Stickin’-it to Rep. Trey Gowdy, US State Dept. contractor World Relief brings first refugees to Spartanburg

Update June 6th: World Net Daily wrote about this yesterday, here.  Also, be sure to see the exchange of comments to this post which we highlight here.

It is not really World Relief so much as the Obama State Department and Secretary of State John Kerry.  Gowdy had asked that no refugees be resettled in his district until his many questions had been answered to his satisfaction.   See our post yesterday about the inadequate response Gowdy has received so far.

Resettlement of refugees from DR Congo well underway.

The refugees from DR Congo*** resettled in Spartanburg apparently about a week or so ago could just as easily have been taken to any one of 190 (more!) cities in the US, but clearly the State Department is sending a message to Gowdy—(expletive you!).

As we said previously, Spartanburg is pivotal in the battle for determining who controls the resettlement process—will the UN/US State Department ram third-worlders down the throats of small town America, or will cities and states play any role in the present secretive resettlement process?

Just a reminder!  Rep. Trey Gowdy is not just any Congressman with concern for his district, he is Chairman of the House Judiciary Subcommittee responsible for the refugee program!

If anyone has any power in Congress on this issue, it is Gowdy.  The question is, is he willing to exercise his power?

Here is the latest from GoUpstate.

In this pivotal showdown, score one for Secretary of State John Kerry!

Spartanburg churches are welcoming refugees who recently arrived here.

Jason Lee, director of World Relief Spartanburg, said two refugees from the Congo arrived in Spartanburg in late May. He would not provide a specific date, citing security reasons. He pointed out that they are persecuted.

Meanwhile, Rep. Trey Gowdy called the U.S. State Department’s response to his latest questions about a resettlement agency’s plan to sponsor refugees in Spartanburg “sorely inadequate.”

Gowdy has invited the federal agency to brief elected officials on the refugee resettlement.

The Republican congressman issued a statement Wednesday after receiving the State Department’s response.

Gowdy has written the federal agency twice to obtain details about plans to sponsor refugees in Spartanburg. World Relief, a faith-based refugee resettlement agency, opened a Spartanburg office earlier this year. The state Department of Social Services approved Spartanburg as a new refugee resettlement site, according to the State Department’s response.

World Relief Spartanburg has been authorized to resettle up to 60 refugees in the 2015 fiscal year.  [FY2015 ends on September 30, 2015, so they should be coming in pretty quickly now—ed]

There is a lot more, continue reading here.

Here is my question:  Is the US State Department getting even with Gowdy over Benghazi? 

***The Congolese

Asst. Secretary of State for Population Refugees and Migration: We will take most of the 50,000 from DR Congo that the UN wants us to take!

We are assuming that Jason Lee is referring to refugees from the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DR Congo), a poor corrupt country in central Africa, and not simply the Congo.

In 2013 Asst. Secretary of State Anne Richard reported that the UN wants 50,000 from the DR Congo resettled over the next few years and that we will take most of them.

If you visit the State Department’s data base, here, we have admitted only 34 refugees from the Congo this fiscal year, but 2,921 this fiscal year so far from DR Congo.  So again, we assume Spartansburg’s new American “seedlings” are from DR Congo.

The majority from the DR Congo are not Muslims although a few are as we reported here.

A large number from DR Congo are abused women and children.  We learned, here, that many of the women need extensive mental health care due to the abuse they have suffered.

By the way, the UN is always in a hurry to clean out its camps and send refugees to the first world rather than waiting out conflicts and then returning refugees to their homes or to countries with a similar culture.  However, in the irony of ironies, they are not in any hurry to resettle Palestinians (that is good for us!) leaving them in ‘camps’ on the border of Israel in order to harass that country for the last 6 decades.

For new readers, our original post on Spartanburg, with updates, may be found here.

23 thoughts on “Stickin’-it to Rep. Trey Gowdy, US State Dept. contractor World Relief brings first refugees to Spartanburg

  1. Citizens are fed up with this subsidization and aiding of a refugee invasion of my nation. It is unacceptable. This is a crime and it must stop.

