VICTORY: The U.S. House of Representatives unanimously approved an amendment calling for the establishment of in-region safe zones for refugees fleeing ISIS.

There's much work left to be done, but this victory is a step in the right direction.

U.S. House of Representatives approved Amendment #289 by Rep. Jeff Fortenberry (R-NE). This amendment calls for the establishment of refugee safe zones, and accurately describes their creation as “a critical component of a safe, secure, and sovereign Iraq.”

 

Not only did the U.S. House approve this important policy recommendation, but it did so by voice vote and without objection. This strong bipartisan support – led by Rep. Fortenberry and Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-CA) gives the language strong momentum as the larger measure heads to the U.S. Senate for consideration.

 

PLEASE CALL THEM AND SAY: 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 .

 

 

Rep. Fortenberry

Washington, DC Office

p (202) 225-4806

 

Fremont Office

p (402) 727-0888

 

Lincoln, NE 68508

p (402) 438-1598

 

Norfolk Office

p (402) 379-2064

 

Rep. Anna Eshoo

Washington, DC Office

Phone: (202) 225-8104

 

Palo Alto, CA Office

Phone: (650) 323-2984

 Phone: (408) 245-2339

 Phone: (831) 335-2020

 

Senator Tom cotton

Springdale Office

Phone: (479) 751-0879

 

WASHINGTON, D.C. OFFICE

Phone: (202) 224-2353

 

https://youtu.be/pjCeCyKReRg

 

Jihad on Christian Church Tents

• After waiting 44 years, the Christians of Nag Shenouda were issued the necessary permits to build a church. Because of this, local Muslims rioted and burned down their church tent they had been using. Then, when a Christian allowed some of the congregation to use his home, a Muslim mob attacked it.
• Sometimes when the mob does not torch the church tents, the authorities do it themselves: Egyptian police destroyed the tent structure of St. Joseph Church under the pretext that it was built without a license.
• In Indonesia in 2012, the St. Johannes Baptista church tent was sealed off by authorities. The congregation had been using it since 2006 as a temporary location, as they had not received a church permit since they applied in 2000.
• In Pakistan, Muslim students sprayed bullets on Christian homes, shouted, "Convert to Islam or leave this neighborhood," and sexually harassed Christian girls as they left after services.

A Christian church in Egypt was just torched to the ground at the hands of "extremists" on May 12. A video shows the structure burning as Christians scurry to throw pails of water on it.
The church consisted of a large tent that had been consecrated and contained all the material of a "normal" church — an altar, icons, and crosses — and was led by Fr. Jonathan Adel. The Christians of the region had been meeting there for all regular church services, functions, and celebrations, and authorities had agreed to its existence and use as a church.
A statement condemning this attack, written by Bishop Macarious, closed with: "May God protect the Church, and preserve Egypt and Egyptians from all adversity."

The church tent in Egypt that belonged to the congregation of Christian priest Fr. Jonathan Adel is pictured as it burns on May 12, 2016.

Why were these Christians meeting in a large "church tent" in the first place? Because the church they had built in 2009 was sealed off by authorities after local Muslims protested and rioted.
The Virgin Mary Church is not the first congregation in Egypt to be denied a church building, forced to worship in a tent, often to be attacked again.
According to a 2010 report, "Since March 16, 2010, after the demolition of the old church [as in Minya], the Bishop and the congregation have been celebrating mass in a linen tent erected on the courtyard where the new church is planned, under the summer heat exceeding 113 degrees Fahrenheit."
After waiting 44 years, the Christians of Nag Shenouda were issued the necessary permits to build a church. Because of this, local Muslims rioted and burned down the church tent they had been using. Then, when a Christian allowed some of the congregation to use his home, a Muslim mob attacked it. Denied a place to worship, the determined Christians of Nag Shenouda celebrated Easter 2015 in the middle of the street.
Sometimes when the mob does not torch the church tents, the authorities do it themselves: Egyptian police destroyed the tent structure of St. Joseph Church, in another village in Minya, under the pretext that it was built without a license.
As usual, this chain of events — Christian minorities having their churches closed and being forced to meet in tents, only to be persecuted again by police or mobs — are not "aberrations" limited to the experiences of Egypt's Christians but occur across the world, wherever Christians live under Muslim rule:
Kenya (November, 2015): After rioting Muslims burned down two church buildings, the congregations were forced to erect church tents, some of which were flooded by strong rains, which carried away five people.
Indonesia (January 2015): Authorities in the Sharia-governed province of Aceh began to remove tents built by Christians for worship after their churches were torn down by authorities responding to Muslim violence against churches that left one dead and thousands Christians displaced. At least two church tents were torn down. Earlier, in 2012, the St. Johannes Baptista church tent was sealed off by authorities. The congregation had been using it since 2006 as a temporary location, as they had not received a church permit since they applied in 2000.
Sudan (June 2014): After authorities in North Khartoum demolished another church building that had stood since 1983, the pastor said "We will have to pray in a makeshift tent [along the road] next Sunday."
Pakistan (September 2012): Soon after a madrassa (Islamic school) was opened near where churchless Christians held their tent services, Muslim students began harassing the Christians. They shot bullets at their homes, shouted, "convert to Islam or leave this neighborhood," and sexually harassed Christian girls as they left after services.

