Ongoing ‘intifada’ in France has injured 2,500 police in 2006

Ongoing ‘intifada’ in France has injured 2,500 police in 2006

Special to World Tribune.comGEOSTRATEGY-DIRECT.COMFriday, October 27, 2006 This might have dropped below the radar, but Al Qaida and its allies are literally battling the Crusaders every day in Europe. And so far, Europe isn’t doing so well.”We are in a state of civil war, orchestrated by radical Islamists,” said Michel Thoomis, secretary general of the Action Police trade union. “This is not a question of urban violence any more. It is an intifada, with stones and firebombs.”

The French Interior Ministry has acknowledged the Muslim uprising. The ministry said more than 2,500 police officers have been injured in 2006. This amounts to at least 14 officers each day.

The battles have been under-reported but alarming to French authorities. Muslim street commanders, who run lucrative drug networks, have organized youngsters in housing projects to ambush police and confront security forces. The response time allows hundreds of Muslims to storm police cars and patrols within minutes.”You no longer see two or three youths confronting police,” Thoomis said. “You see whole tower blocks emptying into the streets to set their comrades free when they are arrested.”

France’s huge Muslim minority community has come under the influence of agents often influenced and financed by Al Qaida. These agents have recruited Muslim youngsters for urban warfare in which police and government representatives are injured daily.

Not surprisingly, Muslim neighborhoods are becoming autonomous zones, with police and government workers too scared to enter. The police union is demanding the Interior Ministry supply officers with armored cars.

European law enforcement sources say France could be a model for other countries. The most worried are Britain and the Netherlands

Webb Urged to Withdraw Over Content of Novels

Webb Urged to Withdraw Over Content of Novels
By Monisha Bansal
CNSNews.com Staff Writer
October 27, 2006

(Editor’s note: Some of the content below may offend some readers.)

(CNSNews.com) – Virginia Democratic candidate Jim Webb should pull out of the race for the U.S. Senate because of the controversial content in his novels, a conservative group said Friday.

“I am outraged and sickened by what I have read in the book written by a U.S. Senate candidate,” Andrea Lafferty, executive director of the Traditional Values Coalition, said during a press conference outside Webb’s campaign headquarters.

Lafferty was referring to Webb’s 2001 novel, “Lost Soldiers,” which includes a reference to a sexual act involving a father and son.

Excerpts from the book and others written by Webb were released late Thursday by the campaign of his Republican rival, Sen. George Allen (See Related Story).

“Democrat or Republican, an individual like that belongs on the couch of a therapist, not on the floor of the United States Senate,” said Lafferty, who sought to compare Webb to disgraced former Rep. Mark Foley of Florida.

“We’ve got a hunt going on on the Hill. It started with Foley [and the congressional page scandal]. He’s gone – we’re glad. But now, we’re going to send someone to the United States Senate who’s the author of this kind of trash?” she said.

Webb “should step down and withdraw from the Senate race,” Lafferty said. “When you read all the other stuff he’s written – this man will not represent us well.”

Citing the child sex reference, Lafferty said: “When you add this to all the degrading things he’s said about women, it shows the man.”

Webb defended the passage during a radio interview earlier Friday.

“It’s not a sexual act,” Webb said regarding the “Lost Soldiers” excerpt, which refers to a man in Southeast Asia placing his young son’s penis into his mouth.

“I actually saw this happen in a slum in Bangkok when I was there as a journalist,” Webb told Washington Post Radio. “The duty of a writer is to illuminate the surroundings.”

Darci Nelson, a resident of Fairfax, Va., who spoke at the Traditional Values Coalition press conference, was critical of Webb’s explanation.

“That is Cambodia, and this is the United States of America and Virginia,” Nelson said. “From where I stand, it is not normal or cultural behavior to put that out there for us to read.

“This stuff is inappropriate. It’s not literature,” she said. “Do I want Hugh Hefner to be president? No. Do I want Hugh Hefner representing me and Virginia? No. I don’t want that kind of character representing me or that kind of moral integrity representing me.”

Nelson was interrupted by Webb supporter Pat Heineman, whose son served in the Army in Afghanistan and whom she said would be deployed to Iraq.

“What’s outrageous is the guys that are dying,” she told Cybercast News Service.

