SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : How Quickly Can Obama Totally Destroy the US? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: golfer72 who wrote (3186)5/25/2013 9:45:07 PM
From: joseffy1 Recommendation  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 16547
 
But that doesn’t mean the British are entirely lax with respect to law enforcement. No, not at all: it just depends which laws you are talking about.

If you mean laws against carving up innocent people on the street with knives, well, the Brits have a problem.

But if you complain about such an outrage on Facebook or Twitter, you’re going to be crushed by the full majesty of the law.
(Via InstaPundit):

A 22-year-old man has been charged on suspicion of making malicious comments on Facebook following the murder of British soldier Lee Rigby.

Benjamin Flatters, from Lincoln, was arrested last night after complaints were made to Lincolnshire Police about comments made on Facebook, which were allegedly of a racist or anti-religious nature.

He was charged with an offence of malicious communications this afternoon in relation to the comments, a Lincolnshire Police spokesman said.

That’ll show ‘em! There is more:

A second man was visited by officers and warned about his activity on social media, the spokesman added.

Flatters has been remanded in police custody and will appear before magistrates in Lincoln tomorrow.

The charge comes after two men were earlier released on bail following their arrest for making alleged offensive comments on Twitter about the murder.

Complaints were made to Avon and Somerset Police about remarks that appeared on the social networking website, which were allegedly of a racist or anti-religious nature.

I take it that the men on whom the law has descended like a ton of bricks made some adverse comment about Islamic terrorism. Like, they may have mentioned that it is Islamic. We certainly can’t have such lawlessness in a country where crazed murderers, soaked in blood past their elbows, cow unarmed policemen!



To: golfer72 who wrote (3186)5/25/2013 10:23:51 PM
From: DeplorableIrredeemableRedneck  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 16547
 
Before moslyms showed they didn't need guns



To: golfer72 who wrote (3186)5/26/2013 12:45:33 AM
From: joseffy  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 16547
 
Jailed for Facebook comments, Marine sues

'Case exposes government system that is targeting military veterans'


mobile.wnd.com


It happens in China routinely. It frequently happened in the old Soviet Union. Undoubtedly in North Korea, although generally there’s no one around to witness it. But in the United States? It happens here, too, apparently.

A lawsuit has been filed by officials with the Rutherford Institute on behalf of a Marine who was jailed and held for the comments he made on Facebook – comments that expressed a dissatisfaction with the present direction of the U.S. government.

According to officials at Rutherford, the civil rights action names as defendants members of law enforcement and the government who were involved in last year’s episode where Marine veteran Brandon Raub, 27, was arrested by a swarm of FBI and Secret Service and forcibly detained in a psychiatric ward for a week.

His crime was posting controversial song lyrics and political views on Facebook, the institute reported.

In one of his postings, he cited the evil in the world.

“The United States was meant to lead the charge against injustice, but through our example not our force. People do not respond to having liberty and freedom forced on them,” he wrote.

He was released later when a judge stepped in and concluded the prosecution’s case against Raub was “so devoid of any factual allegations that it could not be reasonably expected to give rise to a case or controversy.”

The lawsuit asks for damages for Raub for the attack he endured. It was filed in U.S. District Court in Richmond, Va., and claims Raub’s seizure and detention were part of a plan executed by the Obama administration called “Operation Vigilant Eagle.”

That, the institute explains, was a federal program to do surveillance on military veterans who express views critical of the government.

Institute attorneys claim the attempt to label Raub as “mentally ill” and authorities’ efforts to involuntarily commit him into custody was intended to silence his criticism of the government. However, they explain the strategy also violated Raub’s First and Fourth Amendment rights.

“Since coming to Raub’s defense, The Rutherford Institute has been contacted by military veterans across the country recounting similar incidents. In filing a civil suit against government officials, Rutherford Institute attorneys plan to take issue with the manner in which Virginia’s civil commitment statutes are being used to silence individuals engaged in lawfully exercising their free speech rights,” the organization said.

“Brandon Raub’s case exposed the seedy underbelly of a governmental system that is targeting military veterans for expressing their discontent over America’s rapid transition to a police state,” said John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute.

“Brandon Raub is not the first veteran to be targeted for speaking out against the government. Hopefully, by holding officials accountable, we can ensure that Brandon is the last to suffer in this way.”

It was last Aug, 16 when Chesterfield police, Secret Service and FBI agents arrived at Raub’s home and asked to talk with him about his Facebook posts.

“Like many Facebook users, Raub, a Marine who has served tours in Iraq and Afghanistan, uses his Facebook page to post song lyrics and air his political opinions. Without providing any explanation, levying any charges against Raub or reading him his rights, law enforcement officials handcuffed Raub and transported him to police headquarters, then to John Randolph Medical Center, where he was held against his will,” the Institute reported.

“In a hearing on Aug. 20, government officials pointed to Raub’s Facebook posts as the reason for his incarceration. While Raub stated that the Facebook posts were being read out of context, a Special Justice ordered Raub be held up to 30 more days for psychological evaluation and treatment.”

When Circuit Court Judge Allan Sharrett, however, found out about the case, he ordered it dismissed and Raub released, because there was no evidence of a case.

In asking the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia to acknowledge the harm done to Raub and to rectify the violation of his First, Fourth, Fifth and 14th Amendment rights, Institute attorneys are requesting that Raub be awarded damages.

The 14-page complaint describes Raub’s “baseless incarceration” and said it violated his free speech, due process and other rights.

The complaint claims the arrest was a “pretext” that was orchestrated to “silence Raub’s speech critical of the government by subjecting him to involuntary commitment.”



To: golfer72 who wrote (3186)5/26/2013 1:01:11 AM
From: joseffy  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 16547
 
But while the Stockholm riots keep spreading and intensifying, Swedish police have adopted a tactic of non-interference.

”Our ambition is really to do as little as possible,” Stockholm Chief of Police Mats Löfving explained to the Swedish newspaper Expressen on Tuesday.


”We go to the crime scenes, but when we get there we stand and wait,” elaborated Lars Byström, the media relations officer of the Stockholm Police Department. ”If we see a burning car, we let it burn if there is no risk of the fire spreading to other cars or buildings nearby. By doing so we minimize the risk of having rocks thrown at us.”



Well, that’s one way of looking at it. I noted last night that in Great Britain, police are powerless to deal with Islamic terrorists who attack innocent citizens with knives and meat cleavers (partly, at least, because most of them are unarmed), but a serious crackdown on those who criticize Muslim terrorists on Twitter or Facebook is in progress.

Something similar is happening in Sweden, as Joe Malchow points out. The police don’t do anything to prevent cars from being torched by “youths”–here’s a hint, the “youths” aren’t named Erik or Gustav–but parking regulations are being strictly enforced. So we have this absurd situation:

Swedish parking laws, however, continue to be rigidly enforced despite the increasingly chaotic situation. Early Wednesday, while documenting the destruction after a night of rioting in the Stockholm suburb of Alby, a reporter from Fria Tider observed a parking enforcement officer writing a ticket for a burnt-out Ford.