Iran's Soft War Against America

• Iran's sophisticated employment of asymmetrical tactics such as "soft war" -- which relies on the other side's wishes, conscious or not, to be taken in -- is apparently part of Tehran's strategy to level the playing field against the U.S., despite America's overwhelming military superiority.
• Iran is now being treated by most of the world as a normal nation-state rather than the revolutionary, terror-supporting, totalitarian regime that in reality it is.

Iran is waging a "soft war" offensive -- media, social media, charm -- against the United States. Tehran believes it is scoring significant victories in this war, and it clearly has, as can be seen by the so-called "Iran deal" -- technically no "deal" at all: one side, Iran, got everything.
Iran's sophisticated employment of asymmetrical tactics, such as "soft war" -- which relies on the other side's wishes, conscious or not, to be taken in -- is apparently part of Tehran's strategy to level the playing field against the U.S., despite America's overwhelming military superiority.
Tehran seems to think, with justification, that it has successfully exploited the Obama administration's uncorseted desire for better bilateral relations into granting Iran concessions that are not part of the original Joint Comprehensive Program of Action (JCPOA).
One of these concessions is granting Iran access to the U.S financial system; U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry spent last week trawling through Europe, imploring bankers to do business with Iran, despite that minor detail that America will not.
Another concession is the U.S. offer to buy Iran's heavy water, a product of its planned plutonium bomb-making reactor in Arak.
Still another concession is the U.S. administration's failure to increase sanctions on Iran for repeatedly launching potentially nuclear-capable ballistic missiles -- in violation of UN Security Council Resolution 2231.
The Iranian regime may well attribute these American concessions to its employment of the "jang-e-narm" (soft war) tactic of "smile diplomacy": the media-friendly demeanor of President Hassan Rouhani and Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif.

The Iranian regime may well attribute recent American concessions to its employment of the soft war tactic of "smile diplomacy": the media-friendly demeanor of President Hassan Rouhani and Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif. Pictured: U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry shakes hands with Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif during talks in Vienna, Austria, July 14, 2014. (Image source: U.S. State Department)

Not surprisingly, those are the same tactics that Iran is accusing Washington of using against Iran. Iran has been alleging that the U.S. has been waging soft war attacks against it, via Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter, supposedly -- according to Iran -- to develop sympathies within Iran's elites for Western culture, policies, and ideals. Presumably the next concession is that the U.S. be quiet and let Iran keep expanding as far as it likes. The other day, Iran threatened to block the transport of oil by closing the Strait of Hormuz at the mouth of the Persian Gulf.
This is the problem: Iran is now being treated by most of the world as a normal nation-state rather than the revolutionary, terror-supporting, totalitarian regime that in reality it is.
Iran also is using this narrative of an American-led soft war against Iran to institute tighter controls on Iranian citizens. Iran recently dispatched Basij paramilitary teams to elementary schools to instill revolutionary Islamic values in the students. Iran has also established "Atlas," a new, government-controlled press agency modeled upon Qatar's Al-Jazeera network. Iranian authorities most likely hope that this news service will counteract any untoward thoughts of liberalization that the "Arab Spring" might have conjured up to question the regime's "stability."[1] Iran has also stepped up internet censorship as well as efforts by the government's plainclothes police to sever contacts between Western NGO personnel and Iran's civil society activists.
Evidence of how seriously Iran views the potential of America's supposed soft war tactics was its establishing a National Data Center to filter messages coming into Iran from Western media, in addition to Tehran's sponsorship of its first National Forum on Soft War, in the autumn of 2015.
Meanwhile, pursuing both its hard war and soft war offensives, Iran continues to trumpet its ability to produce new weapons systems, including novel and illegal ballistic missiles.
The regime also boasts about its acquisition of weapons from outside the country, such as Russia's S-300 air defense system.
Not surprisingly, this soft war saber-rattling by Shi'ite Iran has been increasing the security concerns of its neighboring Sunni Arab States. These concerns, in turn, cause the Gulf countries and others to demand that their American ally demonstrate that it is serious about halting Iranian expansion in the region. Recent visits to the Sunni states by high-level American political leaders (President Obama), ranking diplomats (Secretary of State John Kerry), and senior military figures (Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Dunford) have sought to allay these fears; it is still not clear with what.
Meanwhile, Iran's aggressive involvement in Syria, Yemen, and Iraq is clearly creating the impression among Gulf states and others that regional leadership is passing from Sunni Saudi Arabia onto a toxic Shi'ite Iran.

