Monthly Archives: April 2014

Iraq’s Unnecessary Tragedy

An unnecessary tragedy is unfolding in Iraq.

In 2003, after decades of tyranny and aggression, it appeared that the people of Iraq, a nation long considered an international pariah, would finally have a chance to live free of oppression and war following the overthrow of Saddam Hussein by U.S. led Coalition forces.

Just two years later, the world witnessed one of the most riveting images of the early 21st century, the proud display of “purple thumbs” by those who voted in the Iraqi elections of 2005. But in the universe of Islamic extremism, the concept of a people enjoying freedom is not welcome.  Al Qaeda established a presence, Iran actively inserted its influence, and sectarian fighting became prevalent.

The descent into chaos continued until 2007, when President George W. Bush ordered a “surge” of U.S. forces that restored order in an effort that successfully concluded in 2008.  The people of Iraq finally could live a normal life. As a stable, democratic, and religiously tolerant Muslim nation, Iraq had the opportunity to be the linchpin of a new era of peace and prosperity in the Middle East.

The opportunity didn’t last long. Fulfilling a campaign promise, President Barack Obama ordered a withdrawal of almost all U.S. forces in 2011. Clearly, their work was unfinished. One of the most serious unfinished tasks was the creation of Iraqi security forces capable of defeating Iranian and al Qaeda forces seeking to replace Iraqi civil society with one based on Muslim extremism.  Chaos ensued.

The disintegration of Iraqi society, mass murders through bombings and gunfire, the overwhelming presence of Iran and al Qaeda, and the end of a chance for a new Middle East came about as a result of the Obama withdrawal.

Al Qaeda is now on the ascendancy, particularly in the western part of the nation. The dire implications for the rest of the Middle East are substantial.

Troubling Attitudes of Recent Supreme Court Appointees

Justice Sotomayor’s dissent in the recent case of Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action illustrates a significant problem with recent additions to the U.S. Supreme Court.

U.S. Supreme Court justices may be from any political party or political philosophy, but they should all agree on fundamental principles. The concept that of “unalienable Rights” is perhaps the most important. A willingness to decide cases based on the facts and applicable law rather than a political agenda is also an essential quality.

Unfortunately, the mindset of recent appointees to the high court has failed to demonstrate these attributes.

The most recent illustration comes from Justice Sotomayor’s dissent in the Schuette case.  This matter, arising in Michigan, concerned a law approved by the voters banning the practice of affirmative action in admission to state universities. Arizona, California, Florida, Nebraska, New Hampshire, Oklahoma and Washington have similar legislation.  Justice Kennedy stated that “this case is not how the debate about racial preferences should be resolved, it is about who may resolve it.”

In the Michigan case, the electorate made a decision not to permit racial bias in the form of affirmative action in admissions to state universities.  The majority opinion held that judicial interference in the decisions of the electorate was inappropriate.  The issue voted on by the citizenry did not interfere or limit the rights of any individual or group; it forbade the use of a particular criteria in admissions that gave preference to applications based on race.

Justice Sotomayor dissented on the grounds that the electorate’s decision could only be held legal if race-sensitive admissions policies are not in the interests of minorities, and if minority status is irrelevant to voting behavior. Her concept is one based on politics, not law, and is inappropriate.

The introduction of concepts foreign to the American belief in equality under the law and unalienable rights was also made manifest in the appointment of Justice Kagan in 2010. During the confirmation process, Ms. Kagan made it clear that she did believe in the concept of unalienable rights expressed in the Declaration of Independence.

The Supreme Court is the ultimate legal guardian of basic freedoms.  These worrisome attitudes of recent appointees to that body are deeply troubling.

Military Voters Organize Against Failed Obama Policies

During his tenure in office, President Obama has, in the words made popular in the John Lennon song, “give peace a chance.”