When questioned, the officer explained that the ticket was issued because the vehicle lacked a tag showing its time of arrival. The fact that the vehicle had been effectively destroyed – its windshield smashed and the interior heavily damaged by fire – was irrelevant according to the meter maid, who asked Fria Tider’s photographer to destroy the photos he had taken.

This, I take it, is one of those photos:



That’s the thing about Sweden: just when you think there is not a single good thing about the country, you are forced to admit that they have the world’s most fetching meter maids. Still, that doesn’t prevent the decline of civilization from proceeding apace in Sweden, as in Great Britain.



To: golfer72 who wrote (3186)5/26/2013 11:06:27 AM
From: joseffy  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 16547
 
MSNBC host Melissa Harris-Perry compares Gitmo terrorists to American slaves:
....................................................................................................................................
MSNBC Host Compares Gitmo Inmates to American Slaves
..................................................................................................
On MSNBC, host Melissa Harris-Perry compared Gitmo terrorist inmates to American slaves:

"This is the time to reaffirm our Americanness," said Harris-Perry. "I also appreciate that the hunger strikers are not trying to die. They're trying to generate autonomy in the context of something that strips their humanity--something we certainly know about from the experience of American slavery. And that the language of before I would be a slave, I'd be buried in my grave and go home to my Lord and be free. Just that idea of creating human freedom within the context of horrible human conditions."


Melissa Harris-Perry


Gitmo Inmates Compare MSNBC Host to Islamic Slaves (i.e. useful idiots)

Harris-Perry is also professor of political science at Tulane University, where she is founding director of the Anna Julia Cooper Project on Gender, Race, and Politics in the South.

Professor Harris-Perry is a columnist for the communist Nation magazine,



To: golfer72 who wrote (3186)5/26/2013 11:44:50 AM
From: joseffy  Respond to of 16547
 
Obama Goons Threatened Leftie Tavis Smiley’s Sponsors, Too!
.,.................................................................................
by Jim Hoft on Saturday, May 25, 2013, 7:30 PM

Back in September far left radio host Tavis Smiley criticized Barack Obama on his awful unemployment record.

Obama is the worst jobs president since the Great Depression.

But, Smiley didn’t expect this…

Radio host Tavis Smiley told his audience this week that the Obama Administration targeted his sponsors after he spoke out against Obama’s awful unemployment record.
The Root reported, via Free Republic:

On Friday, television and radio host Tavis Smiley celebrated the 10th anniversary of his Tavis Smiley show on PBS and defended his right to critique President Obama, reports the Huffington Post. But Smiley says freedom of speech hasn’t come without its price.

Smiley contends that members of the Obama administration, whom he didn’t identify, have pressured sponsors to drop their support of his projects, including his anti-poverty initiatives. The White House had no comment, said a spokesman, Kevin Lewis.

Smiley declined to identify the companies, saying he wasn’t authorized to disclose their names.

While he said he understands the desire of blacks to stand protectively by the first African-American president, he’s adamant about his right to take Obama to task on rising black unemployment, the use of military drones and other issues.

“This administration does not like to be criticized. And the irony of it is, there’s nothing I have tried to hold the president accountable on that my white progressive colleagues have not,” Smiley said. “They’re labeled courageous critics, but if I say it, I’m an ‘Obama critic.’ There’s race at play in the very question.”

thegatewaypundit.com



To: golfer72 who wrote (3186)5/26/2013 4:01:41 PM
From: joseffy1 Recommendation  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 16547
 
In Britain, Police Arrest Twitter And Facebook Users If They Make Anti-Muslim Statements
...............................................................................................................................
Jim Edwards | May 26, 2013,
businessinsider.com


British police are arresting people in the middle of the night if they have made racist or anti-Muslim comments on Twitter following the murder of a soldier by two Muslims in Woolwich, London.

Three men have so far been taken into custody for using Twitter and Facebook to criticize Muslims.

In the Woolwich attack, Lee Rigby, a drummer in the Royal Regiment of Fusliers, was run down in a car and then hacked and stabbed to death by two men with knives and a cleaver. They told a man video recording the scene that it was vengeance for the killings of Muslims by the British Army.

One man has been charged with "malicious communications" on Facebook, the Daily Mail reports.

Two others have been arrested under the Public Order Act on suspicion of inciting racial or religious hatred. The police are now arresting people based on mere speech in social media, a detective said in a statement to the press:

'The men were arrested under the Public Order Act on suspicion of inciting racial or religious hatred. Our inquiries into these comments continue.

'These comments were directed against a section of our community. Comments such as these are completely unacceptable and only cause more harm to our community in Bristol.

'People should stop and think about what they say on social media before making statements as the consequences could be serious.'

The arrests come at the behest of British Muslims, who fear a backlash against them following the death of Rigby, The New York Times says:

The police and Muslim groups have said that there have been anti-Muslim episodes in many parts of the country, the most common involving derogatory messages on social media sites like Twitter and Facebook.

A number of arrests have been made, with criminal charges being leveled in some cases under laws against inciting racial or religious hatred, and Muslim community leaders have reported rising concern among the estimated 2.5 million Muslims in Britain.

Two men were detained in the middle of the night after they expressed anger at Muslims on Twitter. The Independent quotes police as saying:

"We began inquiries into the comments and at around 3.20am two men, aged 23 and 22, were detained at two addresses in Bristol.

"The men were arrested under the Public Order Act on suspicion of inciting racia

Read more: businessinsider.com

credit fubho



To: golfer72 who wrote (3186)5/27/2013 11:24:53 AM
From: joseffy1 Recommendation  Respond to of 16547
 
The Real Lesson of the IRS Scandal
..........................................................................................
Hoover Institution Journal ^ | 05/25/2013 | Richard A. Epstein


The news of the past week has rightly been dominated by allegations of abuse in the Exempt Office (EO) of the Internal Revenue Service. The EO is in charge of processing applications for tax-exempt status under Section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code, which authorizes these exemptions for “civic leagues or organizations not organized for profit but operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare.” Some 3,357 applications for tax-exempt status were filed in 2012, an election year, which was a 50 percent increase from the 2,265 applications filed in w 2011.

The criteria for Section 501(c)(4) organizations are open-ended. Few complex organizations are ever operated “exclusively” for any single purpose, and the many applicants have rather different definitions of what counts as “social welfare.” The deadly combination of loose standards and applications in the thousands empowers the EO to decide which applications sail through, and which are mired in delay.

