The Nazarene Fund: Frequently Asked Questions

WHAT IS THE NAZARENE FUND?

The Nazarene Fund is an initiative of Mercury One dedicated to the evacuation of particularly vulnerable Christians from countries like Iraq and Syria into new countries where they might rebuild their lives.

Between now and December 2015 our goal is to raise $10 million to save more than 400 families from regions taken over by ISIS. ISIS has used the Nazarene sign to symbolize death – we will use it to symbolize life.

More details here.

WHAT WILL THE MONEY BE USED FOR?

Donations to The Nazarene Fund will be used to resettle Christian families who have been displaced by conflict in the Middle East, primarily at the hands of ISIS. Should it become impossible or impractical to resettle families, the contributions will be used to provide additional humanitarian support where they are forced to stay.

WHY DO YOU SAY “PRIMARILY AT THE HANDS OF ISIS?”

While ISIS is the most influential – and perhaps most dangerous – group terrorizing Christians in the Middle East, it is not the only one. Other terrorist groups like Al-Qaeda, Al-Nusra, and less organized terrorist sympathizers have also caused enormous persecution against the ancient Christian communities in the Middle East. In fact the pro-longed genocide against Christians in Iraq dates back at least till 2004, and began at the hands of the ISIS’ predecessor, Al-Qaeda in Iraq.

YOU CALLED THIS “GENOCIDE” – DOES THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY RECOGNIZE IT AS SUCH?

While the United States and the United Nations have refused to formally designate the ISIS threat against Christians as a “genocide,” a growing number of human rights activists and organizations are finding ISIS to be guilty of crimes against humanity, war crimes and genocide.

The legal definition of “genocide” according to Article II of the United Nations’ 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide legally defines the term as any of the following acts committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethical, racial or religious group, as such: (1) killing members of the group (2) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group (3) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part (4) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group (5) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

THIS OBVIOUSLY SEEMS LIKE A GENOCIDE; SO WHY HAS THE U.S. AND UNITED NATIONS NOT RECOGNIZED IT AS SUCH?

If genocide were formally declared, then it would trigger certain international mechanisms that are meant to protect the group under threat. Some human rights activists believe the United States fails to declare the ISIS threat against Christians as “genocide” because it would force the United States government to be more involved in providing direct assistance to them. Presently, the United States government’s response has been dismal, and especially so with regard to the ancient Christian communities of the Middle East.

Here, you can read additional information on what would automatically happen if the United Nations were to declare this a genocide, as well as specific evidence of genocidal acts by ISIS against Christians.

BUT, HOW IS IT FAIR THAT YOU ARE PRIMARILY FOCUSED ON CHRISTIANS?

It’s not a matter of fairness – we wish we could help everyone – but it is a matter of practicality, resources and urgency. The United States is a Christian majority country that can more quickly and more easily rally support for displaced Christians.

We also have a grave concern for all of those being effected by ISIS in the region, not excluding the majority Muslim population, which has been the victim of more terrorist related causalities than any other religion or culture. However, the Christian community faces a particular threat of extermination.

Lord George Weidenfeld is a British peer who has personally rescued 25 families from ISIS, resettling them in Poland, and he did so because he was himself rescued by Christians in 1938 as a young Jewish boy. Now he says, “he is repaying the favor.”

When Weidenfeld was asked by a reporter why he was only helping Christians, he responded, “I cannot save the world, but there is a very specific possibility on the Christian side.”

He went on to say,

I want to focus on something I can — with great difficulty and effort — achieve. I have tremendous sympathy for Muslim victims, but . . . there is an enormous amount of Muslim money in the Muslim world [for them to help their own], and the other thing is the logistical problem: Muslims could be shifted a few hundred kilometers away from the conflict but the Christians will have to find safe havens on the other end of the earth.

Columnist Charles Krauthammer, who is distant cousin of Weidenfeld, defended him in The Washington Post by saying, “this comes under the heading of no good deed goes unpunished. It’s a rather odd view that because he cannot do everything, he should be admonished for trying to do something.”

We agree.

If we had limitless resources, we would help everyone, but we don’t. So, we’ll start with those we can most easily help, the Christians.

WILL YOU BE “VETTING” THOSE WE HELP EVACUATE? HOW DOES THAT WORK? AREN’T YOU CONCERNED ABOUT BRINGING IN PEOPLE WITH ILL INTENTIONS?

Yes, those we help evacuated will undergo a thorough “vetting” process to ensure they aren’t actually closeted terrorists.

