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.

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