The May 14 report of the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration’s (IG) explicitly stated that the EO’s actions were “not politically biased,” but were attributable solely to the confusions of lower staff members, who somehow for nearly three years never quite understood their jobs assignments. Don’t believe a word of that whitewash. All the nitpicking questions and pointless delays, such as those experienced by the Ohio Tea Party, were calibrated to hold off the approval of these applications until after the November 2012 presidential election.

The Larger Lesson


The dismal performance of the IRS is but a symptom of a much larger disease which has taken root in the charters of many of the major administrative agencies in the United States today: the permit power. Private individuals are not allowed to engage in certain activities or to claim certain benefits without the approval of some major government agency. The standards for approval are nebulous at best, which makes it hard for any outside reviewer to overturn the agency’s decision on a particular application.

That power also gives the agency discretion to drag out its review, since few individuals or groups are foolhardy enough to jump the gun and set up shop without obtaining the necessary approvals first. It takes literally a few minutes for a skilled government administrator to demand information that costs millions of dollars to collect and that can tie up a project for years. That delay becomes even longer for projects that need approval from multiple agencies at the federal or state level, or both.

The beauty of all of this (for the government) is that there is no effective legal remedy. Any lawsuit that protests the improper government delay only delays the matter more. Worse still, it also invites that agency (and other agencies with which it has good relations) to slow down the clock on any other applications that the same party brings to the table. Faced with this unappetizing scenario, most sophisticated applicants prefer quiet diplomacy to frontal assault, especially if their solid connections or campaign contributions might expedite the application process. Every eager applicant may also be stymied by astute competitors intent on slowing the approval process down, in order to protect their own financial profits. So more quiet diplomacy leads to further social waste.

One reason the administrative process gets so bogged down is the grandiose standards the agencies employ. The FDA’s mission statement provides one example: “The FDA is responsible for protecting the public health by assuring the safety, efficacy, and security of human and veterinary drugs, biological products, medical devices, our nation’s food supply, cosmetics, and products that emit radiation.”

What is left unstated is how the FDA determines “the safety, efficacy, and security” of the huge list of products whose use it oversees. Clearly, absolute “safety, efficacy, and security” are unattainable, so it falls to the FDA to turn differences in kind into differences of degree. For example, just how safe is safe enough when all “safe” drugs have deadly side effects for which some FDA warnings are appropriate? The ambiguity in these key areas lets the FDA ask companies for additional trials in a two-page letter, often needlessly tacking on years to any particular application.

Similarly, “The mission of the California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal/EPA) is to restore, protect, and enhance the environment, to ensure public health, environmental quality, and economic vitality.” Once again, such a grand vision does not answer any of the hard decisions that an agency faces when the scarcity of social resources precludes perfect restoration, complete protection, and vigorous enhancement of the environment. But the mission statement does permit the agency to slow down growth, often for years, and never with compensation for the aggrieved owner.

The Federal Communications Commission is no better. It issues and reviews broadcast licenses by asking whether an application promotes the “public interest, convenience, and necessity.” This formless standard often allows the FCC to do largely what it wants. The short duration of these licenses inspire all sorts of objections at renewal time. And the want of outright ownership allows the FCC to impose a host of technical conditions that can impair the overall efficiency of spectrum use.

One Disease, Many Cures

These three mission statements share a common feature with the tax-exemptions in the IRS: They use broad mandates that foster administrative discretion and delay, both of which pose a threat to the rule of law. Even though the disease is the same in all cases, the cure surely is not. Here is a quick primer on what ought to be done in these different settings.

501(C)(4) Organizations — The IRS’s 501(c)(4) standard, “operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare,” is an open invitation for disaster. It should be scrapped entirely. That would leave in place Section 501(c)(3), which already covers a long list of organizations that are “operated exclusively for religious, charitable, scientific, testing for public safety, literary, or educational purposes, to foster national or international amateur sports competition, to promote the arts, or for the prevention of cruelty to children or animals.” In 2012, over 66,000 organizations sought tax-exempt status under this subsection. If these organizations don’t promote the “social welfare,” then just why do they receive this preferred tax treatment? Scrapping 501(c)(4) exemptions should make it harder for all political organizations of whatever persuasion to find relief at the IRS.

Environmental Protection — Endless environmental permits far too often stand in the path of sensible development. These permits require comprehensive evaluation of all potential future adverse effects, no matter how small or improbable, that might follow from the construction of a new plant or facility. Yet the parade of horribles rarely comes to pass.

This exhaustive preclearance stands in stark contrast to the private law rules that were developed in connection with just these environmental risks, and provide a clear solution to the problem: Allow the activity to proceed naturally as the market would dictate, but then draw a real red line in the sand once there is evidence that a plant or facility poses actual or imminent peril of serious harm. Then, but only then, lower the boom.

First, make them responsible for any harm caused, no excuses allowed. Second, shut the facility down immediately at the insistence of either the government or private party until the peril is corrected. Keeping that tough standard means that businesses with millions at stake in their new operations will steer clear of doubtful zones. New facilities will get online more rapidly, allowing dangerous older equipment, which is often grandfathered in under current laws, to be removed from operations more quickly. Killing the permit culture will reduce the opportunities for that deadly duo of discretion and delay.

FCC Licenses
— The FCC has an inordinate and wholly unnecessary power to issue, renew, and revoke licenses to the airwaves. Their key task should be to make sure that operations taking place on one frequency do not interfere with the transmission of signals on other frequencies. Those observable events are easily remedied with the same combination of damages and injunctions available in environmental cases.

The FCC should arrange to sell off frequencies to private owners to use, develop, and sell like any other resource. That process has already allowed the government to pocket a fair piece of change in dealing with many broadband licenses. It could also rationalize and improve the operation of the broadcast licenses for radio, television, and other consumer services at a fraction of the price it now takes to run the current system. As Friedrich Hayek noted long ago in The Road to Serfdom, the function of government is to organize the traffic flow, not to determine the composition of the traffic.

The scandal at the IRS teaches a larger lesson for the overall operation of the administrative state. The best way to control the twin risks of discretion and delay is to strip administrative agencies of as much of their discretionary power as is humanly possible. Each area has its own twists, and some discretion on enforcement issues will always remain. But the larger goal should be clear: an efficient administrative state that does not incentivize discretionary bureaucratic delay. The time to start on major reform efforts is now. Here is one crisis that should not go to waste.



To: golfer72 who wrote (3186)5/27/2013 11:45:06 AM
From: joseffy  Respond to of 16547
 
Claim: IRS May Still Be Targeting Conservatives
...............................................................................................
Breitbart's Big Government ^ | May 26, 2013 | Tony Lee


Though the White House has insisted the IRS stopped formally targeting Tea Party and conservative organizations in May of 2012, two attorneys representing conservative organizations have claimed the IRS's targeting may still be ongoing.

Jay Sekulow of the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) and Cleta Mitchell, the attorney representing True the Vote, have evidence their clients are still being targeted.

