The Nazarene Fund and The Middle East with Johnnie Moore

November 23, 2015

Editor

Making their way to eastern Europe --- just in time for Christmas --- is the first group of refugees being saved by The Nazarene Fund. How are they feeling?

According to Johnnie Moore, author of Defying ISIS, they're still in a bit of shock, wondering if this is too good to be true. Having experienced persecution and the ravages of war, they're astonished by this outpouring of compassion.

The families feel comforted about their final destination --- an eastern European nation that is selectively taking Christian refugees only. Of course, there's trepidation in the mix as well, and the fear that --- as Syrians --- they might be mistaken as former members of ISIS.

Glenn and Johnnie discussed on air today how The Nazarene Fund is providing a bit of peace and security for a persecuted and desperate community.

If you would like to help rescue highly vetted Christian refugees, make a donation by visiting #NeverAgainIsNow or calling 844-637-2791.

Below is a rush transcript of this segment, it might contain errors.

GLENN: Johnnie Moore is joining us now because he has been on the front lines leading the fight to bring in Christian refugees. And, Johnnie, can you tell me the difference between a Christian refugee? I mean, how dare you make this racist and this Islamophobic differentiating point, but can you tell me the difference between the Christian refugees and the Muslim refugees?

JOHNNIE: Yeah, exactly. And it's really, really simple. There is no Christian member of ISIS. Not one. Not a single Christian member of ISIS.

And, by the way, all these Christians, are Middle Eastern pacifists to begin with. You know, they wouldn't even know what to do with a gun if they found one.

I mean, this is totally, totally incomprehensible last week when the president spoke most passionately in an hour-long press conference at the G20, he spoke most passionately about what I characterize as discriminating against Christians. Because that's what he's decided to do.

And, you know, what's so strange about this, Glenn, is that the UN Declaration of Human Rights, the UN convention on genocide, official State Department policy, every nonsectarian, nonreligious NGO in the world has always provided special treatment to those who have been persecuted for religion. And yet for months, we've been saying -- we've been saying it, we've been very, very clear about it, that it seems like this administration is discriminating against Christians, and they denied it. The State Department released press release after press statement after press statement, and then the president just came clean last week in front of world leaders at the G20 and made it very, very clear, Christians aren't welcome from the Middle East in the United States, unless they just slip in.

GLENN: He's saying that there is no genocide of Christians.

JOHNNIE: No -- and he's said it from the beginning. And it's crazy. I don't even know how he believes this. A million Christians are gone from Syria in five years. A million Christians. Over a million Christians are gone from Iraq in the last seven or eight years. I mean, this is like -- it is really, really, really shameful. And the fact that the president spends all of his energy, you know, trying to make those of us who want to provide special treatment to genocide victims look like bigots at this time when we're facing a just total crisis, when it comes to the fact that, in Europe and the United States, we haven't a clue who is here. I mean, this is really, really terrible. And it's very, very, very dangerous.

You know, and, by the way, he speaks, you know, caustically about all this stuff. You know, last week he said sarcastically, "What do these Republicans, what do these conservatives want? You know, they're scared of widows and orphans from Syria." Well, you know, the truth is we are scared of widows and orphans from Syria because we don't know if they carry the ideology.

You know, why is this woman a widow? Did her husband die fighting for ISIS? You know, what have they been teaching their children? What about the communities they're going in, in the United States? Those of us who are close to the situation know two things: The first thing that we know is, the vast majority of Muslims aren't going to strap a bomb to themselves. The second thing we know is, those that are often ideologically led by the woman in the home. It's the woman that teaches the ideology to the children. And oftentimes the husbands, you know, follow that path. So, you know, I think a lot of us that are close to the Middle East are -- are terrified of the fact that we're not scrutinizing things.

And, you know, the other side of this too is, we right now at the Nazarene Fund with Mercury One, we have employed former United States intelligence agents that are doing our own vetting of our own Christian refugees before resettlement. And I was just talking to one of them last week and she told me. She said, "You know, vetting is difficult for professionals. It's difficult for CIA people." So the fact that we're leaving this to untrained UN people or, you know, immigration people, it's just -- it's just really, really scary, Glenn. Just so many things to be worried about right now.

