serves. Kerry told Brownback that the “at least 10,000" the Obama administration intends to bring in “this fiscal year” is a “modest commitment.”
And according to Kerry, “The overwhelming majority of Syrian refugees we have accepted and will accept are families, victims of torture, and children.” Whenever they are challenged, liberals often pull out the “children” card, as in “it’s for the children.” Any adult males admitted, Kerry reassured Brownback, will be “especially vulnerable individuals,” such as lesbians, gays, bisexuals, and transgendered individuals. It is supposed to reassure Brownback — Syrian men who think they are women will now be making their way into women’s restrooms?
Kerry then explained the vetting process. First, the refugee candidates are “interviewed by the United Nations High Commission for Refugees; second, a refugee applicant is referred by the UN to the U.S. “along with a packet of information.” Then, the State Department takes over, and they interview the candidate again, providing the U.S. government a “very useful tool for gathering information.” Third, the refugee applicants are then referred to the United States Citizen and Immigration Services (USCIS), where they are subjected to “rigorous status interviews.” The USCIS collects biometric information, including fingerprints for all refugees over the age of 14, or under 79 years of age.
“The burden of proof is on the applicant,” Kerry told Brownback.
Kerry concluded his letter by telling Brownback, “We have tremendous faith in this system’s ability to detect, investigate, and disrupt terrorist plotting in this country, as it has done repeatedly. With these measures in place, we believe that we are able to both protect the American people and maintain this Nation’s long standing position as the world’s beacon of hope and freedom.”
Once the refugees pass this supposedly “rigorous” series of fingerprinting and multiple interviews, Robert Carey of ORR has warned “states may not categorically deny ORR-funded benefits and services to Syrian refugees.” He cited the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination on the bases of race and national origin in all programs and activities that receive federal financial assistance. “Thus it is not permissible to deny federally funded benefits such as Medicaid or TANF to refugees who otherwise meet the eligibility requirements.” So, the refugees will quickly become recipients of the vast cornucopia of government benefits paid for by American taxpayers. According to Carey, this is “vital to achieving their potential in the United States and becoming self-sufficient, integrated members of our communities.” And, no doubt, eventually good voting Democrats?
Despite these soothing words that Brownback had nothing to worry about from these Syrian refugees, and if he did not submit there could be “enforcement action,” the Kansas governor persisted in his demand for information on individual refugees being placed in the Sunflower State.
Writing to Denis McDonough, Obama’s chief of staff, on December 31, 2015, Brownback said, “Accordingly, I hereby request on behalf of the State of Kansas a copy of all such documentation and files concerning any individual refugee relocated or proposed to be relocated from Syria to Kansas since November 16, 2015. The state is prepared to enter into an appropriate agreement to maintain the confidentiality and security of these documents.” He sent a nearly identical request to Secretary Kerry on the same day, but both letters were to no avail.
A letter from the State Department again told Brownback that “individual refugee records are considered confidential.”
Finally, on February 24 of this year, Sandra Kimmons of the Kansas Department for Children and Families informed one Syrian refugee that his application for refugee cash assistance had been denied, “as the [Brownback] Administration has requested from multiple agencies of the federal government, access to all documentation and files on any refugees relocated to Kansas from countries listed on the United States Department of State official list of countries determined to be state sponsors of terrorism.”
This precipitated a response from the Administration for Children and Families that Kansas had committed “two apparent violations of federal law.” The letter added that Kansas was not permitted to condition a refugee’s receipt of cash assistance simply because the U.S. government would not provide the information Brownback was demanding. The letter then concluded with the threat that Kansas may have “violated federal civil rights statutes.”
Brownback then made another attempt on March 22 to obtain the information he had previously requested, which he considered “necessary to assure the safety and security of Kansans in connection with refugee resettlement.”
When the federal government followed that up with more threats and denials of the information Brownback desired, the governor wrote to Carey (the director of the Office of Refugee Resettlement), “The State of Kansas hereby withdraws its Refugee Resettlement Program State Plan and terminates its participation in all federal refugee resettlement grants and programs.... As we have informed you previously, this action is being taken to protect the safety and security interests of the State of Kansas.”
Brownback expressed his exasperation at the federal government’s refusal to provide the requested information. “We have been reasonable and incredibly patient in attempting to work with the federal government on this issue. As governor, I must have confidence that the refugee relocation program, and particularly the vetting process, is sufficient to protect our citizens. If I have to choose between the safety and security of Kansans and the relocation of refugees, I will take action to protect Kansans.”
Hopefully, other governors will take the same position as taken by Governor Brownback of Kansas