According to National Review, Sekulow "plans to file suit in federal court in the coming weeks on behalf of more than two dozen conservative groups that claim their harassment at the hands of the nation’s tax authority continued long past the White House’s purported end date."

At least ten organizations the ACLJ is representing still have not received their determination letters. National Review notes the Albuquerque Tea Party applied for 501(c)(4) status in December of 2009 while Linchpins of Liberty applied in January 2011. Both organizations still have not received their letters.

Sekulow told the publication that "to suggest this tactic ended a year ago is not only offensive, but it is simply inaccurate as well.” He said the White House's timeline of events "simply does not square with the facts."

True the Vote, the nonprofit that trains workers to find and report voting fraud, is waiting for approval as a tax-exempt organization three years after initially filing its application with the IRS....

(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...



To: golfer72 who wrote (3186)5/27/2013 2:13:02 PM
From: joseffy1 Recommendation  Respond to of 16547
 
Christian Massacres: A Result of U.S. Foreign Policy
................................................................................................
by Alex Newman Monday, 23 April 2012
thenewamerican.com


It has been claimed that U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East could not be intentionally designed to do a better job of liquidating Christians than is happening nowadays. It's likely true.


Asia Bibi is a mother of five children and a devout Christian. She is also on death row — for “blasphemy.” And incredibly, she lives under a government that receives billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars every year: Pakistan, one of the top recipients of American foreign aid. Over the last 10 years, the Pakistani regime has raked in well over $20 billion from U.S. taxpayers.

Meanwhile, the government has been brutally persecuting and oppressing the sizeable Christian minority.
Indeed, the Pakistani regime consistently ranks as among the worst in the world in terms of persecution. And according to senior U.S. officials, Pakistan’s “intelligence” services have even been collaborating with terrorist groups to attack American targets.

Almost three years ago, Bibi was working as a farmhand when she apparently got into an argument with some Muslim women also working in the fields. Her co-workers alleged that she “defamed” the Islamic prophet, Mohammed. She insists she merely defended her own faith and was falsely accused because of existing animosity. That’s when the tragic ordeal began.

Hearing that a Christian woman made a derogatory remark about Mohammed, a furious mob led by a local cleric promptly descended on Bibi’s home. According to news reports, her family was beaten and tortured by the outraged local residents. They sexually assaulted Bibi, put a noose around her neck, and almost killed her.

When police finally arrived, they rescued the family — temporarily, at least — before charging Bibi with a capital offense: blasphemy. She was ultimately arrested, and has been in jail ever since. Her family went into hiding to avoid being murdered by vigilantes. “My children,” she wrote in a letter to her family, published in a book about her ordeal, “don’t lose courage or faith in Jesus Christ.”

In November of 2010, Bibi, also known as Aasiya Noreen, was sentenced to execution by hanging. She has been in a tiny prison cell for years — in deplorable conditions and complete isolation — awaiting an appeal with a higher court. But even if she is freed, countless religious leaders have vowed to murder her — there is already a bounty on her head.

And Bibi was not the only victim. As her case attracted international attention, Salmaan Taseer, the Governor of Punjab, spoke out in defense of Bibi and against Pakistan’s brutal blasphemy laws. He paid for his activism with his life.
In January of last year, he was murdered by a member of his own security detail. Hundreds of Muslim scholars and clerics praised the assassination, and more than a thousand lawyers rushed to the killer’s defense. Taseer’s son was kidnapped by jihadists later that year.

Two months after the assassination, Pakistani Minister of Minority Affairs Shahbaz Bhatti — the only Christian Minister in the regime — was also murdered. His killers left leaflets at the crime scene indicating that they assassinated him for opposing the blasphemy law.

Just this March, another mother, 26 years old, was reportedly taken into custody on “blasphemy” charges. More than a few Christians have been executed by vigilantes after being charged.

“A close examination of the cases reveals the blasphemy laws are often invoked to settle personal scores, or they are used by Islamist extremists as cover to persecute religious minorities, sadly with the help of the state under these laws,” noted Pakistanis for Peace founder Manzer Munir, saying there had been almost 1,000 cases of “blasphemy” since the death penalty was adopted as a punishment for it in 1986.

The U.S. government, of course, knows very well that it is bankrolling the atrocities. “Pakistan continues to be responsible for systematic, ongoing, and egregious violations of freedom of religion or belief,” noted the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom in its 2011 annual report. And conditions continue to deteriorate.

Saudi Arabia, meanwhile, another close U.S. “ally,” is also ranked as among the worst oppressors of Christians in the world, behind only Afghanistan and North Korea.
And the hard-line Islamic dictatorship’s Grand Mufti — the highest-ranking Muslim cleric — recently claimed it was “necessary to destroy all churches in the region.”

Trillions Spent, ?and for What?

After trillions of dollars and thousands of American lives were sacrificed by the U.S. government over the last decade intervening in the Middle East — the birthplace of Jesus Christ and Christianity — Christian communities are facing unprecedented struggles across most of the region. More than a few analysts have even called the systematic and growing persecution of Christians throughout much of the Muslim world an ongoing example of genocide.

“Conditions for genocide against non-Muslim communities exist in varying degrees throughout the region stretching from Pakistan to Morocco. The crisis of survival for non-Muslim communities is especially acute in Iraq, Syria, Egypt, Sudan, the Palestinian territories, Iran and Pakistan,” explained Dr. John Eibner of the non-profit human-rights group Christian Solidarity International. “Millions of lives and the future of a religiously pluralistic civilization in the Middle East are at stake.”

According to some estimates, more than 150,000 Christians are murdered every year for their faith around the world. The vast majority of those — over three-fourths — are in Islamic-dominated nations. And in many cases, U.S. taxpayers are either subsidizing the slaughter by distributing billions to oppressive regimes, or worse, helping to create the conditions that allow the persecution to happen in the first place.

One of the most frequent excuses offered to justify the persecution of Christians by murderous regimes and the anti-Christian fanatics they enable is that believers in Christ are somehow acting as surrogates or proxies for Western interests — especially the U.S. government.

The trend of linking local Christian populations to American foreign policy goes back decades. In 1970, for example, Iran’s Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini issued an official Islamic decree, or “fatwa,” accusing Iranian Christians of “working with American imperialists and oppressive rulers to distort the truths of Islam, lead Muslims astray, and convert our children.” The fatwa came while the Western establishment was still intervening on behalf of the Shah of Iran — leading to widespread anti-American resentment — and after the Central Intelligence Agency sparked a coup d’état in 1953 under the guise of fighting communism.

More recently, U.S. government intervention in the region has been justified using a broad array of issues: supposed “Weapons of Mass Destruction” (WMDs), the terror war, regional security, trade, and vaguely defined “national interests.” But increasingly, American policymakers have been meddling in the Middle East under the guise of “spreading democracy.” And as analysts have noted, when the overwhelming majority of the population is Muslim, so-called “democracy” — or majority rule — does not generally bode well for Christians and other minorities.

