Most Americans Want Trump and Clinton to Address Christian Persecution

Over three quarters of Americans want the next president to address Christian persecution, according to a Harris poll commissioned by Open Doors USA.

Seventy-six per cent of respondents agreed with the statement: “It is important to me that the next US President be committed to addressing the persecution that some Christians face around the world (eg., imprisonment, beheadings, rape, loss of home and assets).”

David Curry, the Open Doors USA President and CEO, said: “Persecution of Christians, as well as adherents of other faiths, has grown exponentially in recent years. Governments are clamping down on religious freedom of expression, causing millions to face displacement, harassment, imprisonment, beatings and even death. Americans are looking to each presidential candidate for clear and decisive plans to address this growing global crisis.”

The organisation has set up a petition calling on the candidates to address the issue of persecution of Christians around the world.

Curry added: “At Open Doors, our work brings us up close and personal with the suffering of persecuted Christians—and that means we are also a witness to the heartbreaking persecution faced by those belonging to other faiths. This campaign is an effort to urge the candidates to state clearly their plans of action for addressing the drastic rise in religious persecution faced by millions around the globe.”

The Open Doors website said: “At Open Doors, we believe that the next president of the United States should be equipped with a plan of action to address the onslaught of unprecedented persecution.”

Christians around the Middle East and Africa are facing persecution at the hands of Islamic militants, especially in Iraq and Syria, while increasing numbers of Christians are leaving the Holy Land of Israel-Palestine.

At a campaign event in New Hampshire last December, Clinton agreed that Christian persecution at the hands of Islamic State is “genocide”.

A voter asked: “Will you join those leaders, faith leaders, and secular leaders and political leaders from both the right and the left, in calling what is happening by its proper name: genocide?”

Clinton replied: “I will because we now have enough evidence”.

Source

— Michelle Obama Copied Alinsky in Speech Melania Trump Allegedly Plagiarized

__

The Hostage Air Base – And Its Hydrogen Bombs

The United States runs its air operations against ISIS in Iraq from Incirlik Air Base in Turkey. The base, used by other NATO forces as well, is not American. It is Turkish, and the U.S. needs government permission to fly from there. Since the 15 July coup attempt in Ankara, U.S. forces at Incirlik are essentially hostages to the Turkish government. The Turkish base commander and his aides have been arrested; U.S. personnel are confined to base; outside power has been cut off; and while the U.S. has been permitted to resume operations over Iraq and Syria, it is working under adverse conditions, to say the least. Most worrisome, about 50 hydrogen bombs are stored by the U.S. at Incirlik, ostensibly on behalf of NATO. These bombs are “protected” by Turkish troops and to some degree their potential use is shared with the Turkish Air Force.

The deployment goes back more than 50 years, begun as an effort to counter the Soviet military buildup as an offset to quantitatively larger Soviet ground forces facing Europe. But by the mid-1980s the U.S. put more emphasis on “tactical” missiles, largely to counter the Soviet Union’s deployment of SS-20’s, a short to medium range missile with multiple, independently targeted warheads (MIRV) in the second and third versions of the SS-20. In 1987 the Intermediate and Short-range Missile Nuclear Treaty (INF) was signed and the Russians and the U.S. began removing their missiles. By 1991, all the missiles of concern on both sides were eliminated.

With the collapse of the Soviet Union and the expansion of NATO, one can ask why tactical nuclear weapons in NATO were retained as times and conditions have changed. The U.S. now finds itself escalating operations out of Incirlik as it increases the fight against ISIS, al Nusra, and al Qaeda. Turkey itself is increasingly authoritarian and increasingly involved in the wars in Syria and Iraq as well as fighting Kurdish separatists. But only late in 2015 did Incirlik see the beginning of security upgrades for its nuclear stockpile.

Why didn’t we just take them out?

Incirlik nuclear weapons are unlikely to be used against Russia. The missiles need to be delivered by aircraft that can penetrate Russian air defenses — which have been steadily improved. Newer Russian systems such as the S-300, S-400, and the soon to come S-500 raise a host of new challenges. As U.S. Air Force Chief of Staff Mark Welch and LTG Herbert “Hawk” Carlisle, Chief of the Air Combat Command, have testified, there are ten or more — and there will be more — “integrated air defense systems in the world that you would have a difficult time operating in or around in aircraft.” They didn’t specifically mention Russia, but it can be assumed they meant U.S. Air Force conventional bombers would have a hard time with Russia’s air defenses and newest radars. In a real conflict, it can be assumed that more likely than a U.S. strike on Russian nuclear weapons depots is a Russian strike on nuclear storage depots like Incirlik.