    No more ‘mutlicultural’ classes, subsidies with other people’s money, and language classes. No more refugees; A people is already HERE.


    The West including America cannot be defined simply by the rejection of Islam or as a collection of legal norms. It is a culture created by a specific people and it will be destroyed if that people is dispossessed. Europeans everywhere have the self-evident right to secure their homelands for themselves, without regard to the claims others make upon it.

    Nobody’s flooding Africa with Non-Africans and giving them free health care, affirmative action and special privileges. Only White Countries are doing it, only White children are affected, and only White politicians are allowing it.

    “White Privilege: “The privilege of forcing this “inevitable brown future” into ALL & ONLY White countries.”

    Diversity is a code word for White Genocide. Enough.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. I am happy to see the refugees come to Spartanburg. One only needs to look at the refugee camps around the world to see the despair. Yes-there is transparency problems and one can question high salaries and supposed hypocrisy but the reality is that compassion is first, The majority of refugees including Muslims seek only a new life. The continued stereotyping and attacks on Muslims in this blog is only to drive more hatred. I am a “do gooder” and not political and have worked with refugees in Atlanta as a volunteer for 20 years. FYI-one Burmese Muslim(non Rohinga) who has been here 12 years in in the Peace Corp in Bukina Faso, his brother is at Embry Riddle majoring in homeland security and will also train to be a pilot and has a 5 year commitment to the Marines. Their sister desires to be a pediatrician. A young Afghan boy is in Medical School and 11 Bhutanese have won Gates Millenium Scholarships this year. Perhaps we should of shut our doors to them!

    Case workers usually are sincere and do not work for the measly salaries. Who knows what political or self serving motivations there really is with the agencies. I just do not understand how any readers cannot feel sadness when the see the horror Syrians, Rohinga, Congolese are suffering. Would we not want help if we were them?

    Ann-i know this will not impact your readers whose minds are already set and I know you have a mission, but perhaps some will find this information helpful.


    1. Ralph,

      Thanks for the Kumbaya moment.

      How about really providing a dynamite American experience to bunches of refugees and have them relocated near wealthy liberals who have loads of sympathy for them, or at least say that they do? Sounds like a good use for your many talents. See Ralph, the problem here is that your government is plopping these people into communities where the citizens have not asked for them and do not want them. Forcing things onto citizens is not the American way, and we’re American’s first, right Ralph?

      Have you ever thought about going to one of the refugee home countries and cheering them up over there?

      Why are the faith-based organizations taking money for their services in the relocation effort? Shouldn’t they and all “do gooders” do it on a voluntary basis just for the spiritual reward, like you do?

      Have you ever volunteered to help any American citizens in need?

      Have a day.


      Liked by 1 person

    2. Ralph,

      Spartanburg is not anti-immigrant or anti-Muslim. Neither are we are indifferent to the suffering of people anywhere in the world, especially not to our own “least of these.” For this reason, we are pro-wise and controlled immigration. We are not seeing either anywhere within the federal framework and have not seen it since 1965.

      In fact, poor immigration policies and federal neglect to do its Constitutional duty has accelerated and exacerbated the problems of our economy, our own vulnerable citizenry and our precarious national security situation. The citizens are morally, Constitutionally and legally the central government’s primary concern. The central government exists for one reason only and that’s to protect us, our rights, our borders and our sovereignty. Their job is to maintain “domestic tranquility” and provide equal justice. We created the central government–“governments are instituted among men”. They did not create the states or us. We preexist it. It has no moral agency to provide mercy, even though laws can at times provide mercy. The administration of mercy belongs solely to the individual. The churches and all these resettlement agencies are responsible for providing their own funds according to what they are willing or are able to bear. The federal government has no moral or Constitutional authority to provide one dime to resettlement once the refugees pass through the gates of its Constitutional authority to regulate immigration and naturalization.

      My problem is that the federal government has nothing it did not obtain from the citizens. It can only obligate its citizens to bear the burdens and to suffer the consequences that result from foolish schemes. Yes, the fiscal and social burdens the federal government is saddling us with matters, but as important as that is, it’s the moral and legal issues that are most concerning. The federal government is not providing equal justice. In fact, the immigration policies, or lack thereof, are horribly unfair and unequal. Its negligent in its duty to enforce its own laws and to uphold its primary reason for existence. The law hasn’t failed. Our public servants have.