But to better understand the role of U.S. foreign policy in the ongoing and worsening atrocities against Christians, it helps to examine the two nations where the American government has been most involved over the last decade: Iraq and Afghanistan. According to experts like Chairman Leonard Leo of the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF), an official advisory body, there is now a very real prospect that Christianity could be completely wiped out in both countries. And in other nations — from Libya and Egypt to Pakistan and Syria — the effects of U.S. policies are producing similar fruit.

IRAQ

Christianity goes back almost 2,000 years in the land known today as Iraq. In fact, Assyrian Christians are often said to be the true indigenous people of the area. The devout communities there survived through centuries of invasion, persecution, and attempted extermination. Despite the never-ending onslaught, Christianity continued to thrive. Until “democracy” arrived, that is.

In the wake of the U.S. invasion and occupation — which in 2007 the Congressional Budget Office estimated would cost U.S. taxpayers about $2 trillion — Christianity in Iraq might very well be fully eradicated. Reliable estimates found that about 1.4 million Christians lived in Iraq before 2003. Today, that number is less than 500,000, with some experts claiming the true figure is actually around 200,000. In all, some two-thirds of the nation’s Christians have already fled or been killed.

Despite making up just three percent of the population prior to the U.S. invasion, according to the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, Christians accounted for nearly half of the refugees by 2008. Much of the faithful remnant in Iraq is seeking a way out before the persecution gets even worse — and that is despite calls by numerous Iraqi church leaders for the Christian communities to remain in their homeland.

Under the secular dictatorship of Saddam Hussein, Christians and other minorities were largely protected from Islamist violence and genocide — unlike in many areas of the Middle East. Indeed, the tyrant’s socialist Ba’th Party was founded by Michel Aflaq, an Orthodox Christian, and actually held “freedom of religion” as one of its core tenets.

Of course, as is well documented, enemies of the Iraqi regime were viciously persecuted and slaughtered. Despite the fact that the U.S. government once supported the regime, Hussein has been properly characterized as a monster. But under the dictator’s iron fist, Christians worshipped openly throughout Iraq and were not treated any worse than Muslims or anyone else.

Anti-Christian violence, prevalent across much of the Middle East, was not tolerated. Almost unprecedented in the entire region’s contemporary history: A Catholic, Tariq Aziz, served as Iraq’s Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister.

Even before the United States invaded Iraq, the repercussions of overthrowing a secular dictator in the Middle East were glaringly obvious to analysts — then-President George W. Bush was even warned of the consequences by his own advisors. The public was alerted, too, or at least could have been had citizens taken the time to perform a simple online search. Just a few weeks before American forces invaded, analyst and political-science expert Glen Chancy, a member of the Orthodox Church, wrote a piece explaining exactly what was likely to happen to Christians in the wake of war.

“This may come as a shock to many Americans, whose image of Saddam has been framed by comparisons to Adolf Hitler, but the prevalent fear among Assyrians [Christians], both in Iraq and abroad, is that what comes next after an American invasion will be worse,” he wrote. “Should the Assyrians be so concerned about being liberated by U.S. military power? If history is our guide, they shouldn’t be afraid. They should be terrified.”

Chancy made no effort to hide the murderous and barbaric nature of Saddam’s tyranny. But the Iraqi tyrant was brutal to all, and unlike under most Middle Eastern regimes, Christians in Iraq were doing very well. “Saddam’s regime has permitted a degree of free practice for Christians that is positively enviable compared to the situations experienced in such U.S. ‘allies’ as Pakistan and Saudi Arabia,” he noted. “Christmas and Easter decorations always abound, even in Baghdad, and attending church does not require an act of courage.”

After the United States invaded, however, everything changed. “The Assyrians have survived the coming of the Persians, the Arabs, and the Turks,” Chancy observed. “It remains to be seen if they will survive the coming of the Americans.” Unfortunately, as Chancy and countless other analysts warned, Christians did not fare well. With the fall of Hussein’s regime, Islamist militias vented their fury not just on the “infidel” invaders, but on local Christians, too.

Businesses were seized, churches were bombed, women were raped, Sharia law was brutally enforced, and Christians, including women and children, were viciously slaughtered. Muslim extremists throughout the nation and Kurdish nationalists in northern areas — supposedly U.S. allies — all participated in the massacres and persecution.

A year after the U.S. invasion, Chancy’s dire warnings had become reality. “In fact, the current policies of the Bush administration are threatening to absolutely devastate ancient and pious Christian communities whose blood will be on all our heads,” he observed in late 2004, saying the American people had become accomplices in the slaughter and destruction of large segments of the world’s Christian population.

“Had President George W. Bush set out with the intentional goal of destroying the Christian population in Iraq, it is hard to see how he could have been more effective than he has been to date.” That was in 2004.

Since then, the situation has deteriorated further. In October of 2010, for example, Islamic extremists under the banner of the “Islamic State of Iraq” attacked Our Lady of Salvation Syriac Catholic Cathedral in Baghdad. More than 50 Christians were murdered including two priests. The same church had already been bombed in 2004.

In August of 2011, a series of apparently coordinated attacks on more than a dozen churches left over 65 dead. In 2006, a 14-year-old boy was reportedly crucified. A priest was also beheaded. Christian women and girls, meanwhile, are also among the victims, being routinely targeted for rape and execution.

The new U.S.-imposed “democracy” remains unable or unwilling to do much about the problem. Perpetrators are rarely brought to justice, and in more than a few cases, officials have been suspected of involvement. The brave Christians who remain in Iraq live in complete terror.

“Why did they come? To do what? They came to give us freedom — the freedom to kill one another,” Auxiliary Chaldean Bishop of Baghdad Shelmon Warduni told the Christian relief agency Aid to the Church in Need. Countless senior church figures have expressed similar thoughts in recent years.

“Everybody hates the Christian. Yes, during Saddam Hussein, we were living in peace — nobody attacked us. We had human rights, we had protection from the government. But now, nobody protects us,” explained Archbishop Athanasios Dawood of the Syrian Orthodox Church, accusing the U.S. government of making empty promises. “Since 2003, there has been no protection for Christians. We’ve lost many people and they’ve bombed our homes, our churches, monasteries.”

Top Vatican officials have pointed to the tragedy facing Christians in Iraq as well. After blasting the “pre-emptive” U.S. war as a “crime against peace” before the invasion began, President of the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue Jean-Louis Tauran noted in a 2007 interview that Christians, “paradoxically, were more protected under the dictatorship.”