  • He slashed military spending even as potential adversaries raised theirs.
  • He advocates for a unilateral American reduction in nuclear weapons.
  • He signed an arms control treaty that left Washington at a distinct disadvantage.
  • He withdrew American troops from Iraq and announced a withdrawal date from Afghanistan.
  • He pulled back on purely defensive measures such as the anti-missile system.
  • He refused to allow energy drilling on federal lands that would have limited Moscow’s oil and gas-financed ability to finance its vast military buildup.
  • He withdrew all U.S. tanks from Europe.
  • He has pursued the closing of militarily vital industrial plants.
  • He refused to fulfill treaty obligations with the Philippines and Ukraine when they were assaulted by China and Russia.
  • He did not retaliate against Islamic fundamentalists for the assault on Benghazi.
  • He has not responded to the growth in Russian, Chinese, and Iranian military influence in Latin America.
  • He has weakened sanctions against Iran’s nuclear development program.
  • Where U.S. troops are deployed, he has made the rules of engagement so stringent that American troops are killed before they even get permission to fire back.
  • He advocates putting U.S. troops under the jurisdiction of the U.N. criminal court, a move guaranteed to handcuff and endanger them further.
  • During his re-election campaign, the votes of soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines stationed overseas were mysteriously delivered late.

The end result has been a dramatically more dangerous world, with military activity in Europe and Asia on a scale not seen since the end of World War II, as well as the resurgence of al-Qaeda and the Taliban.

In response, a unique movement has been started by former and current members of the U.S. armed forces to get out the vote in 2014 in attempt to strengthen the legislative branch’s ability to halt Mr. Obama’s dangerous foreign policy missteps.

The movement is spearheaded by the founders of the organization, Special Operations Speaks,  which was formed in the aftermath of the Benghazi debacle. According to the organization,

“Interestingly enough, when GWB was president you heard about the military deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan almost daily.  With Obama in the White House, however, the mainstream media has been strangely quiet.  More than 1,000 American soldiers have lost their lives in Afghanistan in the last 27 months.  This is more than the combined total of the nine years before…The Commander in Chief is AWOL.   There is a deep disgust, a fury, growing in the ranks of the military against the indifferent incompetence of this president…But there is now a movement afoot in the Armed Services to launch a massive get-out-the-vote drive against this President.”

As global events spin out of control, it is increasingly likely that not only those with military experience but also voters deeply concerned about the likelihood of a major war caused by  the White House’s demonstrably unsuccessful foreign policies will make their concern felt at the ballot box.

Can NATO Survive?

After a successful conclusion to the Cold War, can the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) regroup to respond to the new threat from Moscow?

Vladimir Putin’s intentions were made clear in a telling comment by Andranik Migranyan, head of the Kremlin-controlled “Institute for Democracy and Cooperation” reported in the Fiscal Times in response to analogies between Russia’s actions in Ukraine, and Germany’s in the 1930’s:

“One must distinguish between Hitler before 1939 and Hitler after 1939…the thing is that Hitler collected [German] lands.  If he had become famous only for uniting  without a drop of blood Germany with Austria, Sudetenland and Memel, in fact completing  what Bismarck failed to do, and if he had stopped there, then he would have remained a politician of the highest class.”

Moscow’s worrisome military moves are not restricted to former Soviet satellites.  In December, the Kremlin confirmed  that it had deployed ISKANDER tactical nuclear missiles on NATO’s border. The move was not in response to any western action.

There have also been a number of incidents in which Moscow’s nuclear-capable bombers and submarines have come threateningly close to the airspace and coasts of NATO nations both in Europe and the United States.

Richard Perle, former chair of the Defense Policy Board for President George W. Bush and current fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, recently stated in a Newsmax interview that Putin is attempting to “put Humpty Dumpty back together again and re-create something that looks like the old Soviet Empire.”

NATO’s forces have shrunk considerably since the end of the Cold War, symbolized by the diminishing military budgets of both European nations and the United States.  The United States has also unilaterally withdrawn all of its most vital land weapons, tanks, from the European continent.

Russia’s annexation of Crimea in early 2014, which the United States and the European Union say violated international law, will likely poison relations with NATO for the foreseeable future. “We clearly face the gravest threat to European security since the end of the Cold War,” said Secretary-General Rasmussen of Russia’s intervention.

Russia’s invasions of Georgia in 2008 and Ukraine in 2014, as well as its deployment of ISKANDER tactical nuclear weapons to its European border, have brought back the threat most had thought vanished with the fall of the Soviet Union.  But NATO’s individual governments, including most importantly the United States, have slashed military budgets.

NATO’s sharp reduction in forces, even in the face of increasing threats, has brought into question the viability of the alliance.  A 2012 Brookings Institute study

“There have long been debates about the sustainability of the transatlantic alliance and accusations amongst allies of unequal contributions to burden-sharing. But since countries on both sides of the Atlantic have begun introducing new – and often major – military spending cuts in response to the economic crisis, concerns about the future of transatlantic defense cooperation have become more pronounced.