Generally speaking, the Christian community in the Middle East has represented the economic and social backbone of these societies. Highly educated and successful, they have been university professors, engineers, bankers and administrators. Many are multi-lingual and well traveled. They are non-violent, non-sectarian and have been trusted for many years, employed in some of the most important positions in secular and Islamic regimes. Whatever country takes them in will be blessed by their contributions to society.

Yet, the emphasis of our approach is “verification.” We have an internationally respected and experienced security contractor handling this process on our behalf with the mandate to do their work according to standards that are even more stringent than those employed by others in the international community, including the United Nations.

The vetting program begins with the families being recommended by the local Christian leaders. In most cases, these are people whom the Christian leaders have known for their entire lives. So, we are evacuating people from within an enclosed cultural system. We then meet with each of the recommended IDPs/Refugees personally to begin the process of ensuring they are who they say they are. During this time we record their stories, collect documentation of their identity and then we diligently and carefully verify and cross-check both their stories and their documents. Along the way, we confirm their desire to be relocated and also make sure they fully understand this will be a challenging process to assimilate into a new country and culture. We employ of a number of other “best practices” used by the intelligence community to analyze the behavior of the interviewees throughout the entire process. While we can’t fully disclose all that’s involved in vetting these people, we can tell you that international standards are employed.

During the vetting process, we also work with government officials from the “receiving” countries to ensure all appropriate immigration paperwork is completed and verified.

ONCE THE FAMILIES ARE VETTED, WHAT HAPPENS NEXT?

Families are legally transported from their home or host country to their new country where they are received by individual sponsors or a sponsoring organization (depending upon the country). They are helped to assimilate from finding accommodations to education for their children to finding employment to language acquisition, etc.

Through sponsoring organizations, the families are also provided with some financial assistance with the intent of easing their transition into life and work in their new home and country.

WHERE ARE THE RESCUED REFUGEES GOING TO END UP?

We hope to be able to bring many of them to the United States. However, the United States remains closed to Christian refugees. Meanwhile, a number of European and South American countries have agreed to provide a limited number of VISAS to those we help evacuate.

HOW DO WE PRESSURE THE U.S. TO BECOME A RECEIVING COUNTRY?

Presently, the United States is not a receiving country. If you would like to help us put pressure on the U.S. Government to take in Middle Eastern Christians, then please fill how the form entitled “Are you ready to house a family from the Middle East?” here.

What are some other ways? Write your Congressperson; Raise your voice as an advocate through social media; Get your pastor, rabbi or priest on board; Provide financial support.

AND THIS ALL COSTS APPROXIMATELY $25,000 PER FAMILY?

Yes, we have budgeted approximately $25,000 to evacuate a family of five. This also includes providing some financial assistance to that family for a year.

Normally, families have to be evacuated in a group via charter aircraft after they are already securely transferred from wherever it is they are presently finding accommodation. The families are vetted by international security professionals, and sometimes are required to stay in a temporary location for a number of days. Additionally, there are expenses involved in laying down the infrastructure in the receiving countries, and in general logistical and administrative support in the evacuating countries. The evacuation process is – by its nature – variable, and some evacuations cost more than others. Every situation is unique.

Our goal is to make each evacuation as inexpensive as possible so we can provide as much of the $25,000 as possible to the family as a gift to help them get on their feet.

Those gifts are provided in installments through the first year of their resettlement.

ISN'T THE WORLD ALREADY DEALING WITH THE REFUGEE PROBLEM?

The situation in Iraq and Syria has created the worst refugee crisis since World War II, and the entire world is struggling to deal with it. It’s an “all hands on deck” moment. It is anything but resolved, and unless we work to provide safe and legal ways for the most vulnerable to escape, we will continue to witness the death of those who have been trying to flee without any assistance or those who’ve been forced to stay.

HOW ARE WE EVEN MAKING A DENT IN THE REFUGEE CRISIS?

We cannot save the world, but we can save many lives. Every time you save a single life – to them – you are saving their entire world. We know we can’t solve the whole problem, but we sure can make the difference in the lives of many. Rather than being focused on the enormity of the problem we are focused on the individual lives we can save.

IS THIS RESCUE OPERATION LEGAL?

Absolutely, everything is being done with legal counsel and in cooperation with governments according to established international standards and regulations.

ARE WE BUYING OR BRIBING BAD GUYS? DOES ANY OF THE MONEY GO TO TERRORISTS?

No and no.

HOW CAN I GIVE?

Just visit now.mercuryone.org, and donate to The Nazarene Fund.

What happens if Trump wins from prison?