Even the U.S. government’s own research confirms the ongoing tragedy. “In Iraq, members of the country’s smallest religious minorities suffer from targeted violence, threats, and intimidation, against which the government does not provide effective protection,” noted the USCIRF in its 2011 annual report. “These violations are systematic, ongoing and egregious, and perpetrators are rarely identified, investigated, or punished, creating a climate of impunity.”

In fact, beyond failing to protect Christians, the new regime installed by Western forces is actually part of the problem. “The smallest minorities also experience a pattern of official discrimination, marginalization, and neglect,” the report stated. “The violence, forced displacement, discrimination, marginalization, and neglect suffered by members of these [Christian and other minority] groups threaten these ancient communities’ very existence in Iraq.”

Analysts debate the causes of Christianity’s virtual extermination in Iraq under U.S. military occupation. Some say the American government was not prepared to deal with the situation. Others contend that it simply had other priorities and was not sufficiently concerned with the fate of Christians and minority groups.

International relations and geopolitics analyst Lee Jay Walker, for example, wrote in the Seoul Times that “the destruction of Christianity in Iraq is taking place because of misguided American policies and because the Christian community is not deemed to be important.” No matter the reason, however, it is undeniable that Christians in Iraq have suffered tremendously as a direct result of U.S. foreign policy.

Meanwhile, the purpose of the war — WMDs, terror, democracy, freedom? — remains as elusive as ever. But the constitution of Iraq, imposed with Western assistance, has come under fire from around the globe. “Islam is the official religion of the State and it is a fundamental source of legislation,” it states. “No law that contradicts the established provisions of Islam may be established.” The document also enshrines big-government control over healthcare, education, employment, housing, and virtually every other sector.

AFGHANISTAN

As in Iraq, the history of Christianity in Afghanistan is believed to go back almost 2,000 years. According to numerous sources, the apostle Thomas set out for the region and preached the Gospel throughout several areas that are now part of modern-day Afghanistan and India. The so-called “Church of the East” thrived in the region for almost 1,000 years until the arrival of strict Islamism in the 13th and 14th centuries resulted in the destruction of churches and the attempted eradication of Christianity. Still, a small remnant of Christians is believed to have survived in Afghanistan over the centuries.

The Afghan Taliban — largely armed and trained in the 1970s and 1980s by the U.S. government and its allies — was brutal when it finally seized power, especially to Christians. Once the coalition of Islamic extremists took over Kabul, it destroyed churches and viciously sought to stamp out Christianity. But despite the persecution, a sort of “underground” church continued to exist throughout the group’s murderous reign.

According to the U.S. State Department, the hidden Christian minority inside Afghanistan is estimated at between 500 and 8,000 adherents. Other estimates place the number even higher, but it is impossible to know — publicly admitting to be a Christian would be a death sentence. Thousands more live as exiles outside of the country.

Incredibly, since the U.S. occupation began in 2001, experts say the situation for Christians in Afghanistan has not only failed to improve — it may have actually become worse. Even regular Afghans now associate Christians with the widely unpopular foreign occupation. And the new government is openly hostile to Christianity, which is, for all intents and purposes, illegal.

Meanwhile, the Taliban continue to rule over vast swaths of the nation, waging “jihad” against any Christians they may discover — foreign or domestic. Plus, the Obama administration is desperately seeking to negotiate with the group in a bid that could see it eventually restored to power. Hardly encouraging to U.S. troops or local Christians.

Finally, the last remaining public Christian church in Afghanistan was demolished in 2010. Apparently the courts refused to uphold Christians’ claim to the property. And the U.S.-backed regime has not issued a single new building permit for churches.

Open Doors’ 2012 World Watch List, a yearly ranking of the worst regimes in terms of Christian persecution, ranked Afghanistan as number two, up from third place the year before. The only nation worse than Afghanistan was the mass-murdering communist dictatorship ruling North Korea, which, perhaps ironically, also receives significant amounts of aid from the U.S. government. Saudi Arabia came in third.

For Afghanistan too, official U.S. entities acknowledge the tragic situation. “The government’s level of respect for religious freedom in law and in practice declined during the reporting period, particularly for Christian groups and individuals,” noted the 2010 State Department Religious Freedom report almost a decade after U.S. forces invaded Afghanistan and overthrew the government. That decline came after President Obama’s military “surge,” too.

“Negative societal opinions and suspicion of Christian activities led to targeting of Christian groups and individuals, including Muslim converts to Christianity,” the report noted. “The lack of government responsiveness and protection for these groups and individuals contributed to the deterioration of religious freedom.”

In its 2011 report, the USCIRF reported similar findings. “Conditions for religious freedom remain exceedingly poor for minority religious communities and dissenting members of the majority faith [Islam], despite the presence of U.S. armed forces in Afghanistan for almost 10 years and the substantial investment of lives, resources, and expertise by the United States and international community,” it noted, adding that even the government was prosecuting people for such “crimes” as apostasy and blasphemy. “The 2004 Afghan constitution has effectively established Islamic law as the law of the land.”

The new Afghan constitution, imposed with help from the U.S. government, states that “no law can be contrary to the beliefs and provisions of the sacred religion of Islam”
— Islam being the “official” religion of Afghanistan. And because certain interpretations of the Koran call for executing those who leave Islam, the few remaining Christians live under permanent threat of martyrdom at the hands of the U.S. government-backed regime or the Taliban, America’s former ally.

After a media broadcast showed Afghans being baptized, U.S.-backed “President” Hamid Karzai vowed to hunt down the new Christians. Some 20 people were reportedly arrested. A series of official prosecutions of Christians and converts has indeed helped shine the international spotlight on the issue — putting global pressure on the regime to back down in a few cases. But converts like Sayed Mussa, for example, have been imprisoned, raped, tortured, and prosecuted for their faith in Christ. Mussa and others like him were facing the death penalty, but massive global outcries may have saved their lives.

Of course, the U.S.-subsidized persecution has not gone unnoticed. Some American officials have even complained. “We cannot justify taxpayer dollars going to a government that allows the same restrictions on basic human rights that existed under the Taliban,” charged Rep. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.) and Rep. Doug Lamborn (R-Colo.) in a letter to then-U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan Karl W. Eikenberry. So far, however, it appears that little has changed.

LIBYA

Libyan strongman Moammar Gadhafi was brutal to opponents, but his regime was largely secular in nature. The vast majority of his victims — especially in recent years — were hardline Islamic extremists seeking to overthrow his government and install a theocracy. The notorious al-Qaeda affiliate known as the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG), for example, was a top enemy of Gadhafi and, until recently, the U.S. government.

As in most Islamic-dominated societies, Christians did face restrictions. Evangelizing to Muslims, for example, was mostly prohibited. But Gadhafi was not normally openly hostile to the more than 100,000 Christian faithful throughout the nation. In fact, he was actually on very friendly terms with the leader of Coptic Christianity, whom he offered an award in 2003. The tyrant even gave Copts in Libya buildings to use as churches — for free.