“A growing number of senior officials are now publicly questioning the future of NATO. In June 2011, in the midst of NATO’s operation in Libya, Robert Gates, then US Defense Secretary, stated that Europe faced the prospect of “collective military irrelevance” and that unless the continent stemmed the deterioration of its armed forces, NATO faced a “dim, if not dismal Future.” Ivo Daalder, the US Permanent  Representative to NATO, and James Stavridis, NATO’s Supreme Allied Commander Europe, have argued that “if defense spending continues to decline, NATO may not be able to replicate its success in Libya in another decade.”

“The alliance’s Secretary General, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, has warned that “if European defense spending cuts continue, Europe’s ability to be a stabilizing force even in its neighborhood will rapidly disappear.” While Norwegian Defense Minister Espen Barth Eide has claimed that “exercises have shown that NATO’s ability to conduct conventional military operations has markedly declined. […] Not only is NATO’s ability to defend its member states questionable, it might actually deteriorate further as financial pressures in Europe and the US force cuts in military spending”

Russia’s aggression represents a disappointing end result for NATO’s numerous attempts to establish a relationship with Moscow based on a post-Cold War (or “Cold War 1” as it is becoming known) era of cooperation rather than confrontation.  According to a recent NATO document, 

“Over the past twenty years, NATO has consistently worked for closer cooperation and trust with Russia.  However, Russia has violated international law and acted in contradiction with the principles and commitments in the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council Basic Document,   the NATO-Russia Founding Act,  and the Rome Declaration.   It has gravely breached the trust upon which NATO-Russia cooperation must be based.”

Russia’s NATO envoy, Aleksandr Grushko, responded in a statement reported in the Russian publication RT that “…NATO still has a double standard policy. And Cold War stereotypes are still applied towards Russia…”

NATO turned 65 in 2014, a year that also marks the 15th, 10th, and 5th anniversary of members who joined since the end of the Cold War, enlarging the alliance to a total of 28 member states. It is, arguably, the most successful military alliance in history, winning its original goal of preventing a Soviet invasion, without having to actually go to war.

NATO currently conducts 5 active missions: peacekeeping in Kosovo, anti-terrorism patrols in the Mediterranean, anti-piracy in the Gulf of Aden and the Horn of Africa, assistance to the African Union in Somalia, and fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan. But it is the Russian threat that looms largest.  NATO seems unprepared to deal with.

Particularly under Vladimir Putin, Russia, despite numerous NATO overtures for peace and cooperation, has viewed NATO’s growth with anger.  Moscow, which spends a greater percentage of its GDP   (4.1%) on defense than either the U.S. (2.4%) or NATO nations (averaging about 2%)  maintains that it opposes NATO growth because it views it as a threat to its nation, despite all evidence to the contrary. A more accurate analysis indicates that the alliance prevents the Kremlin from re-forming the Soviet Empire in a different format.

The Council of Foreign Relations  notes that NATO’s Bucharest summit in the spring of 2008 sharply deepened the distrust. The alliance delayed “Membership Action Plans” for Ukraine and Georgia but declared its support for eventual full membership for both, despite repeated warnings from Russia of political and military consequences. Russia’s invasion of Georgia in the summer, following Georgian shelling of South Ossetia after what it termed an occupation by Russian forces, was a clear signal of Moscow’s intentions to protect and enlarge what it sees as its sphere of influence.

Many had hope that Moscow’s opposition to NATO’s growth had been resolved in 1997, when the alliance and Russia adopted a security agreement in which Moscow consented to NATO’s growth in return for a promise that masses of troops, equipment or nuclear missiles would not be placed on Russia border. The hope was not realized.

The Report continues next week.

FCC to end “Net Neutrality”

The attack on equal use of the internet took another potentially threatening turn as the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) announced that it would end “Net Neutrality,” restrictions that previously prohibited internet service providers (ISPs) from offering higher speeds to wealthy or powerful organizations.

The FCC decision came in the wake of the lengthy decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C.  holding that the FCC didn’t have the authority to prohibit this type of behavior. Advocates of equal internet treatment were disappointed that the FCC simply didn’t ask for enabling legislation that would offset the Court decision. There are other rules—known as Title II—that some felt could be relied on to accomplish this.

FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler has pledged to have rules in place by the end of the year allowing ISPs to offer higher speeds for a price.  He noted that the FCC could still act to prevent “harmful behavior” by ISPs, that no legal content could be blocked, that policies must be transparent, and that no preferential treatment could be offered.

Of course, providing faster speeds IS preferential treatment. Critics, including Jon Brodkin writing in arstechnica  have pointed out the Chairman Wheeler formerly was the president and CEO of the National Cable & Telecommunications Association, a group that stands to benefit from the FCC decision.

Smaller companies could be placed at a competitive disadvantage, as would political or ideological users who couldn’t compete with organizations that are funded by wealthy backers such as George Soros.

The concept of faster service is not restricted to the internet. The U.S. Postal Service offers overnight delivery for a fee significantly higher than an average first-class stamp. A better analogy may be a hypothetical act by Washington that would allow well-financed transportation companies to drive on federal highways at faster speeds for a fee.

Following the Obama Administration’s recent decision to surrender control of the Internet to an international body without the consent of Congress or the opportunity of the public to effectively comment, fears have been raised that users without access to power or wealth could be marginalized to speeds that discourage or prevent access equal to what currently exists.

America’s Manned Space Program Vanishing

Nations that look to their future needs and opportunities, despite current challenges, tend to succeed.  Those that don’t risk being consigned to the dustbin of history.

In terms of technology, national security, and economic expansion, funding support for NASA represents a clear example of how vested the nation’s leadership is in developing a bright future for the country. That’s why the 1%, $186 million cut in NASA’s budget, from $17.646 billion to $17.460 has many worried. In a time of unacceptable deficits, the reduction may at first appear small, until a closer examination reveals that even without the cut, the space agency was significantly underfunded.

In a move that encapsulates the President’s shaky relations with the legislative branch, he reneged on a funding agreement that had been reached previously about the space agency’s budget.

The evidence is clear cut, especially in comparison to other nations that are now surpassing America. China is pursuing a vigorous program, including the orbiting of its own crewed space station and the development of plans to put a manned base on the moon. Russia, too, has ambitious plans. Right now, those two nations, both deeply antagonistic to the U.S., are the only countries capable of putting humans into space.  America’s return to the high frontier continues to slip further into the future.

An unusually blunt and furious exchange took place in Congress recently between Rep. Mo Brooks (R-Alabama) and NASA Administrator Charles Bolden. Brooks has long criticized President Obama’s decision to end the ability of the U.S. to put astronauts in orbit by eliminating the space shuttles.

“This Administration,” Brooks stated, “Made the decision to mothball our space shuttles and put them in museums rather than keeping them available…”   His comments, reported by MSNBC,  lambasted the White House’s funding priorities by stating that Obama spends “40 times more on welfare programs that put a high priority on buying election votes no matter the loss of funding for NASA, national defense, or other productive functions of the federal government.”

Some of the criticism is bipartisan.  The powerful head of the Senate’s Appropriations Committee, Democrat Barbara Milkulski (D-Maryland) has vowed to restore funding at least to last year’s level.

Manned space programs have been particularly hard hit. The Chair of the House Space and Aeronautics subcommittee, Rep. Stephen Palazzo (R-Mississippi) has called the cumulative $330 million reduction to the development of  Orion manned space craft and the Space Launch System designed to put that craft into space unacceptable. The goal of using commercial craft developed by U.S. companies to put Americans into space has been delayed until 2017, leaving America reliant on Russia.

Excess Regulations Harm Economy and Households

The Federal government set a new record in red tape in 2013, printing 26,417 pages in the Federal register containing new 3,659 final rules and 2,594 proposed rules.  Altogether, 79,311 pages were printed in the Federal Register.  Four of the five highest page counts in the history of that bible of bureaucracy occurred during the Obama Administration.

The information was compiled by the Competitive Enterprise Institute’s  (CEI) Wayne Crews, who is preparing a study entitled “The Ten Thousand Commandments.” Crews estimates that the cost to the public of complying with Washington’s red tape is about $1.9 trillion annually, “roughly the annual GDP of Australia, Canada, or Italy.”