Furthermore, the old Soviet threat scenario no longer exists. While Russia is aggressive, especially around its perimeter, today’s problem is qualitatively different from that posed by an organized Soviet attack on the Fulda Gap. The Russian army and navy are no longer of the size or capability to launch a real challenge to NATO — even in NATO’s current less-than-optimal state. While it could technically pick off some weak sisters like Estonia or Lithuania, such aggression could precipitate painful Western countermeasures. NATO could challenge Russia’s Baltic and Black Sea fleets; it could attack Crimea; it could launch cross-border attacks to take out Russian military threats to NATO members. NATO could do a number of things, or nothing, but this is not an environment in which nuclear weapons would be useful.

It should be noted that the weapons kept in Turkey are each about ten times more powerful than the atomic bombs that destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki. They should not be considered “tactical” at all. These are WMD — that is, weapons of mass destruction. Keeping them in harm’s way is an act of political irresponsibility.

And then there is the problem of Turkey. Increasingly radicalized, if Turkey were to acquire the weapons for itself — say by expelling U.S. and NATO forces from Incirlik — it would not only have the weapons, but the means to deliver them. Turkey has F-16s and nuclear-capable F-4 Phantom jets. A nuclear Turkey would become a significant threat in the Middle East in a multitude of directions (i.e., against Greece/Cyprus, against Israel, against Russia, against Iran). It would absolutely cause Iran to mount nukes on missiles (which it could quickly acquire from North Korea if not locally produced). A nuclear Turkey is immense threat to involve NATO in a conflict with no clear or positive outcome.

Finally, there is always the possibility of terrorists getting nuclear bombs. Under current political conditions, with the Turkish general staff and military decimated, the time is ripe for an external attack on Incirlik. The acquisition of a potentially usable nuclear weapon by terrorists is the worst nightmare of all.

It would be optimal to ship the weapons out of Turkey, but if that is not possible, there is a lesson from history. After the Turkish invasion of Cyprus, the U.S. physically disabled the nuclear weapons under its control. In any case, a rescue team should be positioned in the area, ready to intervene if necessary. For the U.S. to continue operating in a business-as-usual mode, but under hostage-like conditions, is extraordinarily risky.

Source

— Are Nuclear Weapons Stored in Turkey Under Threat?

— Churches targeted in failed Turkey coup

— WikiLeaks Dumps ‘Erdogan Emails’ After Turkey’s Failed Coup

__

Christian Leader: There Exists a Grand Plan to Wipe out Christians From Nigeria

There is a grand plan to wipe out Christians from Nigeria and believers may be forced to protect themselves if the government continues to do nothing about the violence against them, an official from the Christian Association of Nigeria (CAN) has warned.

In an interview with The Punch, CAN secretary Rev. Musa Asake accused the Nigerian president of favoring one religion over the other. He also touched on the recent killing of Redeemed Christian Church of God pastor Eunice Elisha, and condemned the Muslims’ killing of Christians for no reason, NAIJ relays.

Last week, a large group of Muslim youths attacked parishioners at Saint Philip Catholic Church in Suleja, leaving many injured. A police source said the assailants dispersed the worshippers, claiming Christians have no right to hold church services on Friday, Sahara Reporters details.

In light of the recent attacks, Rev. Asake revealed that there is plan to eradicate Christians in the country, but also said this will not happen by God’s grace. The CAN secretary warned that a time will come when Christians will have enough of the violence and begin standing up to defend themselves.

“From the way I see things happening, there is a grand plan to wipe out Christians in this country but by the grace of God it will not come to pass. That is why I am saying if the government is not going to protect us, then we have no choice but to protect ourselves,” said Rev. Asake. “We will not continue to fold our hands and accept being killed for no reason. These killings are going on as usual and we have got to a point to say ‘enough is enough.’ Everybody has to defend themselves.”

In addition, Asake denounced the government’s apathy to the plight of the Nigerian Christians. He accused the state of treating Christians like second-class citizens, and slammed the police for not helping even those who run to them for security.

Moreover, the CAN secretary blasted the government’s failure to even express sympathy to the bereaved family of the pastor who was killed. Rev. Asake noted that none of the Muslim suspects have been charged for the killings.

Source

The British Government’s Responsibility for Northern Nigeria

“The British colonial masters took our land and handed it over to Muslim rulers… They gave us [non-Muslim groups] an inferior social and political role in the colonial hierarchical system in northern Nigeria, and that is exactly where we are right now.” — Dr. Yusufu Taraki

It is a truth not universally acknowledged in Western politically-correct circles that Christianity has become the most persecuted religion in the world and that most of the oppression comes from the hands of Islam and in Muslim-majority areas.

