Recently, the “counter jihad” group Gatestone Institute put out a report blaming OBAMA for the ongoing genocide of Christianity in Nigeria. The full article text can be read at any time here (source, source), and most of it is not worth reading, but there are a few parts of note:
In a bombshell revelation, Goodluck Jonathan, Nigeria’s former president (2010-2015), has accused the Obama administration of meddling with his nation’s politics in order to replace him with its current president, Muhammadu Buhari — whom many blame for facilitating the persecution of Christians. In his new book, My Transition Hours, Jonathan writes:
“On March 23, 2015, President Obama himself took the unusual step of releasing a video message directly to Nigerians all but telling them how to vote… In that video, Obama urged Nigerians to open the ‘next chapter’ by their votes. Those who understood subliminal language deciphered that he was prodding the electorate to vote for the [Muslim-led] opposition to form a new government.”
A 2011 ABC News report provides context:
The current wave of [Muslim] riots was triggered by the Independent National Election Commission’s (INEC) announcement on Monday [April 18, 2011] that the incumbent President, Dr. Goodluck Jonathan, won in the initial round of ballot counts. That there were riots in the largely Muslim inhabited northern states where the defeat of the Muslim candidate Muhammadu Buhari was intolerable, was unsurprising. Northerners [Muslims] felt they were entitled to the presidency for the declared winner, President Jonathan, [who] assumed leadership after the Muslim president, Umaru Yar’Adua died in office last year and radical groups in the north [Boko Haram] had seen his [Jonathan’s] ascent as a temporary matter to be corrected at this year’s election. Now they are angry despite experts and observers concurring that this is the fairest and most independent election in recent Nigerian history.
That the Obama administration may have imposed its will on a foreign country’s politics and elections is hardly unprecedented. Recall the administration’s partiality for the Muslim Brotherhood during and after 2012 presidential elections in Egypt; or its unsuccessful efforts to oust Israeli prime minister Netanyahu with U.S. taxpayers’ money; or its efforts — with an admittedly unverified “dossier” (here, here and here) — to prevent then-presidential candidate Donald J. Trump from being elected, or by discussing an “insurance policy” in the event that Trump won. Moreover, texts by Peter Strzok revealed that Obama “wants to know everything we’re doing.”
So in Nigeria, the Obama administration, it seems, sought to right the apparently intolerable wrong of having a duly elected Christian president in a more than 50% Christian nation.
This article would seem to blame President Obama for “imposing his will” on other countries to “hurt Christians.” However true this may, be it is in itself nothing exceptional as this has been a consistent theme in US foreign policy. The US government, in the name of expansionism and consolidating power, will regularly engage in activities that result in the massive persecution of Christians, the rise of Islamic fundamentalism, and eventually destroy entire nations in politics that transcend any boundaries, be it party or another, because both operate from the same philosophical premise. The US government may have supported ISIS during the Obama administration, but this order did not come from “Obama,” but the same interests in industry, finance, and the military who supported the American invasion and Christian genocide of Iraq during President G. W. Bush, the sanctions against Iraq that killed at least a half-million people from starvation as well as the US invasion of the Balkans under President Clinton, the US-backed Islamic rebellions in Chechnya and the Caucasus under President G. H. W. Bush, the American creation of the Taliban as a part of Operation Cyclone under President Reagan, and so forth. With the exceptions of Presidents Carter and Kennedy, the former who is vilified and the latter who was assassinated, the US presidency following the Second World War has been but the role of a glorified machine operator for a revived version of the 19th century Great Game and whose end is a third world war.
During the thirty years leading up to the death of the Ottoman Empire before her transformation into the “modern” Turkish state from 1887 to 1917, policy between the US and now Turkey was greatly influenced by Oscar Straus, who worked as a diplomat to Turkey from 1887 to 1889 and then from 1898 to 1899, and then from 1909 to 1910. Straus, who was a Jew born in Germany but rose to the halls of American power, spent his career working with Sultan Abdulhamid II to coordinate the American subjugation of the southern Philippines, which were and still are predominately Muslim using the Sultan as a go-between.