According to the CEI study, regulations not only make American business less competitive, they cost each US household “$14,974 annually in regulatory hidden tax, or 23% of the average income of $65,596.” A substantial part of the explosive growth in regulations during the Obama Administration has been due to the combined effects of Obamacare and the Dodd-Frank financial controls.

Another think tank, the Heritage Foundation, notes that the Obama Administration has produced major rules at twice the pace of its immediate predecessor, George W. Bush.

According to Heritage, part of the reason for the regulatory explosion is the President’s push to control the government without the consent of Congress.  The think tank notes that in his 2014 State of the Union address, the President disturbingly pledged to take steps “whenever and wherever I can without legislation.”

Both Heritage and CEI note that hundreds of new regulations are in the pipeline.

Obama Faces Difficult Asian Trip

President Obama is travelling on his fifth trip to Asia today, a six-day event that will take him to a region that has become far more dangerous over the past 21 years, and especially so during the past five years as the American military has seen its funding levels slashed.

The President is said to be seeking to reassure allies in the region, but the lack of substance in strength and action will be hard for America’s friends to ignore.  The problem is particularly salient in light of recent events, including Washington’s failure to live up to its treaty obligations to the Ukraine in Europe the Philippines in the Pacific, and its decreased support for Israel in the Middle East.

As America’s navy shrunk to pre-World War I levels, tensions in the Pacific Ocean region that had been significantly contained during the post-World War II era re-emerged in a virulent new form.

The new era of militarism in Asia has been brewing for decades.  The West relaxed its guard following the collapse of the Soviet Union, ignoring the modernized Chinese military as well as the redevelopment of Moscow’s arsenal under Vladimir Putin.

Beijing’s military, aided by vast financing, intensive espionage efforts, and the legal transfer of technology such as the sale of Cray supercomputers  by the Clinton Administration has become a thoroughly  state-of-the-art superpower.  While the White House has proved reluctant to support space-based military spending, China has moved quickly ahead.  Heralding its arrival as a major player on the highest frontier was the 2007 shoot-down of an orbiting satellite.

The pace of China’s dramatic increase in armed might exceeds that of both the USA and the USSR during the height of the First Cold War. As the Pentagon deals with vast new cuts, the People’s Liberation Army received yet another large spending hike.  The public figures may be only the tip of an iceberg.  The PLA also controls a number of profit-making activities that produce substantial additional revenue for its use.

Beijing’s aggressive actions against Japan forced Tokyo to re-evaluate its “Peace Constitution.” Similarly, China’s takeover of offshore areas within the Philippine Exclusive Economic Zone is a throwback to an era of imperialism that many had hoped was committed to history.

With a diminished military and a legacy of not supporting allies in Europe, the Middle East and Asia, the President will have a difficult task reassuring allies facing the cold reality of Chinese power.

America the Ungovernable?

Despite the protests of failed leaders and the faithful who support them regardless of poor results, intelligent government makes a dramatic difference.

Daniel Hannan  is one of the world’s most erudite and brilliant statesman.  He represents southwest England in the European Union’s Parliament, and is the author of the intriguing new book, “Inventing Freedom.”

To illustrate the exceptional difference a government based on the personal freedom of its citizens as opposed to one based on a central authority more powerful than the rights of individuals, Hannan compares the diametrically different fortunes of North and South America:

“…Latin America in general…never achieved the law-based civil society that North America takes for granted.  Settled at around the same time, the two great landmasses of the New World serve almost as a controlled experiment. The North was settled by …[those] who took with them a belief in property rights, personal liberty, and representative government.  The South was settled by…[those] who replicated the vast estates and quasi-feudal society of their home provinces. Despite being the poorer continent in natural resources, North America became the most desirable living space on the planet, attracting…people with the promise of freedom. South America, by contrast, remained closer to the state of nature…”

Hannan credits the North’s success to its devotion to the rule of law, personal freedom, and representative government.

Since 2009, an increasingly powerful U.S. presidency has essentially ignored constitutional restrictions enshrined in American law since its founding. White House comments such as “We can’t wait” , and “I have a pen and a phone and I know how to use them,” (essentially to bypass the legislative process) enshrine the Administration’s attitude towards Constitutional procedures. Personal freedom has been limited in the pursuit of an agenda that ranks its “progressive” goals as more important.