Nowhere is this more true than in northern Nigeria where, in 2012, 70% of all Christians murdered worldwide were slain. Not only death but discrimination, too, is rife across the country’s twelve northern Sharia states in which Christians and other minorities live with second-classdhimmi status, and with inferior rights to jobs, justice and worship.

Much of this inequity is Britain’s responsibility, according to the keynote speaker at a recent human rights conference, a program of Gatestone Institute and organized by the Nigerian aid and advocacy charity Stefanos Foundation. 150 delegates from many minority groups met in Jos, a city on the fault-line between the mainly Christian south and the majority Muslim north, where, in September 2001, over a thousand people were reported killed in ethno-religious clashes. These clashes were followed by further major riots and fatalities in 2008 and 2010, and suicide-bomb attacks on Jos churches in February and March 2012.

The speaker was Dr. Yusufu Taraki, a mild-mannered academic who, given the keynote platform, talked with passion on the issues in which he has specialized. With a PhD in Social Ethics from Boston University, Massachusetts, and currently Professor of Theology and Social Ethics at Jos ECWA Theological Seminary (JETS), he was given a warm reception as he delivered his speech about the place of ethnic minority groups in northern Nigeria.

Nigeria was a British colony until 1960, during which time, he argued, “The British colonial masters took our land and handed it over to Muslim rulers… They gave us [non-Muslim groups] an inferior social and political role in the colonial hierarchical system in northern Nigeria, and that is exactly where we are right now.”

When first published in his book The British Colonial Legacy In Northern Nigeria, this thesis earned Professor Turaki a British government ban from entering the UK.

Truth hurts even hardened British authorities, but Professor Turaki was bold enough in his speech to spread around the honors: “The worst kind of slavery in Africa was conducted by Arabs and Muslims,” he said touching on another specialist subject. “The majority of African slaves went to the Middle East and Arab countries… not to the Caribbean, the US and Latin America.” He advised the audience, for further information, to look into his book, Tainted Legacy: Islam, Colonialism and Slavery in Northern Nigeria.

Later, privately, he pointed out that, once British troops had conquered the northern Muslim forces of the Sokoto Caliphate and Kanem-Bornu Sultanate in 1902-1903 with the laudable objective of terminating their slave trade, the colonial administration and the defeated Fulani Muslim elite found they had much in common. They both had top-down authoritarian views of governance and an ordered elitist view of the world; they saw the many different non-Muslim groups across the north as pagan, uncivilized and inferior. “Read the memoir But Always As Friends by Sir Bryan Sharwood Smith, the last British governor of Northern Nigeria, to understand the British colonial outlook,” Dr. Turaki said.

A corresponding Nigerian autobiography, My Life by Sir Ahmadu Bello, the Sardauna (traditional leader) of Sokoto and first Premier of the Northern Region after independence, also tellingly shows the Sardauna playing English cricket and Eton Fives. The English and Muslim Nigerian upper classes became close.

Working with the Fulani and Hausa Muslim elite, the colonialists instituted a system of “indirect rule” which was cheap and effective. A limited number of British administrators were placed at the top of the power structure; the educated Muslim elite were next; other Muslim groups were below them; and everyone else was at the bottom. Frequently the British would foist, say, a Fulani Muslim chief on a non-Muslim village or district, thereby disempowering the locals and creating an alienated hostile underclass.

Ironically, during colonial rule many of the pagan tribes converted to Christianity, which caused tension between British colonial authorities and British missionaries on the ground. The indigenous new Christians, actively supported by the missionaries, enjoyed “redemption lift” and began to assert a moral vitality, ethnic identity and spiritual independence that sometimes challenged the cozy Anglo-Islamic status quo.

But Nigerian Independence in 1960 saw the British depart, leaving behind unamended the unjust governing structure and unfettered Muslim hegemony across the north, which Professor Turaki describes as “internal colonialism.” This was the seedbed of the crisis we see today.

The interventions in Libya and — until thwarted by parliament — Syria have amply demonstrated British Prime Minister David Cameron’s liberal interventionism and his desire to reassert British power on the international stage. And, when it comes to issues such as gay rights, he has Commonwealth and former colonial countries specifically in his sights. To the fury of African leaders who want to protect their traditional values and cultures, he insists they must dance to his liberal gay agenda or risk losing overseas aid.

But Mr Cameron might do well to replace colonial arrogance with Christian humility; and he could, and should, acknowledge some British responsibility for the Nigerian crisis.

Source

— Islam in Africa: The Invisible Genocide of Christians – The goal is creating a big African-Islamic continent. Christians must be killed or expelled

— Buhari drags Nigeria into Saudi-led Islamic coalition against terrorism

__