Then the war came. The coalition of “rebel” leadership working with Western forces to bring about “regime change” was made up of senior al-Qaeda personnel associated with the LIFG, former Gadhafi officials, members of the Muslim Brotherhood, and other radicals — more than a few of whom publicly boasted of having battled American troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. The U.S. government knew, but helped arm and train them anyway.

As the conflict grew, Christians promptly fled the nation en masse, fearing the worst. A few months into the conflict, Sylvester Magro, the Catholic bishop of Benghazi, told Reuters that his usual flock of around 10,000 had been reduced to a few hundred. A Coptic priest said his congregation declined from more than 1,000 to about 40. It remains unclear how many might return.


But thousands of black Christians and members of other non-Muslim communities — mostly migrant workers — were trapped inside Libya between the warring factions. And they paid dearly. Observers called the persecution of blacks “ethnic cleansing” and even “genocide.” Thousands faced rape, torture, and execution. More recently, footage emerged of blacks in a cage being forced to eat flags as Libyan Islamists taunted them.
After the U.S. government- and NATO-backed rebels took over, the al-Qaeda flag even flew over the rebel headquarters in Benghazi.

Meanwhile, as analysts warned, the war on Libya also offered unprecedented amounts of military weaponry to al-Qaeda and assorted radical Islamists — missiles, machine guns, and much more. And now, according to officials and reports, those heavy weapons are being turned on Christians and others throughout the region.

For now, the situation in Libya remains highly uncertain and volatile. While the “new” Libya — if the Western-backed regime manages to cling to power amidst ongoing chaos and battles — will be governed by strict sharia law, senior officials have promised to respect minorities. Whether that will be the case, however, is still unclear. Most analysts don’t believe it.

And so far, the trend is less than encouraging. As rebels marched into Tripoli, for example, Saint George’s Church — the oldest Orthodox church in North Africa, dating back to 1647 — was ransacked and desecrated. Meanwhile, Christians who imported Christian literature were imprisoned. And in March, heavily armed Islamists desecrated the Christian graves of fallen Italian and British World War II veterans in Benghazi, smashing crosses and headstones with a sledge hammer. “This is a grave of a Christian,” one of the men says in a video of the incident posted online. The new regime apologized, but around the world, people were outraged.

Consider, too, that the new Libyan government is pursuing “integration” with the neighboring regime in Sudan, officially designated by the U.S. State Department as a “state-sponsor” of terror. (Ironically, the U.S. government is also supplying aid and training to that regime’s “security” apparatus.) The brutal socialist-Islamic dictatorship in Sudan, led by mass-murderer and indicted war criminal Omar Al-Bashir, has reportedly massacred millions of people — mostly Christians and members of various animist sects. In March, the regime also announced that it was expelling between 500,000 and 700,000 Christians from the nation by stripping them of their citizenship.

EGYPT


Christianity has existed in Egypt for almost 2,000 years.
And today, Coptic Christians represent about 10 percent of the nation’s population. But for the ancient minority community, recent developments have hardly been positive. In fact, hundreds of thousands of Copts have already been forced to flee their homes as mob violence and state-sponsored persecution continue to grow.

Despite the general brutality of Hosni Mubarak, he was a close U.S. ally for decades before he was forced to step down by Western establishment-backed protests and, eventually, President Obama’s demands. “Change must take place,” Obama said. “My belief is that an orderly transition must be meaningful, it must be peaceful, and it must begin now.”

But unlike the nation’s new U.S.-sponsored rulers, the former tyrant at least tried to protect the Coptic community from radical Islamist terror. Perpetrators were punished, and violence against minorities was not tolerated.

Today, all that has changed. The military junta now in charge, rather than protecting Christians, is actually killing them and allowing them to be killed. After a wave of savage terror attacks against Copts and their churches rocked the nation, the new regime refused to take action. So Christians decided to protest the attacks and the lack of protection offered by authorities.

Activists marched to the state-run TV station in Cairo, chanting and demanding reforms. Instead of protection, however, the military regime responded with brute force. “Security” forces mowed down hundreds of Christian protesters with guns and tanks, killing dozens and injuring hundreds more. “The Copts are being persecuted by the state,” priest Sila Abd al-Nour was quoted as saying during a ceremony mourning the victims.

And again, the U.S. government — which sends over a billion in “security” assistance to Egypt every year, and will continue to do so despite recent developments — knows very well what is going on. “Since February 11 [2011, when Hosni Mubarak stepped down], military and security forces have reportedly used excessive force and live ammunition in targeting Christian places of worship and Christian demonstrators,” noted the USCIRF’s report last year.

Of course, Egypt is an entirely different situation than Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya. But while U.S. armed forces did not participate directly in the removal of America’s former ally, the federal government is known to have played a large role in his ouster. American diplomatic cables released by WikiLeaks show that the U.S. embassy in Cairo was well aware of the"regime change" operation being planned, and even provided key training and support for its leaders at taxpayer expense. When some of the "activists" were arrested by the Mubarak regime, American officials demanded they be set free. And, according to Egyptian prosecutors, an assortment of U.S. government-funded “Non-Governmental Organizations” (NGOs) continued stirring up the unrest even after the “revolution” succeeded.

So-called “pro-democracy” groups funded by American taxpayers — the International Republican Institute (IRI), the National Democratic Institute (NDI), and Freedom House — were very active in Cairo until Egyptian authorities finally cracked down. “The United States and Israel could not create a state of chaos and work to maintain it in Egypt directly, so they used direct funding to organizations, especially American, as a means of implementing these goals,” noted Egyptian Minister of Planning and International Cooperation Aboul Naga in official testimony about the criminal charges against the groups’ employees.

But even if the tax-funded “NGOs” are taken at their word and were simply “promoting democracy,” as they claim, the interference, aside from being unconstitutional, is considered by some analysts to be a travesty. Consider the recent elections: The Muslim Brotherhood and an even more radical Islamist party dominated, taking control of more than 70 percent of the seats in Parliament.

Tunisia suffered a similar fate. And while the Islamist groups surging to power in the so-called “Arab Spring” claim they will support the individual rights of minorities, very few observers are convinced. Islamic law will almost certainly become the new law of the land. And U.S. taxpayers will foot the bill. The Egyptian regime alone is slated to receive about $1.5 billion this year.

MORE OF THE SAME, COMING SOON

Incredibly, despite the unprecedented trail of death and destruction unleashed by recent U.S. government intervention overseas, President Obama, speaking before the UN General Assembly in September, declared that more UN-led wars were needed to ensure peace. He cited Libya, Iraq, and Afghanistan as success stories.