GLENN: How do you argue this with your friends? If you're listening and your friends are going to be around a Thanksgiving table, and I can guarantee you, some of them are going to say, "We have to bring the Syrian refugees in. We have to. This is so un-American to say 'no' to Syrian refugees." How would you argue that?

JOHNNIE: I'd tell them how compassionate are we being, if we're endangering the United States of America, endangering our own children? You know, it's absolutely true that most of these refugees aren't going to strap a bomb to themselves. But it's absolutely true that the United States of America hasn't effectively figured out how to discern who is and who isn't dangerous.

And, you know, we just discovered last week in a Senate hearing, Glenn, that there were five individuals who were recruited by ISIS that worked in the United States airport, including LAX. You know, the airport I fly out of every day of my life. I mean, there are really, really alarming, alarming things. And, by the way, don't mention the fact that, you know, Europe has embraced such -- such an you attitude of tolerance, like you were describing moments ago, that they allowed all of this to fester.

You know, and those of us that have been studying this and close to this, this wasn't a surprise to us. Paris wasn't a surprise. You know, when I wrote my ISIS book a year ago, one of the most startling pieces of information I stumbled upon was that 31 percent of the Arabic language tweets in Belgium that mentioned ISIS were in support of ISIS.

And, you know, this information was in the public domain a year ago. I remember being in France in Leone just seven or eight years ago with a group of students from Liberty University. We were distributing food in a poor community, a poor immigrant community outside of Leone. And we were run out of that immigrant community, like people throwing stones at us, literally throwing stones at us. I mean, this has been allowed to fester.

And now we're living in a global world. And so right now, one of the things that we know is at least 1800 French citizens, French citizens with French passports traveled over to Syria. They fought for ISIS because they have French passports, unless they're on a list. And everyone has admitted, the EU and the United States has admitted that our lists are insufficient. Those people with French passports can fly back to France. They can get on a French plane and because of the visa waiver program, they can arrive at any airport in the United States and do whatever they want unless they happen to be on a list.

And the FBI director told our Congress just over a month ago that our Syrian list is dismal. And, by the way, a number of people in France were on our list, but we're still incapable of organizing our intelligence and working cooperatively with other countries that these people were just sort of allowed to warned around Europe. This is really, really a precarious moment.

GLENN: Johnnie, I know that the first group of refugees is coming out of Syria here in the next few weeks, before Christmas. How are they feeling? Because I would imagine -- I spent a lot of time this weekend thinking, "If I'm one of them and I see the world collapsing around, I'm -- I don't know where to go, I don't know what to do." Because you're not going to escape this -- you know, what are they feeling?

JOHNNIE: I think they're sort of feeling two things. And the first thing is, they're still feeling that this is too good to be true. I just -- I think down deep inside, they're all waiting for something to fall apart because they're not used to the world showing this type of compassion to Christians.

And we keep telling them, "It's not too good to be true. It's actually going to happen." And secondarily, I think they actually feel a bit of comfort because they're going into a country in eastern Europe that very, very early on stood up and said, "We're a Christian country, you know, we're more than happy to take Christians, but we're not going to take everyone." And I think that provides another level of security.

And then you have on the same token, because of the way the migration system in Europe has been allowed to function, you know, without -- without sufficient regulation and vetting, they're also fearful that people will confuse them as persecuted Christians for Syrians that -- that, you know, might be former members of ISIS. I mean, this is what's so, so crazy, you know, about the situation, that -- that they're facing.

I mean, the world is in total upheaval. Everyone is confused. Our leaders are doing crazy things. I mean, just today, you know, I was reading the news from Iraq. And Russian missiles have accidentally gone into Iraqi airspace where ISIS isn't even. So you can imagine what could happen if a Russian missile, because of their imprecise activity, ends up falling on Baghdad. I mean, we could just have 1,000 apocalypses in every direction that we look. And so what we've done is we've carved out a little bit of peace and security around a really, really persecuted and desperate community. And we're bound and determined that if all hell breaks loose around them, that they will be saved and they will have a future and we will have done our part.