As I have noted before, this also took place in the light of US weapons sales to the Ottoman Empire, many of which were made by Colt Firearms and earned the company many awards from the sultan, which are on display today at the Wadsworth Atheneum in Hartford, CT. The weapons sold to the Sultan were used then to murder Christians, and not in the Armenian Genocide, but in the events leading up to the full genocide, such as the Hamidian Massacres of 1894 to 1896 and the infamous Adana Massacre of 1909. However, whatever condemnations were made of these massacres leading up to the genocide were meaningless as their results yielded no actual change in US policy, but only the impression that a change was possible at the time.
Thus the deaths of thousands of Christian people was not even a consideration for Straus or the government he represented, because his job was the realization of long-established geopolitical goals regardless of what the effects of realizing said goals would be. In this case, it was the support of Turkey as a hedge against the Russians, and as a side consequence there was the absolute destruction of Christianity in Turkey.
Christianity is gone in Turkey today not because of “the Muslims,” but due to a pan-Turkic nationalism that was encouraged and the weapons and tools provided to realize said massacres by American and Western European industrialists and financiers. It is the exact same as what happened a century later in Iraq, for in the months leading up to the American invasion in 2003, Christians made up 6% of the Iraqi population and numbered over 1 million strong, and in less than 15 years almost all Christians are gone, having either fled and never to return, displaced in refugee camps, or dead from the American-created ISIS terror group.
Obama was not “helping Christians,” but he was consistent in that the US government has never been a friend to Christians except when it is believed to benefit them, and will later discard them if they believe it necessary. To that extent, one must be aware that the Trump administration is no different, but is far more dangerous in that due to Trump’s history as a reality TV actor and a man who lives without any sort of moral principle, has been able to once again convince people that he cares when he does not.
The evidence for Trump’s lack of care comes from the fact that in spite of his constant campaign tropes about helping persecuted Christians and stopping Islamic terrorism, he has continued on the same paradigm as previous administrations but only intensified and advanced to a greater extent the same ends. For example, Trump famously criticized and attacked Obama for invading Syria, and having become President now is bombing Syria even more so than under Obama and “withdraws” from it as an excuse to give Erdogan of Turkey, a man Trump said he is close to, a power vacuum they can willingly move into in the same way that Turkey created a power vacuum in the Philippines for the US to move into during the late 19th century under the diplomacy of Oscar Straus. Trump has also allowed for the remilitarization of Germany and Japan, and is encouraging a military revolution and ostensibly invasion of Iran.
While Obama certainly is worthy of criticism, he did not want to invade Iran. Indeed, it is rather ironic to make claims of a so-called worldwide “Iranian threat” by what is historically no more than a regional power when it is the US who has run about the world and destabilized the entire Middle East, precipitated a migration crisis, arms terrorists, and is re-arming governments with megalomaniac histories in a way that will cause a war for the supposed causes of “freedom and democracy.”
And, on just a side note, as I have written before, the US government’s actions in Nigeria are tied to oil politics as part of an anti-China policy that is a part of her support of Japan. Likewise, perhaps instead of blaming “Obama” for the ongoing situation in Nigeria, perhaps people should be asking why Trump has done nothing to better the situation in spite of having the ability to.
As the world heads into 2019, there will be talk about the next “presidential” election. Some say that Trump will win, others say that he will not win. The future is yet to be written, but it is without doubt that Trump is going to continue the current policies he has embarked on, and if he is elected again, because he will not be able to run again, will only intensify in his support of Turkey and other anti-Christian persons and directives. This is also not to say that another person who gets in would be better, as there would be the same plans still in force.
During the banter between Clinton and Trump and the “commentaries” from the American “news,” there was piece on FOX News that interviewed various people on the street of a major city asking for their opinion. The piece has since disappeared from YouTube, but one of these clips was an interview with a homeless man asking what he thought about the elections. His response was “Hillary Clinton? Bring on the Muslims. Donald Trump? World War III.”
Perhaps is those on the “right” took the same advice they correctly gave to those on the “left,” which is to stop complaining about the past administration as the reason their current representative is incompetent and a loser, because the truth is in a game of power at all cost with respect to and for none, it does not matter to them who lives or dies, or even moral truth, because they believe that might makes one right, which is a view foreign to the gospel and only a friend to the spirit of antichrist.