Rob Kim / Contributor | Getty Images

If Donald Trump is sentenced to prison time, it will be the first time in American history that a former president and active presidential candidate is thrown behind bars. Nobody knows for sure what exactly will happen.

With the election only a few months away, the left is working overtime to come up with any means of beating Trump, including tying him up in court or even throwing him in jail. Glenn recently had former U.S. DoJ Assistant Attorney General and Center for Renewing America senior fellow Jeff Clark on his show to discuss the recent resurrection of the classified documents case against Trump and what that could mean for the upcoming election. Clark explains that despite the immunity ruling from the Supreme Court this summer, he thinks there is a decent chance of a prison sentence.

What would that even look like if it happened? This is a completely unprecedented series of events and virtually every step is filled with potential unknowns. Would the Secret Service protect him in prison? What if he won from his jail cell? How would the American people respond? While no one can be certain for sure, here's what Glenn and Jeff Clark speculate might happen:

Jail time

ANDREW CABALLERO-REYNOLDS / Contributor | Getty Images

Can they even put a former president in prison? Jeff Clark seemed to think they can, and he brought up that New York County District Attorney, Alvin Bragg, had been talking with the New York jail system about making accommodations for Trump and the Secret Service assigned to protect him. Clark said he believes that if they sentence him before the election, Trump could be made to serve out his sentence until his inauguration, assuming he wins. After his inauguration, Clark said Trump's imprisonment would have to be suspended or canceled, as his constitutional duty as president would preempt the conviction by New York State.

House arrest

BRENDAN SMIALOWSKI / Contributor | Getty Images

Another possibility is that Trump could be placed under house arrest instead of imprisoned. This would make more sense from a security standpoint—it would be easier to protect Trump in his own home versus in prison. But, this would deny the Left the satisfaction of actually locking Trump behind bars, so it seems less likely. Either in prison or under house arrest, the effect is the same, Trump would be kept off the campaign trail during the most crucial leg of the election. It doesn't matter which way you spin it—this seems like election interference. Glenn even floated the idea of campaigning on behalf of Trump to help combat the injustice.

Public outrage

Jon Cherry / Stringer | Getty Images

It is clear to many Americans that this whole charade is little more than a thinly-veiled attempt to keep Trump out of office by any means necessary. If this attempt at lawfare succeeds, and Trump is thrown in jail, the American people likely will not have it. Any doubt that America has become a Banana Republic will be put to rest. How will anyone trust in any sort of official proceedings or elections ever again? One can only imagine what the reaction will be. If the past is any indication, it's unlikely to be peaceful.

POLL: What topics do YOU want Trump and Harris to debate?

Montinique Monroe / Stringer, Win McNamee / Staff | Getty Images

Does Kamala Harris stand a chance against Donald Trump in a debate?

Next week, during the second presidential debate, we will find out. The debate is scheduled for September 10th and will be hosted by ABC anchors David Muir and Linsey Davis. This will be the second presidential debate, but the first for VP Kamala Harris, and will feature the same rules as the first debate. The rules are: no notes, no chairs, no live audience, and the debater's microphone will only be turned on when it is his or her turn to speak.

This will be the first time Trump and Harris clash face-to-face, and the outcome could have a massive effect on the outcome of the election. Trump has been preparing by ramping up his campaign schedule. He plans to hold multiple rallies and speak at several events across the next several days. He wants to be prepared to face any question that might come his way, and meeting and interacting with both voters and the press seems to be Trump's preferred preparation approach.

With the multitude of issues plaguing our nation, there are a lot of potential topics that could be brought up. From the economy to the ongoing "lawfare" being waged against the former president, what topics do YOU want Harris and Trump to debate?

The economy (and why the Biden-Harris administration hasn't fixed it yet)

The Southern Border crisis (and Kamala's performance as border czar)

Climate change (and how Trump pulled out of the Paris Agreement)

The "lawfare" being waged against Trump (and what Trump would do if he were thrown in prison) 

Voting and election security (and how to deal with the possibility that illegal immigrants are voting)

3 ways the Constitution foils progressive authoritarianism

ANDREW CABALLERO-REYNOLDS / Contributor, Kevin Dietsch / Staff, Pool / Pool | Getty Images

This is why it is important to understand our history.

Over the weekend, the New York Times published a controversial article claiming the Constitution is a danger to the country and a threat to democracy. To those who have taken a high school American government class or have followed Glenn for a while, this claim might seem incongruent with reality. That's because Jennifer Szalai, the author the piece, isn't thinking of the Constitution as it was intended to be—a restraint on government to protect individual rights—but instead as a roadblock that is hindering the installation of a progressive oligarchy.