GLENN: Johnnie, we thank you. And we pray for you. And we pray for the refugees that we're trying to get out. If you would like to assist, you can go to now.mercuryone.org. Or you can call 844-637-2791. And make a donation. I went to a book signing this weekend. People came with 5-dollar, 10-dollar checks, hundred dollar checks, and one family came with a 10,000-dollar check and said, "We really want to help a mom and a dad get their family out of there."

JOHNNIE: Wow.

GLENN: Johnnie, thank you very much, I appreciate it.

Shocking Christian massacres unveiled

Aldara Zarraoa / Contributor | Getty Images

Is a Christian Genocide unfolding overseas?

Recent reports suggest an alarming escalation in violence against Christians, raising questions about whether these acts constitute genocide under international law. Recently, Glenn hosted former U.S. Army Special Forces Sniper Tim Kennedy, who discussed a predictive model that forecasts a surge in global Christian persecution for the summer of 2025.

From Africa to Asia and the Middle East, extreme actions—some described as genocidal—have intensified over the past year. Over 380 million Christians worldwide face high levels of persecution, a number that continues to climb. With rising international concern, the United Nations and human rights groups are urging protective measures by the global community. Is a Christian genocide being waged in the far corners of the globe? Where are they taking place, and what is being done?

India: Hindu Extremist Violence Escalates

Yawar Nazir / Contributor | Getty Images

In India, attacks on Christians have surged as Hindu extremist groups gain influence within the country. In February 2025, Hindu nationalist leader Aadesh Soni organized a 50,000-person rally in Chhattisgarh, where he called for the rape and murder of all Christians in nearby villages and demanded the execution of Christian leaders to erase Christianity. Other incidents include forced conversions, such as a June 2024 attack in Chhattisgarh, where a Hindu mob gave Christian families a 10-day ultimatum to convert to Hinduism. In December 2024, a Christian man in Uttar Pradesh was attacked, forcibly converted, and paraded while the mob chanted "Death to Jesus."

The United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) recommends designating India a "Country of Particular Concern" and imposing targeted sanctions on those perpetrating these attacks. The international community is increasingly alarmed by the rising tide of religious violence in India.

Syria: Sectarian Violence Post-Regime Change

LOUAI BESHARA / Contributor | Getty Images

Following the collapse of the Assad regime in December 2024, Syria has seen a wave of sectarian violence targeting religious minorities, including Christians, with over 1,000 killed in early 2025. It remains unclear whether Christians are deliberately targeted or caught in broader conflicts, but many fear persecution by the new regime or extremist groups. Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), a dominant rebel group and known al-Qaeda splinter group now in power, is known for anti-Christian sentiments, heightening fears of increased persecution.

Christians, especially converts from Islam, face severe risks in the unstable post-regime environment. The international community is calling for humanitarian aid and protection for Syria’s vulnerable minority communities.

Democratic Republic of Congo: A "Silent Genocide"

Hugh Kinsella Cunningham / Stringer | Getty Images

In February 2025, the Allied Democratic Forces (ADF), an ISIS-affiliated group, beheaded 70 Christians—men, women, and children—in a Protestant church in North Kivu, Democratic Republic of Congo, after tying their hands. This horrific massacre, described as a "silent genocide" reminiscent of the 1994 Rwandan genocide, has shocked the global community.

Since 1996, the ADF and other militias have killed over six million people, with Christians frequently targeted. A Christmas 2024 attack killed 46, further decimating churches in the region. With violence escalating, humanitarian organizations are urging immediate international intervention to address the crisis.

POLL: Starbase exposed: Musk’s vision or corporate takeover?

MIGUEL J. RODRIGUEZ CARRILLO / Contributor | Getty Images

Is Starbase the future of innovation or a step too far?

Elon Musk’s ambitious Starbase project in South Texas is reshaping Boca Chica into a cutting-edge hub for SpaceX’s Starship program, promising thousands of jobs and a leap toward Mars colonization. Supporters see Musk as a visionary, driving economic growth and innovation in a historically underserved region. However, local critics, including Brownsville residents and activists, argue that SpaceX’s presence raises rents, restricts beach access, and threatens environmental harm, with Starbase’s potential incorporation as a city sparking fears of unchecked corporate control. As pro-Musk advocates clash with anti-Musk skeptics, will Starbase unite the community or deepen the divide?