Dr. Lawrence A. Franklin was the Iran Desk Officer for Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld. He also served on active duty with the U.S. Army and as a Colonel in the Air Force Reserve, where he was a Military Attaché at the U.S. Embassy in Israel.

Time to Leave UNESCO - Again

• UNESCO's poisonous, fraudulent resolution is not only biased: it is negationist. All traces of Jewish presence in Jerusalem and Judea in ancient times are eliminated at the stroke of a pen.
• Only six countries voted to reject the resolution: the United States, Estonia, Germany, Lithuania, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom. France, Spain, Sweden, Slovenia accepted the text and voted yes. The resolution was presented with the support of several Muslim countries -- some often described as "moderate": Egypt, Tunisia and Morocco.
• UNESCO is a branch of the United Nations, and the UN is an organization where democracies are in the minority, surrounded by a huge majority of ​​dictatorships and authoritarian regimes imbued with hatred toward the West. Israel is virtually the only country designated as guilty of violating human rights by the so-called Human Rights Council, and where, in 2009, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was welcomed as a hero.

On April 11, 2016, the Executive Board of UNESCO adopted a resolution called "Occupied Palestine." The title immediately exposes it as a biased document. That is not surprising. All the texts adopted by UNESCO concerning the Middle East are biased.
However, those who read it carefully can see that a further step was taken.
UNESCO's resolution is not only biased: it is negationist. All traces of Jewish presence in Jerusalem and Judea in ancient times are eliminated at the stroke of a pen. The Temple Mount is never mentioned. It is only called by the name al-Aqsa Mosque / Haram al Sharif. The name "Western Wall" is placed between quotation marks, to indicate that it is an invalid name: Al Buraq Wall is used without quotation marks. The graves of Jewish cemeteries are described as "Jewish fake graves."
It is a radical anti-Semitic resolution: denying historical fact, claiming that what exists does not, presenting the history of Judaism and the Jews as lies. Accusing Jews of "planting Jewish fake graves" is the lie. It is saying that Judaism is a sham and Jews are liars and falsifiers.
The document is absolutely anti-historical, anti-fact and "anti-Zionist": it tries unambiguously to "prove" that Israel was founded on an imposture and has no reason to exist. The document constantly describes Israel as the "occupying power" and presents it as a predatory and arbitrary country.
Voting for such a text means would endorsing historical negationism, radical anti-Semitism, and absolute "anti-Zionism".
Correctly deciphering the meaning of the resolution and its implications, the representatives of six Western countries -- the United States, Estonia, Germany, Lithuania, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom -- voted no.
Representatives of other Western countries -- France, Spain, Sweden, Slovenia -- accepted the text and voted yes.
The resolution was presented with the support of several Muslim countries -- some often described as "moderate": Egypt, Tunisia and Morocco.
The text was written by Palestinian Authority (PA) "experts." Since 2011, the Palestinian Authority has had a seat at UNESCO under the name "State of Palestine."
The Israeli government immediately expressed its anger. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said that "anyone, let alone an organization tasked with preserving history, could deny this link which spans thousands of years."
A petition was circulated by Stand With Us and the International Legal Forum, demanding that UNESCO change its attitude and remains "true to its founding principles."
The anger of Israel's government and indignation of others other is legitimate. The petition is fully justified.
However, expecting that UNESCO will change its attitude is illusory. Expecting that UNESCO will remain true to its founding principles is hoping for something that will not happen. UNESCO long ago abandoned its founding principles.
UNESCO is a branch of the United Nations, and the UN is an organization where democracies are in the minority, surrounded by a huge majority of ​​dictatorships and authoritarian regimes imbued with hatred toward the West.[1] Israel is virtually the only country designated as guilty of violating human rights by the so-called Human Rights Council, and where, in 2009, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was welcomed as a hero.