Glenn recently covered this unbelievable article during his show and revealed the telling critiques Szalai made of our founding document. She called it an "anti-democratic" document and argued it is flawed because Donald Trump used it to become president (sort of like how every other president achieved their office). From here, Szalai went off the deep end and made some suggestions to "fix" the Constitution, including breaking California and other blue states away from the union to create a coastal progressive utopia.

Here are three of the "flaws" Szalai pointed out in the Constitution that interfere with the Left's authoritarian dreams:

1. The Electoral College

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

The New York Times article brought up the fact that in 2016 President Trump lost the popular vote but won the Electoral College, and thus won the election. This, as Szalai pointed out, is not democratic. Strictly speaking, she is right. But as Glenn has pointed out time and time again, America is not a democracy! The Founding Fathers did not want the president to be decided by a simple majority of 51 percent of the population. The Electoral College is designed to provide minority groups with a voice, giving them a say in the presidential election. Without the Electoral College, a simple majority would dominate elections and America would fall under the tyranny of the masses.

2. The Supreme Court

OLIVIER DOULIERY / Contributor | Getty Images

President Biden and other progressives have thrown around the idea of reforming the Supreme Court simply because it has made a few rulings they disagree with. Glenn points out that when a country decides to start monkeying around with their high courts, it is usually a sign they are becoming a banana republic. Szalai complained that Trump was allowed to appoint three justices. Two of them were confirmed by senators representing just 44 percent of the population, and they overturned Roe v. Wade. All of this is Constitutional by Szalai's admission, and because she disagreed with it, she argued the whole document should be scrapped.

3. Republicanism

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

To clarify, were not talking about the Republican Party Republicanism, but instead the form of government made up of a collection of elected representatives who govern on the behalf of their constituents. This seems to be a repeat sticking point for liberals, who insist conservatives and Donald Trump are out to destroy "democracy" (a system of government that never existed in America). This mix-up explains Szalai's nonsensical interpretation of how the Constitution functions. She criticized the Constitution as "anti-democratic" and a threat to American democracy. If the Constitution is the nation's framework, and if it is "anti-democratic" then how is it a threat to American democracy? This paradox is easily avoided with the understanding that America isn't a democracy, and it never has been.

Kamala Harris' first interview as nominee: Three SHOCKING policy flips

Anadolu / Contributor | Getty Images

On Thursday, Kamala Harris gave her first interview since Joe Biden stepped down from the race, and it quickly becameclear why she waited so long.

Harris struggled to keep her story straight as CNN's Dana Bash questioned her about recent comments she had made that contradicted her previous policy statements. She kept on repeating that her "values haven't changed," but it is difficult to see how that can be true alongside her radical shift in policy. Either her values have changed or she is lying about her change in policy to win votes. You decide which seems more likely.

During the interview, Harris doubled down on her policy flip on fracking, the border, and even her use of the race card. Here are her top three flip-flops from the interview:

Fracking

Citizens of the Planet / Contributor | Getty Images

In 2019, during the 2020 presidential election, Harris pledged her full support behind a federal ban on fracking during a town hall event. But, during the DNC and again in this recent interview, Harris insisted that she is now opposed to the idea. The idea of banning fracking has been floated for a while now due to environmental concerns surrounding the controversial oil drilling method. Bans on fracking are opposed by many conservatives as it would greatly limit the production of oil in America, thus driving up gas prices across the nation. It seems Harris took this stance to win over moderates and to keep gas prices down, but who knows how she will behave once in office?

Border

PATRICK T. FALLON / Contributor | Getty Images

In her 2020 presidential bid, Harris was all for decriminalizing the border, but now she is singing a different tune. Harris claimed she is determined to secure the border—as if like she had always been a stalwart defender of the southern states. Despite this policy reversal, Harris claimed her values have not changed, which is hard to reconcile. The interviewer even offered Kamala a graceful out by suggesting she had learned more about the situation during her VP tenure, but Kamala insisted she had not changed.

Race

Tasos Katopodis / Stringer | Getty Images

When asked to respond to Trump's comments regarding the sudden emergence of Kamala's black ancestry Kamala simply answered "Same old tired playbook, next question" instead of jumping on the opportunity to play the race card as one might expect. While skipping the critical race theory lecture was refreshing, it came as a shock coming from the candidate representing the "everything is racist" party. Was this just a way to deflect the question back on Trump, or have the Democrats decided the race card isn't working anymore?