Let us know what you think in the poll below:

Is Starbase’s development a big win for South Texas?

Should Starbase become its own city?

Is Elon Musk’s vision more of a benefit than a burden for the region?

Shocking truth behind Trump-Zelenskyy mineral deal unveiled

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy have finalized a landmark agreement that will shape the future of U.S.-Ukraine relations. The agreement focuses on mineral access and war recovery.

After a tense March meeting, Trump and Zelenskyy signed a deal on Wednesday, April 30, 2025, granting the U.S. preferential mineral rights in Ukraine in exchange for continued military support. Glenn analyzed an earlier version of the agreement in March, when Zelenskyy rejected it, highlighting its potential benefits for America, Ukraine, and Europe. Glenn praised the deal’s strategic alignment with U.S. interests, including reducing reliance on China for critical minerals and fostering regional peace.

However, the agreement signed this week differs from the March proposal Glenn praised. Negotiations led to significant revisions, reflecting compromises on both sides. What changes were made? What did each leader seek, and what did they achieve? How will this deal impact the future of U.S.-Ukraine relations and global geopolitics? Below, we break down the key aspects of the agreement.

What did Trump want?

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Trump aimed to curb what many perceive as Ukraine’s overreliance on U.S. aid while securing strategic advantages for America. His primary goals included obtaining reimbursement for the billions in military aid provided to Ukraine, gaining exclusive access to Ukraine’s valuable minerals (such as titanium, uranium, and lithium), and reducing Western dependence on China for critical resources. These minerals are essential for aerospace, energy, and technology sectors, and Trump saw their acquisition as a way to bolster U.S. national security and economic competitiveness. Additionally, he sought to advance peace talks to end the Russia-Ukraine war, positioning the U.S. as a key mediator.

Ultimately, Trump secured preferential—but not exclusive—rights to extract Ukraine’s minerals through the United States-Ukraine Reconstruction Investment Fund, as outlined in the agreement. The U.S. will not receive reimbursement for past aid, but future military contributions will count toward the joint fund, designed to support Ukraine’s post-war recovery. Zelenskyy’s commitment to peace negotiations under U.S. leadership aligns with Trump’s goal of resolving the conflict, giving him leverage in discussions with Russia.

These outcomes partially meet Trump’s objectives. The preferential mineral rights strengthen U.S. access to critical resources, but the lack of exclusivity and reimbursement limits the deal’s financial benefits. The peace commitment, however, positions Trump as a central figure in shaping the war’s resolution, potentially enhancing his diplomatic influence.

What did Zelenskyy want?

Global Images Ukraine / Contributor | Getty Images

Zelenskyy sought to sustain U.S. military and economic support without the burden of repaying past aid, which has been critical for Ukraine’s defense against Russia. He also prioritized reconstruction funds to rebuild Ukraine’s war-torn economy and infrastructure. Security guarantees from the U.S. to deter future Russian aggression were a key demand, though controversial, as they risked entangling America in long-term commitments. Additionally, Zelenskyy aimed to retain control over Ukraine’s mineral wealth to safeguard national sovereignty and align with the country’s European Union membership aspirations.

The final deal delivered several of Zelenskyy’s priorities. The reconstruction fund, supported by future U.S. aid, provides a financial lifeline for Ukraine’s recovery without requiring repayment of past assistance. Ukraine retained ownership of its subsoil and decision-making authority over mineral extraction, granting only preferential access to the U.S. However, Zelenskyy conceded on security guarantees, a significant compromise, and agreed to pursue peace talks under Trump’s leadership, which may involve territorial or political concessions to Russia.

Zelenskyy’s outcomes reflect a delicate balance. The reconstruction fund and retained mineral control bolster Ukraine’s economic and sovereign interests, but the absence of security guarantees and pressure to negotiate peace could strain domestic support and challenge Ukraine’s long-term stability.

What does this mean for the future?