In October, 2015, UNESCO had already started down path it follows today. It defined Rachel's Tomb as the Bilal bin Rabah Mosque and the Cave of the Patriarchs as the Ibrahimi Mosque, and declared them "Palestinian sites."
What is worrisome is that only six Western countries were ready to reject a totally poisonous, fraudulent resolution.
The Western countries that voted for the resolution evidently approve of its contents. These countries have lost all legitimacy to claim they want peace in the Middle East. By approving the resolution, they show they are at war: against Judaism, Jews and Israel. One of them, France, claims it will hold a meeting to revive the "peace process": in this context, the claim is grotesque.
The fact that a group of Muslim countries, often described as "moderate," supported the resolution can only lead to the question: How can a country that supports such a document be described as "moderate?"
That Palestinian Authority "experts" have written such a resolution should be sufficient to show that the PA is not "moderate." It clearly has no intention at all of creating a State alongside Israel; instead, as its leaders often openly admit, its plan is that Israel has to be demonized, crushed and replaced.
The underlying problem is that this negationism, anti-Semitism and "anti-Zionism" are deeply rooted in both Europe and Islam.
The Quran says Jews and Christians ("Crusaders") have falsified their sacred books, and the history of Judaism and the Jewish people is false. Muslim tradition says that Muhammad ascended to heaven from al Aqsa, and that the Al Buraq Wall is the wall where he attached the winged creature on which he flew to heaven. No room is left for the Temple Mount or the Western Wall, even though they were there, with countless archeological artifacts, for more than a thousand years before Muhammad was even born.
Muslim tradition also says that Jews, as disbelievers, are condemned to the humiliating status of dhimmi,[2] and that all territories conquered by Islam have to remain Muslim forever.[3] Muslim tradition cannot accept a country ruled by Jews or Christians on land that was once conquered by Islam -- whether Israel, formerly part of the Ottoman Empire, or large swaths of Portugal and Spain.
The resolution adopted by the Executive Board of UNESCO on April 11 is "Islamically correct." "Moderate" Muslim countries cannot contradict the Quran and Muslim tradition without risking being accused of irtidad (apostasy).[4] Palestinian Authority "experts" are being true to the Quran and to Muslim tradition.
Western countries that approved the resolution showed their submission and dhimmitude to "Islamic correctness." Dhimmis, in Islamic history, are second class, "tolerated" citizens, who are subjected to special laws which remind them of their inferiority as well as a tax, the jizya, to purchase "protection" for their homes, possessions and lives.[5]
Countries that rejected the resolution would be considered insubordinate.
Refusing such a resolution is not enough. It is about time to ask the Muslim world to leave behind its heavy load of noxious traditions, blackmail threats and violence.
It is also time to do more.
Under the presidency of Ronald Reagan, the United States left UNESCO in 1984, because UNESCO was obviously subservient to the Soviet Union, and was serving interests contrary to those of freedom, liberty and Western values.

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry spoke in French to a gathering of UNESCO representatives in Paris, on Oct 18, 2015, assuring them that "the engagement of the United States with this organization has never been as strong as now."

The United States returned to UNESCO in 2003. In 2011, when the Palestinian Authority was admitted to UNESCO, the U.S. froze its financial contribution.
The United States badly needs to leave UNESCO again. UNESCO is obviously subservient to "Islamic correctness," and serving interests contrary to those of freedom, liberty and Western values. Eighty years ago, negationism and anti-Semitism led to the Holocaust. It is urgent to say, "Enough."

Dr. Guy Millière, a professor at the University of Paris, is the author of 27 books on France and Europe.