      What do you think caused Ferguson and Baltimore? Racism? Bad policing? Look deeper. What segment of our society is suffering most from unfair competition for limited jobs and opportunity? Who has been primarily displaced by massive numbers of foreign low-skill workers? Of course, there are other issues involved, but one of the main underlying problems is decades of immigration policy that favors immigrants, both legal and illegal, over our own citizens. Layers of bogus “help” programs and layers of narrative have been thrown over the real issues. These tactics are nothing but cover for political gain. Both parties. The bottom line is the federal government’s failure to uphold its moral and Constitutional mandate to protect its own citizens.

      So what is wise immigration? It’s immigration that never harms or risks its own citizens in any way. It’s limited and selective. Next it chooses immigrants/refugees that are best suited to assimilate within its jurisdiction and in numbers small enough to not cause harm. The federal government has no authority to be politically correct or to manipulate its people for political gain or to seek “integration” or “diversity” for its own sake. It is to apply equal justice in everything it does, starting with its citizens. Nature will take care of the rest.

      As kind as it may seem to bring in millions of illegal and legal immigrants, it’s anything but kind. It encourages illegal behavior and encourages subterfuge from people who should never have been allowed into this country. The wise policy would be to aid refugees overseas in areas close to their home so they can return when conflicts are resolved. The federal government has no right to take over the responsibilities of their home government or to place them on us. Our goal should be to help bring peaceful resolution to their conflicts and help the refugees go home. If peaceful resolution is not possible, then we aid the refugees where they are until they work out their internal problems.

      We cannot save the world and if we’re to be an example, then we need to stand on solid principles, ensure equal justice and be certain aid money is not lining foreign or domestic politicians’, agencies or UN pockets, but is going to where it’s needed. Muslims countries must step up to their responsibilities. The sooner they do, the sooner the conflicts end. We cannot solve their problems for them. We can only guide with morals and principles. We help no one, here or abroad, by taking in hundreds of thousands of people who would rather go home and should.

      The sooner the federal government does the right thing, the sooner people like you wrote about will get out of camps and back to their homes. If they still want to immigrate here, great…equal application of the law works when used. The world should be pressuring Muslim nations to fix their own house, not trying to take their responsibilities off their hands. That is immoral.

      We welcome immigrants that come here to be Americans. We welcome people of character, like the people you wrote about, but diversity for the sake of diversity is conflict. Diversity within the shared framework of common values and principles enhances our culture. Cultures and beliefs built on rejection of our culture and values does not. People must come here because they want to assimilate, to be Americans. I wouldn’t go to Saudi Arabia and demand they adapt to me. I have every right to expect the same from foreigners entering my country and every right to expect my central government to ensure that’s the case with every immigrant allowed into its jurisdiction.

      We have the right and the moral imperative to hold our central government responsible for its duties. Compassion not based in morals and principles is not compassion at all. It’s manipulative. Our responsibility is to first stand in the gap for vulnerable Americans, then to provide principled aid to the needy overseas so they can go home. We can do both.

      Liked by 2 people

      1. I agree with you. Why can’t these Congolese make their country work. They have freedom now. They are no more colonies. They prefer to come to the USA and get on welfare and benefits to the detriment of american citizens and tax payers. I am fed up with this government.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. I understand your frustrations, Bonnie. I’m pretty fed up too. Just be sure to make the distinction between ‘our government’ and ‘our elected public servants’. The Constitution hasn’t failed. It just needs to be used and used properly. Keep the Constitution. Eject the failed ‘public self-servers’.

          The Constitution doesn’t grant one single right to us. All rights belong to us. We just share some of them with government and charge them with protecting ours and using theirs judiciously. Never give up the Constitution or allow anyone to ‘fix’ it or create one of those nifty ones that “tells the government what it must do for the citizens”, unlike that “charter of negative rights” we have now. Phrases courtesy of B.H. Obama. “No, thank you, sir. I’ll keep the Constitution, but you and your compliant accomplices are free to go. Now would be good for us.”