Handout / Handout | Getty Images

While Trump didn’t secure all his demands, the deal advances several of his broader strategic goals. By gaining access to Ukraine’s mineral riches, the U.S. undermines China’s dominance over critical elements like lithium and graphite, essential for technology and energy industries. This shift reduces American and European dependence on Chinese supply chains, strengthening Western industrial and tech sectors. Most significantly, the agreement marks a pivotal step toward peace in Europe. Ending the Russia-Ukraine war, which has claimed thousands of lives, is a top priority for Trump, and Zelenskyy’s commitment to U.S.-led peace talks enhances Trump’s leverage in negotiations with Russia. Notably, the deal avoids binding U.S. commitments to Ukraine’s long-term defense, preserving flexibility for future administrations.

The deal’s broader implications align with the vision Glenn outlined in March, when he praised its potential to benefit America, Ukraine, and Europe by securing resources and creating peace. While the final agreement differs from Glenn's hopes, it still achieves key goals he outlined.

Did Trump's '51st state' jab just cost Canada its independence?

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Did Canadians just vote in their doom?

On April 28, 2025, Canada held its federal election, and what began as a promising conservative revival ended in a Liberal Party regroup, fueled by an anti-Trump narrative. This outcome is troubling for Canada, as Glenn revealed when he exposed the globalist tendencies of the new Prime Minister, Mark Carney. On a recent episode of his podcast, Glenn hosted former UK Prime Minister Liz Truss, who provided insight into Carney’s history. She revealed that, as governor of the Bank of England, Carney contributed to the 2022 pension crisis through policies that triggered excessive money printing, leading to rampant inflation.

Carney’s election and the Liberal Party’s fourth consecutive victory spell trouble for a Canada already straining under globalist policies. Many believed Canadians were fed up with the progressive agenda when former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau resigned amid plummeting public approval. Pierre Poilievre, the Conservative Party leader, started 2025 with a 25-point lead over his Liberal rivals, fueling optimism about his inevitable victory.

So, what went wrong? How did Poilievre go from predicted Prime Minister to losing his own parliamentary seat? And what details of this election could cost Canada dearly?

A Costly Election

Mark Carney (left) and Pierre Poilievre (right)

GEOFF ROBINSPETER POWER / Contributor | Getty Images

The election defied the expectations of many analysts who anticipated a Conservative win earlier this year.

For Americans unfamiliar with parliamentary systems, here’s a brief overview of Canada’s federal election process. Unlike U.S. presidential elections, Canadians do not directly vote for their Prime Minister. Instead, they vote for a political party. Each Canadian resides in a "riding," similar to a U.S. congressional district, and during the election, each riding elects a Member of Parliament (MP). The party that secures the majority of MPs forms the government and appoints its leader as Prime Minister.

At the time of writing, the Liberal Party has secured 169 of the 172 seats needed for a majority, all but ensuring their victory. In contrast, the Conservative Party holds 144 seats, indicating that the Liberal Party will win by a solid margin, which will make passing legislation easier. This outcome is a far cry from the landslide Conservative victory many had anticipated.

Poilievre's Downfall

PETER POWER / Contributor | Getty Images

What caused Poilievre’s dramatic fall from front-runner to losing his parliamentary seat?

Despite his surge in popularity earlier this year, which coincided with enthusiasm surrounding Trump’s inauguration, many attribute the Conservative loss to Trump’s influence. Commentators argue that Trump’s repeated references to Canada as the "51st state" gave Liberals a rallying cry: Canadian sovereignty. The Liberal Party framed a vote for Poilievre as a vote to surrender Canada to U.S. influence, positioning Carney as the defender of national independence.

Others argue that Poilievre’s lackluster campaign was to blame. Critics suggest he should have embraced a Trump-style, Canada-first message, emphasizing a balanced relationship with the U.S. rather than distancing himself from Trump’s annexation remarks. By failing to counter the Liberal narrative effectively, Poilievre lost momentum and voter confidence.

This election marks a pivotal moment for Canada, with far-reaching implications for its sovereignty and economic stability. As Glenn has warned, Carney’s globalist leanings could align Canada more closely with international agendas, potentially at the expense of its national interests. Canadians now face the challenge of navigating this new political landscape under a leader with a controversial track record.

Glenn's Show Prep