---

[1] Dore Gold, Tower of Babble: How the United Nations Has Fueled Global Chaos, Crown Forum, 2005.
[2] Bat Ye'or, Islam and Dhimmitude: Where Civilizations Collide, Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, 2001

A Visit to the Old and New Hells of Europe Provides a Reminder of Israel's Importance


I just returned from a week-long journey through Hell! It began with a visit to the Auschwitz and Birkenau death camps in Poland, as a participant of the March of the Living, following a conference commemorating the 80^th anniversary of the Nuremberg Laws and the 70^th anniversary of the Nuremberg Trials. My week was consumed with recurring evidence of the worst crime ever perpetrated by human beings on other human beings – the Holocaust.
I traveled from the death camps to several small Polish towns from which my grandparents emigrated well before the Holocaust, leaving behind relatives and friends. During the course of my travels, I discovered the fate of two of my relatives. Hanna Deresiewicz (an original spelling of my family name) was a 16-year-old girl living in the small town of Pilzno when the Nazis arrived; she was separated from her siblings and parents. "The soldiers took several of the most beautiful Jewish girls for sex, and then killed them. [Among those] taken [was] Hanna Deresiewicz, 16."
Another relative named Polek Dereshowitz, served as an "orderly" to the Commandant of Auschwitz when he was 15. He was suspended "from the ringbolts in his office because a flea had been found on one of his dogs." He was later gassed.
This is not the first time I have visited Nazi death camps. I was fully familiar with the statistical evidence of how six million Jews were systematically murdered. I was also familiar with how the Nazi death machine searched out Jews in the furthest corners of Nazi occupied Europe, even as far as the island of Rhodes in the Aegean Sea, and transported them to Auschwitz to gas them. I also knew that this was the only time in human history when people were brought from far distances to camps designed for one purpose only – to kill every possible Jew they could, find no matter where they lived. And I knew that because this was part of a planned genocide of the Jewish People, it was most important to kill every child, woman and man capable of producing future Jews.
But this visit, during which I learned the fate of two young members of my own family, brought the horrors home to me in a manner more personal than any statistic could provide. I was traveling with my wife and daughter, and I repeatedly imagined what it must have felt like for the parents and spouses of the murdered Jews to realize that everything precious to them was being annihilated, and that there would be no one left to morn them or to carry their seed to future generations.
From the old Hell, Poland, I traveled to a new Hell, called Hungary. Budapest is a beautiful city, but it too, provided a hellish end to its Jewish residents in the final months of the Second World War, when Hungarian Nazis turned the Blue Danube into a red mass grave. They shot their Jewish neighbors and dumped their bodies into the Danube River, even as the Nazis were retreating. And now in modern-day Budapest, I was told of the resurgence of Nazism among many ordinary Hungarians. An increasingly popular fascist party, Jobbik, boasts of its anti-Semitism and of its desire to rid Hungary of its few remaining Jews. The Jobbik party in Hungary also hates Israel, and everything else that is a manifestation of Jewishness.
I ended my trip meeting with a Jewish man of Greek background whose grandfather was murdered by the Nazis and who was now being targeted by Greek fascists for his outspoken defense of Israel and the Jewish people. Athens, too, has become a hotbed of Jew-hatred, with is popular fascist Golden Dawn party.

Left: Supporters of Greece's fascist Golden Dawn party. Right: Supporters of Hungary's fascist Jobbik party.

There was not a moment during my visit to Europe that I was not reminded of that continent's sordid history with regard to the Jewish people. Now, many Europeans — the children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren of those who were complicit in the murder of six million Jews — have turned against the nation state of the Jewish People with a vengeance. This time the bigotry emanates mostly from the hard left, but has the support of many on the new fascist hard right. The British Labour Party is as rife with hatred of the Jewish People and Jewish Nation as is the Hungarian fascist Jobbik party. Once again, European Jews are caught between the extremes of the Black and the Red. Extremists on both sides seek the demise of Israel, arguing that there is no place in a world with multiple Muslim and Christian nations for one state that is overtly Jewish in its character. Other Europeans seek to boycott Israel's products, its professors, and its performers. While still others simply apply a double standard to its actions — a standard they apply to no other nation, including their own.
My visit to Europe made one thing unmistakably clear: if there is any group in the world that needs a safe homeland — a sanctuary from bigotry and hatred — it is the Jewish people. When Hitler was willing to expel them from Europe, before deciding to exterminate them, no country — not even the United States or Canada — would give them asylum. Britain closed the doors of what is now Israel to them. They had no place to go. So they were murdered by the Nazis and their willing executioners throughout Europe. There is no group whose history entitles it to a safe and secure homeland more than the Jewish people.
For reasons that are difficult to explain, the hatred of the Jewish people and its nation defies rationality, but it is as real as the gas chambers of Auschwitz-Birkenau and the emerging fascist parties of Greece and Hungary. Jews today continue to be scapegoated in many parts of the world, and their nation state is demonized at the United Nations, on university campuses, in the media and in legislative assemblies. Following the Holocaust, there seemed to be an understanding that Jews would no longer be victimized. Now, less than a century after the Nazis came to power, that moratorium on Jew-hatred seems to have expired, as the memory of the Holocaust grows dim in most parts of the world.
My week-long visit to Hell reaffirmed my commitment to defend Israel's right to exist, to speak out for Israel when it is unfairly attacked, and to defeat its enemies in the marketplace of ideas. We owe nothing less to the victims of the worst crime in the history of humanity — a crime that could not have occurred without the complicity of most of the world. And a crime that will not recur if there is a strong and secure Israel.