          Whatever government gives, government can take away. That’s why all rights and powers belong to We, the People. We are the sovereigns, so says James Madison and his friends, and we just kindly share some of it with the state and federal governments. We were nice enough to put it writing so the feds would know their boundaries. Reading is fundamental.

          I would be willing to amend the Constitution to add an amendment that requires every member of Congress, the executive and the judicial to take a test weekly on designated sections of the Constitution and their scores published. The test must be based on original intent, not precedent or some meaning that’s been ‘living and breathing’ so long its gasping. Anything below a B is fined $10,000. A below B average at the end of the Congressional Session results in ineligibility to ever hold a government office again. Cheating results in an immediate dismissal from office, Oval, oblong, round or square. And no, Congress can’t pass a law that says a B is now anything above 10 and below 90.

          Oh…and an amendment to tie Congressional salaries to the GDP, like .000001% of it. The better Americans and American businesses are doing, the better they’re paid. They won’t want those businesses moving to China. Tie taxes to it too and Congress has no authority to change either percentage. It has to voted on by We, the People, and every time the tax percentage is increased, except in a time of a real war that must end in a timely fashion and contain no PC ROE, Congress’ salary percentage decreases the same amount.

          This mess is going to reset at some point soon. We can rebuild this thing. The Constitution has never been ‘broken’. We’ve just had bad management. Heck, we’d weed out 99% of them now with one test on the Constitution.

          That’s my off-topic tangent for the night, so goodnight and don’t forget to say your prayers.

          Liked by 1 person

          1. The key point that you emphasize is “The Constitution doesn’t grant one single right to us. All rights belong to us.”. Its time to raise the profile of the nullification argument linked to the 10th amendment. The most difficult part of all of this is that state leaders are addicted to infusions of federal feel good funny money for programs. The pushback by the Republican house in FL is an example of the dilemma. Desperate times call for desperate measures. I have written to Gowdy’s office with no response. If you know another avenue for providing support, please share it.

            Liked by 1 person

      2. Bravo! I would not change or add a syllable. Its directed to. let’s call him ‘Ralph’, but it reads as much as a manifesto as it does an admonition. I concluded from an earlier post of yours that you were one clear thinking human being, with a gift for expressing your views. Not that my opinion matters much, but I’d say that this amplifies that conclusion 10 fold. On all our behalf, please send it to other organizations and your candidate(s) of choice.

        Thank You, Jim

        Liked by 1 person

        1. Thank you, Jim.

          The Constitution is like a cake recipe. You can’t change all the ingredients, the baking temperature and length of time in the oven, then when the cake is a gummy mess blame the recipe. Government, both state and federal, but more specifically federal, isn’t following the recipe and hasn’t for a long time. They give the Constitution lip service when politically advantageous, then do what they think serves them politically. The current Congress and around a century of their predecessors have been terrible cooks. McDonald’s would fire them.

          The nullification argument is a sticky one, but is useful when there’s a solid Constitutional foundation for federal overreach. My two favorite SCOTUS rulings are Printz v. Mack and Reid v. Covert. I’d start by pressing these on our Congressional representatives as appropriate and on our state governments, then encourage the state to take appropriate action. JMO.

          In Printz the Court ruled that the federal government has no authority to force or enforce regulations onto states without their consent. Neither can they force state officials to abide regulations the state didn’t consent to.

          Consent is obtained by the federal government to encroach on state powers through the use of federal funding. When states accept funding for programs, etc. that the federal government has no authority to enact, the states must sign away their sovereignty in that distinct area, like education, health care, etc. In the last ACA ruling from SCOTUS, Roberts cited Printz, then stated, “States are sovereign and should start acting like it.” If states haven’t engaged in such a contract with the feds for funding, then a simple “NO” will suffice. The RRP is a different set up, but the same principle essentially applies. The states have the power to say NO at any time.