Another Obama-backed UN military adventure, while much less well-known around the world, was also cited by the President as a model to emulate in the future: the violent overthrow of Ivory Coast President Laurent Gbagbo last year by international forces and local partner militias. “The world refused to look the other way,” Obama declared, mistakenly claiming that Gbagbo had lost the election. “The [UN] Security Council, led by the United States, Nigeria, and France, came together to support the will of the people.”

The reality of the “regime change” operation, of course, bears little resemblance to the picture painted by Obama. Vote fraud and ballot-box stuffing resulted in the nation’s Constitutional Council declaring incumbent President Laurent Gbagbo the election winner. And that was supposed to be the final word, at least according to Ivorian law.

But instead of respecting the nation’s constitutional system, Obama, France, and the UN decided to invade. Partnering with local Muslim militias, international forces dropped bombs and marched to the capital to arrest President Gbagbo, a Christian — slaughtering and raping tens of thousands of Christians along the way. Many fleeing Christians were hacked to death with machetes. U.S. Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) called the UN- and Obama-backed campaign “a reign of terror.”

The international coalition and its militias on the ground then installed a Muslim central banker named Alassane Ouattara as the Ivory Coast’s new ruler. But despite the impression given by Obama in his speech, critics say the campaign was an illegitimate and bloody disaster that should never have happened. But it will not be the last. During Obama’s UN speech, he praised the wars and demanded more international military intervention. The two countries in the crosshairs now: Iran and Syria.

After decades of U.S. meddling in Iran that included a CIA-orchestrated coup d’état and variously backing both sides during the Iran-Iraq war (including giving Hussein WMDs and facilitating secret illegal weapons sales to the Iranian regime), Western powers are at it again. There is already a covert war going on against Iran that involves the use of terror and assassinations. But much of the Western-backed dirty work is being carried out by the officially designated “foreign terrorist organization” known as the -Mujahedin-e Khalq, an Islamo-Marxist group that has murdered more than a few senior American military officials and countless civilians.

Christians (at least those who did not convert from Islam) and Jews in Iran are currently allowed to worship relatively freely. But if Western “regime change” through overt military force does arrive, that would almost certainly change. There are currently almost 500,000 Christians in Iran, and experts say a Western invasion or military campaign would — like it did in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya — put them in grave jeopardy.

In Syria, the Western-backed “regime change” campaign is already underway, too. Indeed, the situation there bears striking resemblances to some elements of the U.S. campaigns in Iraq and Libya. As in Iraq before the American invasion, the Socialist Ba’th Party rules over Syria with an iron fist. But Christians in Syria are better off than almost anywhere in the region, often serving in top government jobs, from Ambassadors to senior law--enforcement officials. Despite the ongoing strife and relatively new wave of Islamist attacks on Christians, Syria remains, according to Christian leaders and analysts, one of the final refuges of Christianity in the region.

“Syria has been very much a safe haven for Christians in the Middle East, one of the few Arab countries where they were treated with respect and had equality with the Muslim majority. Syria also has a history of welcoming in persecuted Christians from other countries,”
noted Dr. Patrick Sookhdeo, international director of the Barnabas Fund, a non-profit group that supports persecuted and oppressed Christians. “But I greatly fear that within the near future we will see a new Iraq developing in Syria.”

Christians who fled in droves to Syria from Iraq in the wake of the U.S. invasion are now faced with the prospect of death and persecution there as Western governments, led by the Obama administration, join forces with al-Qaeda to oust Assad in a scenario reminiscent of the underhanded war on Libya. The Western and Islamist alliance, along with the Turkish regime — which is becoming increasingly Islamist as it continues to deny its mass murder of Christians over the last century — have been working with the so-called “Syrian National Council,” a coalition of opposition groups that is largely dominated by the Marxist-inspired Muslim Brotherhood and other extremists. And Christians throughout Syria fear that, if Assad falls, Islamists will take over, and Christianity will be brutally wiped out there, too.

Refugees and Reason

Even as U.S. policies continue to lead to massacres of Christian communities throughout the Middle East, members of those communities are having a difficult time escaping the destruction. “Christians are being refused refugee status and face persecution and many times certain death for their religious beliefs under ... sharia, while whole Muslim communities are entering the US by the tens of thousands per month despite the fact that they face no religious persecution,” noted Pamela Geller, executive director of the American Freedom Defense Initiative and of Stop Islamization of America.

But how could the situation have become so dire? While not all analysts agree, at the very least, it has become clear that the fate of Christians and Christianity is low on the U.S. government’s agenda. And without an outcry, that is unlikely to change.

“Fundamentally, United States policies in the Middle East have never placed a significant priority on the conditions of indigenous Christians or the threats they have been up against just for being Christian. There is an ingrained culture in Washington’s foreign policy establishment that prefers to avoid addressing the existential phobias of the region’s Christians,” noted author Habib Malik, a professor of history and cultural studies at the Lebanese American University. “These beleaguered Christian communities have become marginalized in American strategic thinking and hence expendable next to larger and more pressing economic, political, and security interests.”

But according to other experts, the fact that U.S. foreign policy is highly detrimental to Christians around the world should come as no surprise. After all, this is the same government that, along with its partners in the media, has been relentlessly seeking to eliminate all vestiges of Christianity from public life in America.

“Our government’s policies in the Middle East are a reflection of our government’s policies at home. The war on Christianity in public life here at home in the schools and courthouses is manifested in the Middle East with the destruction of Christianity in the nations where we have been interfering,” said CEO Art Thompson of The John Birch Society, citing Iraq, Egypt, Libya, and other nations. But the continuing destruction of Christians and Christian culture is often impelled by forces beyond a particular U.S. administration, even beyond the U.S. government.

“Likewise, the domestic policies of people in the federal government who are connected to the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) moving us toward domestic socialism are reflected in the Middle East with CFR-connected organizations financed by the federal government interfering in Middle Eastern politics with disastrous results, with Egypt being the prime example,” Thompson added. “The rise of militant Islam is nothing more than a rise of socialism under a different title.”

“I do not believe that our fighting men and women had this in mind when they committed themselves to combat,”
noted Thompson. “Instead of freedom, the aftermath is totalitarianism and less security for the people of all religions.” Indeed, polls show U.S. troops are quickly losing confidence in Obama and the wars.

As predicted by innumerable experts, imposing “democracy” in Muslim-majority countries has been a disaster for Christians. Asked for an example of U.S. foreign policy benefiting Christians, a senior official with the USCIRF could not name one. Christianity has managed to survive in the Middle East for 2,000 years without U.S. government intervention. But if current trends continue, the religion of Christ could very well be eradicated in the region of its birth within the next few decades. And unfortunately, America will bear at least part of the responsibility.




To: golfer72 who wrote (3186)5/30/2013 12:21:38 PM
From: joseffy  Respond to of 16547
 
Former IRS Commissioner visited White House more than twice as often as Eric Holder
........................................................................
Former IRS Commissioner visited White House more than twice as often as Eric Holder