Wicked Hillary more evil than Satan

Corrupt, lying, dangerous and incompetent Hillary. Who will kill Christians to save her Muslims friends who she takes millions of dollars from... she hates poor white and Black because she believes in depopulation …

Hillary Clinton said at a CNN Town Hall in March, "We're gonna put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business." Who works in the coal mine?

Who wants you guns? Hiliary and UN

Who want Christian to bow to isalm.

Who`s hero spoke at kkk meeting? margaret sanger negro project

Fired from Whitewater committee for unethical behavior.

 -Set up phony fondation (10% only goes to charity) funded by bribes from terrorist nations.

 -allows top secret personal emails to be hacked by our enemies when she is top diplomat in country. -lies constantly.

 -allowed Americans to be massacred by Islamic terrorist thugs and did nothing and then lied about it

 -led campaign to abuse women her husband abused.

 -Justified Hamas shooting 10,000 rockets at random targets in Israel.

 -Is hated by her Secret Service detail for out of control anger issues.

 -On whose watch 4 Arab countries fell apart to terrorists.

 -On whose watch, Iran got $150 billion to finance more terror and a path to nuclear arms.

 -Mentored by radical Saul Alinsky, as was Obama.

- Says we should fight Islamic terror with more “love and Kindness”

-Has over 80 close associates who have died under mysterious circumstances as it became clear they endangered Clintons in  some way.

 -She laughs about getting child rapist off for technicality.

 Her supporters must be delusional, mentally unstable, stupid, or so kool-aid drinking libs that they can't think straight.

 

 

 

http://strongandresolute.blogspot.com/…/hillary-supporters-…

VS. Trump

 1. Has made a fortune in business

 2. Employed thousands who love him

 3. Will be a be a GREAT President:

 a. Rebuild Obama gutted military

 b. Oppose and curb Russian, Chinese, North Korean, Iranian, Isis etc expansion.

 c. Gut and replace catastrophic Obamacare

 d. Stop Irs, EPA and regulatory abuse

 e. Stop the gazillions of wasted Federal dollars

 f. Stop abuse of our Veterans

 g. Expel tens of thousands of violent illegal migrant felons

 h. Build the wall, just as Mexico built wall o its southern border to make immigration orderly again

 i. Defend our allies, especially Israel

 j. Reduce taxes to grow economy and produce jobs

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/sisterthundershow/2016/05/13/wicked-hillary-more-evil-than-satan

 

 

The Ron Brown Plane Crash — Did CIA Hawks Assassinate Ron Brown?
"No assassination instructions should ever be written or recorded. Decision and instructions [regarding assassination] should be confined to an absolute minimum of persons. For secret assassination ... the contrived accident is the most effective technique. When successfully executed, it causes little excitement and is only casually investigated."--A Study of Assassination, a training manual written by the CIA and distributed to agents and operatives at the time of the Agency's 1954 covert coup in Guatemala, which ousted Guatemala's democratically elected president, Jacobo Arbenz Guzman.