          Reid v. Covert affirms…again…that neither the Congress or the executive, alone or combined, can engage in a treaty that supersedes the Constitution. It also reaffirms that no agreement with a foreign nation or foreign entity, like the UN, can confer power on the federal government, nor can the federal government relinquish its responsibilities to a foreign entity or nation. The feds are violating this principle (and Constitutional mandate to protect us against foreign influence) when they allow the UN to choose our refugees or engage in any agreement that supersedes the Constitution. Small Arms Treaty, for example.

          “It would be manifestly contrary to the objectives of those who created the Constitution, as well as those who were responsible for the Bill of Rights — let alone alien to our entire constitutional history and tradition — to construe Article VI as permitting the United States to exercise power under an international agreement without observing constitutional prohibitions. [n32] In effect, such construction would permit amendment of that document in a manner not sanctioned by Article V. The prohibitions of the Constitution were designed to apply to all branches of the National Government, and they cannot be nullified by the Executive or by the Executive and the Senate combined.

          There is nothing new or unique about what we say here. This Court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty. [n33] For example, in Geofroy v. Riggs, 133 U.S. 258, 267, it declared:

          The treaty power, as expressed in the Constitution, is in terms unlimited except by those restraints which are found in that instrument against the action of the government or of its departments, and those arising from the nature of the government itself and of that of the States. It would not be contended that it extends so far as to authorize what the Constitution forbids, or a change in the character of the [p18] government, or in that of one of the States, or a cession of any portion of the territory of the latter, without its consent.”

          “No agreement with a foreign nation can confer power on the Congress or on any other branch of Government, which is free from the restraints of the Constitution.” “The prohibitions of the federal constitution are designed to apply to all branches of the national government and cannot be nullified by the executive or by the executive and senate combined.” Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1, 1 L. Ed 2nd 1148 (1951)

          I’m guessing Congress and the executive, alone or combined, would fail that section on the Constitutional exam.

          Educate them, over and over. They may ignore us, but they’ll know that we know and we will use their dismissal of the Rule of Law to bite them come election time. However, before we can do much of anything, the electoral system needs to be secured to prevent voter fraud. Electronic machines are indeed programmable for nefarious purposes. We must have a secure system.


          1. One more thing, neither Congress nor the executive or any federal branch can commit us to or enforce within U.S. jurisdiction UN Resolution 16/18. It’s the imposition of Shariah speech prohibitions on speaking against Islam or their prophet. The Organization of Islamic Cooperation has modified the resolution to include blaspheming any religion, but that’s just smoke and mirrors to cover the political ideology of conquest and submission disguised as a religion. Islam itself demands criticism until they grow up.

            Really, we’re doing them a favor by helping them out of the Stone Age into a world where man’s higher existence recognizes that freedom of religion requires self-governance, just like everything else in life. The OIC and its sister Islamic activist organization use threats of violence, implied or outright, to coerce people into abiding by Shariah Law. Not long ago I read where one of Islam’s somebody or another stated that if Islam allowed apostasy, there would be no Islam. (I found it again later by searching for it, if you want to do that too. Just can’t find where I saved the links right now.) So, yep. Allowing Muslims to leave Islam would result in no Islam. However, there is no reason for us to play that game. Either earn respect or accept that criticism of Islam is earned.

            Liked by 1 person

          2. Well if you’re not an attorney or a jurist, you may have missed your calling. Maybe you’re one of those people that can cross domain boundaries and be fluid in multiple intellectual languages. Whatever the case, your posts are illustrative and informative. I tend to cook things down and shoot from the hip. Getting a detailed drill down guides and compliments my assessments.
            Your statement “The prohibitions of the Constitution were designed to apply to all branches of the National Government, and they cannot be nullified by the Executive or by the Executive and the Senate combined.” was like solving a koan. Your reference to “election time” touched on my current concerns. At the rate things are going, we may not have until election time. And at election time we are now dealing with a GOP that has a damaged brand after the class 2014 interpreted its mandate as carte blanche to give Obama the car keys and a blank check. Looks to me like its in the hands of apparently honest representatives like Gowdy, Sessions, and King as well as staffs of attorneys at places like Judicial Watch. The courts move slowly, and are increasingly politicized themselves but what other recourse is there with 2 branches of government dysfunctional to the point of corruption? You say that nullification has grounds, and precedents, but the will to stand opposed must also be there. The Constitution is a marvel, but it is a document by and for Western culture and institutions. I suspect that at least part of the motivation to flood the country with anything but westerners is part of the plan to hamstrings its ideals.
            I see calls to arms everywhere (not referring to your posts) but I see few or no plans put forth by leaders, or leaders for that matter. My concern is growing daily.