The prerogatives of representative government, represented by Congress, have been treated with disdain by Executive Branch officials who fail to prosecute voter fraud, use the machinery of the IRS to harass political opponents, gloss over deadly foreign policy failures, ignore repeated scandals by federal officials, and respond contemptuously at legislative branch hearings.

As a result, the United States faces an extraordinary range of highly serious problems that threaten the very foundation of the nation, including an economy that fails to produce adequate employment, crushing public debt and annual deficits, national security challenges more lethal than those endured during the Cold War, and a growing distrust between the federal government and the populace it purports to serve.

Are these mere products of the times, the inevitable outgrowth of forces beyond the control of elected officials, or are they the result of misguided policy decisions by those currently controlling Washington?

A similar question arose in New York City during the latter half of the 20th Century.  Progressive politicians controlled America’s most prosperous city, implemented their ideology-based policies, and presided over an era when pundits called the Big Apple the “Ungovernable City,” culminating in the hard-core leftist tenure of David Dinkins in the early 1990s.

Following the debacle, voters elected Rudolph Giuliani, who was the antithesis of his predecessors.

Quite rapidly, NYC’s reputation metamorphosed from the “Ungovernable City” to the “Capital of the World.” Crime dropped dramatically, the economy boomed, and civic pride was restored.

A return to a government in Washington more focused on the resolution of real problems, using traditional Constitutional means, rather than the top-down implementation of a “progressive” agenda could produce a similar recovery nationwide.

Anti Christian Persecution Reaches New High

Easter 2014 may be over, but the issue of Christian persecution lives on.

Two weeks ago, David Cameron, the United Kingdom’s Prime Minister, delivered the most forceful address yet on the issue, stating:

“I hope we can do more to raise the profile of the persecution of Christians around the world. It is the case today that our religion is now the most persecuted religion around the world. I think Britain can play a leading role in this. We have met our obligations in terms of the aid we give to countries around the world. We’re seen as a country which is engaged internationally, and I know that William Hague shares my view about this as does Sayeeda Warsi who leads on this issue in the Foreign Office. We should stand up against persecution of Christians and other religious groups wherever and whenever we can, and should be unashamed in doing so.”

The persecution is taking place throughout the Muslim world, and in China.

According to the monitoring organization China Aid :

“[G]overnment persecution against Christians in China had risen 38.82 percent since 2012 based on six categories.

“Of the six categories, which include the total number of persecution cases, the number of people persecuted, the number of people detained, the number of people sentenced, the number of abuse cases and the number of people abused, all but one increased between 2 and 50.9 percent. The only category which saw a decrease in percentage was the number of abuse case, which fell 42.9 percent since 2012.

“In 2013, ChinaAid documented 143 cases of persecution; 7,424 people were persecuted, representing a 50.9 percent increase since 2012.

“ChinaAid revealed in the report that, via access to a government document entitled “Focus of Work of State Administration for Religious Affairs in 2014,” the Chinese government aims to “summarize the practice and experience of regulating the privately set-up Christian meeting places in some regions and explore effective methods of regulating. Also, to attach importance to the job of uniting and liaising with minority religious groups and resolve conflicts and disputes.”
The Gatstone Institute The Institute reports on widespread and systemic persecution.  Examples include:

“Egypt:  Christians in the context of seizing their money and their property is seen “as a religious duty…

“Sudan: Police and security forces used a truck and two Land Cruisers to batter down the fence around Khartoum Bahri Evangelical Church, before breaking into the church and beating and arresting the Christians present…

“Turkey: Historically the oldest Christian place of worship in Istanbul, the ancient monastery of San Giovanni in Studion founded in 462, currently classified as a museum, is now going to serve as a mosque.

“Iran: The fate of Hossein Saketi Aramsari, a Christian known as “Stephen” among his friends, remained unknown. Iran’s secret police arrested him in July 2013, on suspicion that he was engaging in “evangelistic activities.”

“Pakistan: Blasphemy cases against Christians have reached an all-time high. Four such cases were reported in November; a number, according to activists, four times higher than the monthly average recorded over the past two years.

“Central African Republic: At least 450,000 Christians have fled their homes in the 80% Christian-majority nation since the Islamic takeover in March 2013.”

Throughout all of these incidents, the Obama Administration has remained completely and totally silent. Indeed, U.S. Christians remain angered at portions of the new healthcare law that force religious insitutuions to insure practices contrary to their faith.