"In the late 1970s, I also participated in the Senate's investigation of the CIA and our intelligence community. We discovered efforts to assassinate foreign leaders. We also tentatively pursued inquiries into the possibility that plots had been laid to assassinate our leaders. All part of the same Cold War, a Cold War that existed from early memory."--former U.S. Senator Gary Hart, Russia Shakes the World: The Second Russian Revolution and Its Impact on the World


"They are the most ruthless motherf---ers there are and if they want to get somebody, they will. They will do their own people up."--David Sanchez Morales, talking about the CIA, (Morales was the former Chief of Operations at the CIA station in Miami -- JM/WAVE -- and a consultant to the Deputy Director of the Joint Chiefs), cited by Gaeton Fonzi, The Last Investigation

On April 3, 1996, Commerce Secretary Ron Brown and 34 others were killed when their Air Force Boeing 737 crashed into a mountainside in Croatia. One day after the crash, before any real investigation had begun, Defense Secretary William Perry told the Associated Press that the plane crash was "a classic sort of accident that good instrumentation should be able to prevent." The Air Force soon agreed and, in its ensuing investigation, determined that the tragic event was due to navigational error. Since that time, certain anomalies have come to light regarding the crash:

• Ron Brown was found with a .45-inch inwardly beveling circular hole in the top of his head, which resembled a gunshot wound. Despite this suspicious wound, the Air Force medical examiners decided not to order an autopsy.

• Normally in plane crash investigations there is a two step process. The Air Force first determines whether the crash was the result of an accident, hostile fire, sabotage, or mechanical failure. In Ron Brown's case, this determination (called a safety board) was skipped. Instead, the Air Force immediately proceeded to the second part of the investigation, where only accident and legal issues are considered.

• The Air Force reported that a navigation beacon had been stolen from the airport sometime before the crash. This led some to speculate that the pilot may have been intentionally drawn off course and into the mountainside by a spurious beacon.

• Three days after the the crash, Niko Jerkic -- the man who was responsible for maintaining the airport's navigational aids -- died by gunshot. This was ruled a suicide. Jerkic's untimely death meant that investigators did not have a chance to question him.

Planning a Political Assassination

For assassins desiring to get rid of a political opponent, a plane crash would appear to be an ideal method. In plane crashes, evidence of sabotage is often destroyed, or at least can be made to appear so during any subsequent investigation. Also, the public knows that accidents do happen, and that planes sometimes do crash all by themselves.

However, conspirators have to be aware that even the most trusting citizen may occasionally experience misgivings, especially regarding the death of a powerful politician embroiled in controversy. Hence, to cover all bases, it would be useful (from a conspiratorial planner's viewpoint) to incorporate certain elements into a plan that would deflect attention from the conspirators and in the direction of someone else, ideally an enemy.
This kind of diversionary planning may have occurred in the case of the assassination of President Kennedy. Consider a 2001 Gallup poll which revealed that 81 percent of Americans don't believe the Warren Commission's lone nut (Oswald did it) version of the assassination. Among the 81 percent, there are those who think that Oswald was a patsy, set up by some group (or agency) to take the fall. Over the years, much evidence has emerged that suggests right-wing planning and involvement by elements of the CIA in the assassination (i.e., that the assassination was, in essence, a CIA-planned conspiracy).
Assume for a moment that CIA conspirators orchestrated the Kennedy assassination, and that Oswald was the patsy. It would stand to reason that the conspirators, in setting up the patsy, would want to divert attention from themselves, should the public ever come to doubt the lone-nut, official version of the assassination. Thus it may be regarded as good planning that Oswald was portrayed not just as a lone-nut, but as a Communist as well. In this way, any suspicion of a conspiracy would immediately point toward left-wing rather than right-wing involvement (a desirable outcome from the conspirators' point of view).
Likewise, if right-wing forces were responsible for Ron Brown's plane crash, they would probably want suspicion to focus on one of their enemies -- someone like President Bill Clinton.

Spinning a Conspiracy Theory

Soon after Ron Brown's death, a right-wing billionaire, Richard Mellon Scaife -- heir to the Mellon family banking fortune -- began to promote a conspiracy theory involving President Clinton. Steve Kangas, a journalist and former intelligence analyst, gives some background on Scaife:

One of [the CIA's 1973] recruits was billionaire Richard Mellon Scaife. During World War II, Scaife's father served in the OSS, the forerunner of the CIA. By his mid-twenties, both of Scaife's parents had died, and he inherited a fortune.... Scaife was encouraged by CIA agent Frank Barnett to begin investing his fortune to fight the "Soviet menace." From 1973 to 1975, Scaife ran Forum World Features, a foreign news service used as a front to disseminate CIA propaganda around the world.(1)

At Forum World Features, Scaife conducted what his CIA friend, Frank Barnett calls "political warfare." Barnett explains:

