ISIS has claimed responsibility for the orchestrated killing of eleven Christians on Christmas in Nigeria. One was shot dead, and ten others beheaded in what has become scripted macabre. The ISIS affiliate in question is the Islamic State's West Africa Province (ISWAP), an offshoot of Boko Haram, the group that kidnapped 276 schoolgirls in 2014.
And so the familiar feeling returns, the helplessness and its attendant posture: slumped shoulders, clenched jaw, tightened lips, and a cold pit in the stomach: more news of Christian persecution. Timed for maximum effect by savage cowards, the collective human stain that calls itself ISIS.
Their statement: the murders were revenge for killing ISIS leader al Baghdadi.
"We killed them as revenge for the killing of our leaders, including Abu-Bakr al Baghdadi"--Nonsense from the "ISIS Media Unit"
It's a laughable claim. If they wanted revenge, they would have attacked an American symbol, not members of a global religion. Islam, like Judaism, recognizes Jesus as a prophet. Thus, the actions of ISIS, whose members claim to be Muslim, expose them as charlatans. Choosing religious holidays and churches for attacks reveals the truth: it's not about revenge for al Baghdadi. Those eleven Nigerian victims have nothing to do with American special ops taking out a cowardly terrorist leader.
The goal here is to foment anger and weaken Christianity, the religion of, among others, the hegemon. Status quo is the enemy of change, it is an endorsement of a world consisting of sovereign states, the Westphalian system. Violence committed routinely across state lines by a disruptive, asymmetric entity such as ISIS (under the cover of faith) is designed to change the world. To what end? Let's review how we got here.
Think back fifteen years. Prior to the Obama years, Islamist attacks were few and far between. Yes, we had 9/11, by far the worst, in 2001, but click here--the chart is a hockey stick that goes vertical under Obama. It wasn't until the Arab world was destabilized that mass Muslim immigration began.
The optimistic-sounding "Arab Spring" was designed to unleash chaos on the world. As problematic as rulers such as Gaddafi, Mubarak, and others were, they all held down their respective forts. Without their iron fists, their countries were destined to fall into chaos that would spill over borders that are mere lines in the sand. Obama had only to look to Iraq post-Saddam Hussein.
As the Clarion Project reported about the New York Times in 2013:
In February 2011 the New York Times ran an extremely complimentary article on President Obama by Mark Landler, who some observers say is the biggest apologist for Obama on the newspaper. That’s quite an achievement. Landler praised Obama for having tremendous foresight, in effect, predicting the “Arab Spring.” According to Landler,
“President Obama ordered his advisers last August  to produce a secret report on unrest in the Arab world, which concluded that without sweeping political changes, countries from Bahrain to Yemen were ripe for popular revolt, administration officials said Wednesday."
Which advisors? The then counter-terrorism advisor and now designated CIA chief, John Brennan? National Security Council senior staffer Samantha Power? If it was done by Obama's own staff, rather than State and Defense, it's likely that these people or at least one of them was the key author.
So should U.S. policy help allies avoid such sweeping change by standing firm or by helping them make adjustments? No, explained the report, it should get on the side of history and wield a broom to do the sweeping. The article continued:
“Mr. Obama’s order, known as a Presidential Study Directive, identified likely flashpoints, most notably Egypt, and solicited proposals for how the administration could push for political change in countries with autocratic rulers who are also valuable allies of the United States, [emphasis added] these officials said.--Clarion Project
By unleashing the Middle East on the world, chaos is achieved. That chaos will eventually require overarching intervention (in the name of "peace"), in the form of global government. Centralized control is the long-term goal. In the meantime, what looks more like control than Sharia law? Replace Mohammad with a centralized global government and you can see why leftist leaders favor Islam. Their followers are too conditioned by MSM to question the contradictions of Islam and, say, homosexuality, or women's suffrage.
If you doubt me, consider what the modern left embraces: abortion, Islam, shaming whites, exalting trans folk, and socialism. Some of these things don't go together, but no matter--none of it is ideologically driven except for one common theme: all these ideas tear down norms and subvert traditional western values.
It's practically a trope at this point, but pause a moment during your post-holiday chores--the laundry, the dishes, the unpacking--and imagine if a band of nominally Christian terrorists in different parts of the world carried out attacks on Jews and Muslims. You can be assured that Rome, Canterbury, and American church leaders would unite to influence the U.N. and leaders of sovereign nations to quash the renegade Christian forces.
Not so with Islam. Beyond decentralized, it is a wildly fractured faith. Many consider fellow Muslims apostates, a sin punishable by death. The killing of a few Christians garners a collective shrug. Virtually zero outrage. Outlets such as Al-Jazeera and Al Arabiya have shuffled the story off of their home page within hours, and the reporting is yawn-inducing, a sober bore. One was shot, ten more beheaded, ho-hum. It's all so cliché.
And that's why it's so easy to install and arm a group that purports to be Muslim, but contradicts the teachings of Islam. There's so much chaos and so little accountability within the faith, anybody can hang a shingle and claim to follow Mohammad. Want immediate respect? Kill a bunch of nonbelievers.
The umbrella that is Islam would appear to be less of a unifying shield against others and more like religious camouflage to hide the inherent violence of its adherents. It's a poor excuse to call such nonstop violence--both within and without--a "faith." The sad part: it isn't all the fault of Muslims.