Bathroom Crisis In America: The National Debate Over Gender-Neutral Bathrooms Goes Viral


Should public facilities continue to offer separate bathrooms for men and women?  In 2016, this has become a political “hot potato” that is causing emotions to run high on both sides of the debate.  Many liberals consider the push for gender-neutral bathrooms to be on the cutting edge of the civil rights movement in the United States.  Meanwhile, many conservatives consider separate bathrooms for men and women to be a matter of basic moral decency.  What both sides of the debate can agree on is that this is an issue that is not going away any time soon.  Gender-neutral bathrooms are popping up in public places all over America, and the Obama administration has even installed one in the White House.  Unfortunately, these gender-neutral bathrooms can have some very serious unintended consequences as you will see below.
U.S. colleges and universities are at the center of this debate.  All over the country student groups are pushing for gender-neutral restrooms, and many institutions of higher learning are now starting to implement them.  The following comes from an editorial in the Harvard Crimson that addresses the transition that is now taking place at that university…

The need for gender-neutral restrooms is profound, and their expansion is long overdue. Gender-neutral restrooms are critical for the safety and well-being of BGLTQ students, and it is vital that they are installed more widely throughout campus. While it is commendable that some of the Houses have started to implement gender-neutral restrooms, single-gender bathrooms are the majority, especially in residential buildings. The process by which students can petition for gender-neutral restrooms in their dorms remains inconsistent and opaque. Additionally, very few gender-neutral restrooms exist in academic buildings.

Of course other institutions of higher learning are far ahead of Harvard in this regard.  In fact, there is one university in New York City that only has gender-neutral restrooms at this point…

The Cooper Union, a small but prestigious art and engineering university in New York City, has taken the bold step of making every single bathroom on campus gender-neutral.
Instead of being classified as “men’s,” “women’s,” or single-occupancy restrooms, all facilities at the Cooper Union will carry descriptive signs describing exactly what lies within. Former men’s rooms, for instance, are now described as “urinals and stalls,” while former women’s rooms now carry the label “stalls only.” Regardless of their type, all bathrooms will be open to whomever wants to use them. According to Inside Higher Education, Cooper Union appears to be the first college in the country to entirely de-gender all of its bathroom facilities.

Unfortunately, when men and women start using the same bathrooms, really bad stuff can happen.
This is something that the University of Toronto found out the hard way…

The administration at the University of Toronto was recently enlightened on why two separate washrooms are generally established for men and women sharing co-ed residencies.
The University is temporarily changing its policy on gender-neutral bathrooms after two separate incidents of “voyeurism” were reported on campus September 15 and 19. Male students within the University’s Whitney Hall student residence were caught holding their cellphones over female students’ shower stalls and filming them as they showered.

Anyone with half a brain could have figured this out.
If you allow young men into areas where young women are exposing themselves, some of those young men are going to try to look.  We are a nation of voyeurs, and our young men have been trained by thousands of hours of television and movies to think of women as sex objects.
As I wrote about yesterday, it has been estimated that 68 percent of all Christian men watch pornography on a regular basis.  Considering what our men are doing behind closed doors, do you really want them around when women are trying to shower or use the toilet?
I don’t mean to be crude, but this is the reality of the situation.
Sadly, the University of Toronto doesn’t seem to get the message.  The rule change at that one residence hall is only “temporary”, and no changes have been made to the rules at other residence halls…

The University concluded that while the changes were made in the specific residence hall of the voyeurism incidents, “there has been no change to the designation of gender-neutral washrooms in the other University College Residences or elsewhere on campus as a result of these incidents.”