Political warfare in short, is warfare -- not public relations. It is one part persuasion and two parts deception.... The aim of political warfare ... is to discredit, displace, and neutralize an opponent, to destroy a competing ideology, and to reduce the adherents to political impotence. It is to make one's own values prevail by working the levers of power, as well as by using persuasion.(2)

Scaife has carried his political warfare campaign into the present day. His instrument of dissemination is no longer a foreign news service. Instead Scaife utilizes two Internet websites (NewsMax and WorldNetDaily), a newspaper (Pittsburgh Tribune-Review), along with conservative foundations and think tanks. Steve Kangas writes:

Today [Scaife] owns the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review and oversees the Sarah Scaife, Carthage and Allegheny Foundations. Scaife assigned one of his newspaper's reporters, Christopher Ruddy, to a full-time, ongoing investigation into the deaths of Vince Foster and Ron Brown, trying to find evidence that the Clintons murdered them.(3)

Scaife's hired gun, Christopher Ruddy has applied the Scaife/Barnett technique of political warfare -- "one part persuasion and two parts deception" -- to the Ron Brown case. Ruddy was persuasive in arguing that there were some strange and suspicious aspects to the plane crash. Ruddy was also persuasive when he pointed out that Ron Brown had been involved in various controversies during his term as Commerce Secretary. However, Ruddy was deceptive when he omitted the fact that the biggest controversy had to do with Ron Brown's fight with the military establishment.

The Fight Over Exports

Ron Brown's struggles with the hawks in the military and intelligence agencies began almost from the moment that he assumed the post of Commerce Secretary. According to an Associated Press article: "With the Cold War over, Brown believed the United States no longer should sacrifice economic interests to other foreign policy goals and he used his close friendship with Clinton to push a business agenda inside the administration.... He succeeded in battles with the Defense Department in loosening Cold War-era export controls that American companies had long complained severely limited their ability to sell high-technology products such as computer and telecommunications equipment."(4)
Ron Brown was not alone in his quest to ease export restrictions. Brown's allies even included conservative organizations, like the American Chamber of Commerce, which stated in its White Paper: "Experience has shown ... that unilateral export controls are ineffective, except where the United States may have a pronounced lead over the rest of the world.... [With export controls] U.S. companies are put at a significant disadvantage vis-a-vis their foreign competitors, without achieving the desired effect of blocking access to technology."(5)
However, the military establishment remained unconvinced. When the Clinton administration proposed that primary control over the export of commercial satellites be transferred from the State Department to Ron Brown's Commerce Department, the military balked. In a memo dated September 22, 1995, the Pentagon and U.S. intelligence agencies are on record as rejecting the administration's plan to transfer authority to Commerce. Also opposed was Secretary of State Warren Christopher.(6)

Attacks on the Commerce Department

Early in 1995, in what some might regard as a preemptive strike to undermine Ron Brown's position at the Commerce Department, "Allegations arose ... concerning improprieties related to [Brown's] financial transactions. In particular, there were media reports that Secretary Brown ... failed to disclose required information about First International, a company he owned with a business associate, Nolanda S. Hill."(7) In July 1995, an independent counsel was chosen to investigate these charges. As the independent counsel probe got underway, additional allegations would soon be leveled against the Commerce Secretary.
That same year, congressional Republicans would draft legislation to dismantle the Department of Commerce. The Republicans would fail in this endeavor, but not for lack of trying. According to Gary Hufbauer, a trade expert, "The force of Brown's personality was one of the major factors that saved the department."(8)
On March 14, 1996 -- in defiance of the military and intelligence agencies -- the Clinton administration transferred control of satellite sales from the State Department to Ron Brown's Commerce Department. This may have been the fateful decision that sprung the CIA hawks into action. Twenty days later Ron Brown would lose his life.

Assassinations' Prime Suspect

Whenever an American politician dies in a suspicious plane crash, the skeptical and discerning citizen will look first in the direction of the CIA -- an organization whose modus operandi in the political realm includes heavy-handed techniques like sabotage, assassinations, and coups.
The CIA almost certainly maintains lists of saboteurs and assassins that have worked with it in various campaigns over the years, and CIA operatives could conceivably put together an assassination plan by placing a few phone calls.
In all likelihood, it will never be conclusively known whether the CIA or some other party was responsible for sabotaging Ron Brown's plane. However, given the circumstances surrounding the plane crash, the CIA has to be at the top of the suspect list.