Every source from Julian Assange, leaked Pentagon papers and the New York Times have claimed that the CIA formed ISIS. The received wisdom is that it was necessary to overthrow Assad. Malarkey! Syria was but one piece of the puzzle. The idea was to cause contagious chaos across the Middle East, chaos that would spill into the west. As it has. Just look to ISIS's Cirriculum Vitae, or rather, Cirriculum Mors.
ISIS attacks against Christians are not random, they fit a pattern. Just two years ago, we had similar news on Palm Sunday.
And who could forget the Easter attacks mere months ago? Over 300 Christians murdered during the celebration of the resurrection of Christ, but referred to as "Easter worshippers" ...by Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.
And those barely scratch the surface. For a more complete list of Islamist attacks on Christians, click here. There is no list of Muslim attacks on other Muslims, other than "Middle Eastern history since 622 A.D."
Much fun has been had at the expense of Islam's claim to be "the religion of peace." Given its bloody and simpleminded history, the derision is earned, but in another way, the claim holds true: once everyone recognizes Islamic law, there would indeed be theoretical peace. It would be a highly ritualized, religious, and orderly society. Five daily calls to prayer, no room for misunderstanding gender roles, no tolerance of alternative lifestyles: the very picture of compliance.
As Dennis Prager pointed out following this year's Easter attack, the left protects Islam, but not Christianity.
Obama: “The attacks on tourists and Easter worshippers in Sri Lanka are an attack on humanity. On a day devoted to love, redemption, and renewal, we pray for the victims and stand with the people of Sri Lanka.”
Three hours later, Clinton tweeted: “On this holy weekend for many faiths, we must stand united against hatred and violence. I’m praying for everyone affected by today’s horrific attacks on Easter worshippers and travelers in Sri Lanka.”
As they both spelled “worshipers” the same idiosyncratic way and used the term “Easter worshippers,” it is likely they either had the same writers or Clinton copied Obama.
Here’s what’s critical: Neither used the word “Christians.” And in order to avoid doing so, they went so far as to make up a new term—”Easter worshippers”—heretofore unknown to any Christian.
When Jews were murdered at the Tree of Life synagogue in Pittsburgh, Clinton mentioned the synagogue in a tweet. But in her post-Sri Lanka tweet, despite the bombing of three churches filled with Christians, Clinton made no mention of church or churches.
In a tweet after the massacre of Muslims in New Zealand, she wrote that her heart broke for “the global Muslim community.” But in her latest tweet, not a word about Christians or the global Christian community.
Obama similarly wrote in his tweet about New Zealand that he was grieving with “the Muslim community” over the “horrible massacre in the Mosques.” But in his tweet about Sri Lanka, there is no mention of Christians or churches.
The reason neither of them mentioned Christians or churches is that the left has essentially forbidden mention of all the anti-Christian murders perpetrated by Muslims in Europe, the Middle East, and Africa, and of all the Muslim desecration of churches in Europe, Africa, and anywhere else.
This is part of the same phenomenon—that I and others have documented—of British police and politicians covering up six years of rape of 1,400 English girls by Muslim “grooming gangs” in Rotherham and elsewhere in England.
Essentially, the left’s rule is that nothing bad—no matter how true—may be said about Muslims or Islam and nothing good—no matter how true—may be said of Christians or Christianity.
Clinton’s post-New Zealand tweet also included these words: “We must continue to fight the perpetuation and normalization of Islamophobia and racism in all its forms. White supremacist terrorists must be condemned by leaders everywhere. Their murderous hatred must be stopped.”
She made sure to condemn “Islamophobia,” but she wrote not a word about the far more destructive and widespread hatred of Christians in the Muslim world, seen in Muslims’ virtual elimination of the Christian communities in the Middle East, the regular murder and kidnappings of Coptic Christians in Egypt, and the murder of Christians in Nigeria.
She calls on “leaders everywhere” to condemn “white supremacist terrorists,” one of the smallest hate groups on Earth, but never calls on leaders everywhere to condemn Islamist terrorists, the largest hate group on Earth.
These two tweets tell you a lot about Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. But far more importantly, they tell you a lot about the left.
Prager won't come out and say it, but I will: leftists want Islam to triumph over Christianity as a framerwork for global domination. Hillary and Obama had set the plan in motion. And then 2016 happened. President Trump has been dutifully mopping up the sloshed Arab Spring experiment for three years.
The claim that Islamists are simply "extremists" has begun to fall flat. Extremism denotes a minority of a larger, less reactionary group. It would seem, given the breadth and depth of radical Islamic strife globally, that one need only stir the pot in a group of "normal" Muslims to scare up the dogs of war and terror. That's fertile ground for motivated globalists to create ISIS and sow discord.
The pallets of cash to Iran, the nuclear deal that would have given them a seat at the nuclear table--these were mere misdemeanors in the Obama/Clinton crime spree to reshape the world. The meat of it was destabilizing the Middle East and forming ISIS.
CD Media has reported on "Christophobia" before. There is no term for fear of Christianity because no one fears the teachings of Christ. His lessons are the living codification of love.
On this, the third day of Christmas, as we celebrate (for the 2,020th time) the greatest man ever to have lived, think too on Mohammad's minions, and their unforgivable sin: dereliction of duty in the formation of a governing body capable of bringing its most rabid to heel--and allowing Brennan, Hillary, and Obama to use Islam in the furtherance of their megalomanic goals.
Subscribe to our evening newsletter to stay informed during these challenging times!!