I suppose that it is “politically incorrect” to think that there will be problems if young men and young women are using the same restrooms.  The officials are the University of Toronto clearly believe in what they are doing, and they don’t plan to reverse course now.
But I would suggest that it is quite naive to put men and women in the same public bathrooms and just assume that everything will work out just fine somehow.
And we have seen problems start to happen in non-academic settings as well.  Just consider what recently happened at a public swimming pool in the Seattle area…

A man claimed a right to use a women’s locker room at a public swimming pool after his partial undressing there caused alarm.
According to Seattle Parks and Recreation, women alerted staff at Evans Pool staff when a man wearing swim trunks entered the women’s locker room and took off his shirt.
When staff told him to leave, the man reportedly said “the law has changed and I have a right to be here.”

Ultimately the man was not arrested, and he later returned to the women’s locker room while young girls were changing…

No one was arrested in this case and police weren’t called, even though the man returned a second time while young girls were changing for swim practice.

What is going to stop other sickos like this from putting on a dress and demanding that they have every right to sit there and watch women change at public swimming pools all across the nation?
In the end, the only thing that will stop it is if laws are passed, but that is not going to be as easy as you may think.  In fact, the state of North Carolina has created a massive national controversy because of the law that was just passed there…

In the face of travel bans from at least five states, 10 cities and two counties, North Carolina’s governor issued an executive order Tuesday that he said restores some protections to gays in the state.
Gov. Pat McCrory’s order, signed in the state capital of Raleigh, does not change North Carolina’s controversial law, which he signed March 24 and became effective immediately. It prohibits counties and municipalities from passing anti-discrimination ordinances and requires transgender people to use public bathrooms and locker rooms that match their gender at birth

Why are blacks jumping off democrat plantation and into arms Trump?

A black Atlanta woman supporting Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump explained in a video that she can’t believe she ever supported the Democratic Party, and threatened to divorce her husband if he didn’t vote Trump for president.

“Trump gives me real hope and change, not fake hope and change,” the woman, a self-described Democrat, starts off saying in a rant posted to YouTube.

“I never thought I’d be saying these words about the country,” she continued. “Democrats don’t speak about the country but I’ve woken up, I’ve seen the truth and the truth is Trump, I believe in this guy to make our country better because our country is going to hell!”

“My daughter can’t find a job, she’s a college graduate. Black men are 50 percent unemployed. Our borders are wide open. I love everybody don’t get me wrong, but we have to close our borders,” the woman said.

Hardaway and Richardson basically said that they support him because they want America to be "great" again, and that they support his plan to stop immigration by building giant wall at the border because they feel immigration is a major problem. They have continued to tout the virtues of The Donald as a presidential candidate whenever they get a chance.

40% of black voters and 45% of Hispanic voters support Donald Trump

 

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/sisterthundershow/2016/02/05/why-are-blacks-jumping-off-democrat-plantation-and-into-arms-trump

DEAR CHRISTIAN WE NEED YOUR HELP

 

Create a Safe Haven a No FLY ZONE for Christians  Between the Two Rivers - referring to the Tigris and the Euphrates.  Where The Female Protection Forces .  

While the all-female unit currently focuses most on defending the Christian parts of Syria's northeastern Hasakeh Province, Thabirta Samir, 24, says the women know they will be facing ISIS at some time in the future.

“I’m not afraid of Daesh (ISIS), and we will be present in the coming battles against the terrorists,” said Samir, who is partially in charge of training. She previously worked for a Syriac cultural association

 

https://youtu.be/pjCeCyKReRg