          3. 7delta, I forgot to include a response to your thoughts on Islam. No disagreement just an addition that it progs’ reaction to Islamist atrocities that is a major tell on their part. They detest all things western so much that they are even unwilling to condemn murder, torture, and blind cruelty, on the biggest scale since WWII. I have seen this over and over on comments threads. I have no idea what the core defect is that would enable them to stop just short of being overt apologists for mass sadism. Part of it is venomous Anti-Christianianity, part of it is arrogance and being slavishly PC compliant to the point where discretionary thinking is disabled, and part of it is an unknown. Whatever it is, it is evidence that the “hive mind” cliche applies in their case. Dangerous, limiting, voluntary relinquishment of free will and open discourse.


        2. One of the things about the left that always gets me is how when they go after institutions that underpin our liberties is the fact they are so ignornant of how essential those instutions are to their freedom. For instance, Christianity. Sure, Christianity has been misused, which is why we have freedom of religion and the 1st Amendment to prohibit Congress from passing any laws that infringe on that right. However, it’s Christianity that gives them the freedom to be an atheist or to worship a Japanese beetle or a corn cob. God gave us free will. The God of Christianity and Natural Law is secure in who He is and has no need to force people to convert or to worship Him against their will. The Christian God tells us about the “wages of sin” and its consequences, but allows individuals to choose those consequences. The Christian God issues an invitation, unlike the god of Islam that must force people, by the sword and by denial of free will, to follow Islam.

          The mindset of the far left progressives is everyone must follow their beliefs, by force of law, if neccessary. Each and every time they get their way, they destroy their own right to choose to live their life according to their beliefs. They ensure their own defeat with each victory they gain. The only caveat to real freedom is that their rights end where mine begins and mine end where theirs begin. Freedom is self-governance. That’s not good enough for people who view themselves as superior. They must impose their beliefs on others, for our own good, of course. They cannot grasp that freedom is not doing whatever you want whenever you want, but knowing where the lines are drawn in order to preserve freedom.

          It’s also why tolerance is their watch word. Tolerance is a one-way street where all power flows to the person demanding they be allowed to do as they please, regardless of how their behavior impacts others. Respect is necessary for self-governance. Respect is a two-way street where both parties must compromise at the crossroads where one person’s rights end and another person’s begin. The left has skewed this concept into everything they want being a “civil right”.

          Two things about that attitude: 1) It’s the attitude of a spoiled adolescent who wants their own way, regardless of the consequences. If parents say no, the adolescent screams and cries that the parent hates them, doesn’t want them to have any fun, doesn’t understand that times have changed since the dinosaur days and that the kid is smarter than everyone else, especially the parents. 2) They’re being manipulated. It never about freedom or civil rights; it’s about power and they are the train that tyranny rides to its destination.

          You’re right. Collectivism is the voluntary relinquishment of free will and open discourse. Their demands cannot withstand either, so they have no recourse but to call names, pitch temper tantrums and run as fast as they can into bondage before anyone can stop them. “If not now, when?” “It’s the crisis of our time.” “It’s an emergency and this law must be passed now!” “It’s the compassionate thing to do.” “We must act now!” All of these arguments translate into “We have no valid argument that can withstand scrutiny. Hurry!”


  3. Vendetta is part of this administration’s MO. Look how they acted, and continue to act toward Arizona. People there who tried to uphold the law, like Jan Brewer and Joe Arpaio have been hounded and vilified. As far as I’m concerned, the context for how public figures has changed recently. It seems to be easier to identify the good guys not only by what they’re actions are, but maybe more by who hates them. Gowdy is hated by all the right people and deserves out support.


Comments are closed.