“Jim Webb is going to bring leadership to the Senate. That’s why I support Jim Webb,” Heineman said.

Hezbollah’s Deadly Chess Match

Hezbollah’s Deadly Chess Match
By James G. Zumwalt
The Washington Times | October 27, 2006

When the recent Israeli-Hezbollah war ended, the United Nations’ newly organized human rights council, pressed by its Islamic members, spent its first two sessions criticizing Israel for allegedly causing heavy civilian casualties. But details are now known of a secret Hezbollah operation, mounted long before the war and focused, in violation of international law, on putting civilians at risk, that significantly contributed to this toll once the fighting began.

By way of background, in the early 1980s, Syria, which then controlled Lebanon, reluctantly allowed a group of 500 Iranian Revolutionary Guards into the Lebanese city of Baalbek, providing the seed from which Hezbollah sprang forth. Funded by Tehran, this terrorist organization began currying favor with the local population, providing many social services. Thus, when the popular Hezbollah secretly embarked upon activities with a more sinister purpose — putting a Lebanese citizenry at risk it purportedly sought to protect in order to gain tactical advantage against Israel in any future conflict — the local population blindly accepted this activity without knowledge of what it involved.

The activity upon which Hezbollah had embarked was conversion of private homes into mini-military sites from where it could easily target Israel’s civilian population. Cloaking itself as the protective shepherd, Hezbollah effectively prepared an unwitting Lebanese civilian flock as sacrificial lambs to be slaughtered in furtherance of its own war-fighting capabilities.

Long before hostilities erupted on July 12, Hezbollah construction teams had gone out and modified numerous Lebanese homes. Sometimes with, but most the time without, the homeowner’s permission, workers began adding on a large, single-function room. These rooms were unique for, when completed, they lacked an essential element of all rooms — a door. Each room was sealed shut — but only, and immediately, after an object was placed inside.

Often homeowners and neighbors did not know what exactly was entombed within the room as the object’s insertion and the subsequent sealing of the room normally took place at night — with the object always kept under wraps.

The residences Hezbollah selected for these unsolicited “home improvements” were chosen for their proximity to the Israeli border. When the fighting started after Tel Aviv responded militarily to Hezbollah’s July cross-border raid, resulting in the deaths of three Israeli soldiers and the capture of two more, the purpose of the covert home improvements became evident to the owners — though many were destroyed by Israeli air strikes before they could be activated.

When war erupted in southern Lebanon, designated leaders of Hezbollah combat teams received envelopes, each containing an address of one of the modified homes. The team quickly deployed to its assigned location, immediately breaking through an exterior wall of the sealed room. Each envelope contained aiming and firing instructions for the object prepositioned inside the room before it was sealed — a surface-to-surface missile atop a launcher. After removing part of the room’s roof to allow for unobstructed flight and on command, the team was to fire the missile, raining death and destruction down upon Israel’s civilian population.

There was one major flaw in Hezbollah’s home-conversion-to-missile-launch-site plan: Their construction activities had not gone unnoticed by Israeli intelligence. Closely monitoring Hezbollah’s activities, they knew in advance the locations of most sites. As each room was completed, it had been added to Israel’s target list so, once fighting started, it could quickly be destroyed — its civilian hosts in many cases becoming collateral damage due to Hezbollah’s illegal use of such a tactic.

Israel received much negative press for failing to accurately assess the Hezbollah threat. Clearly, some failures did occur, such as assessing how deeply Hezbollah had entrenched itself into southern Lebanon and Hezbollah’s ability, undoubtedly with Iranian assistance, to monitor Israeli battlefield communications.

But Israel must be applauded for its success in identifying ahead of time the threat posed by Hezbollah’s tactical use of private homes for military purposes — a threat Israeli air power was then able to effectively negate. Israeli Ambassador to the United Nations Dan Gillerman alluded two days into the conflict to these illegal Hezbollah tactics, a reference apparently lost on the media that failed to investigate further.

Hezbollah had designed a tactical plan calculated to maximize civilian casualties on both sides of battlefield — by design on the Israeli side in targeting its major population centers and by consequence on the Lebanese side as Israel responded. While this tactic was, from the Israeli perspective, checkmated by virtue of good intelligence, from the Lebanese perspective, many civilians at these launch sites were forced to pay the ultimate price. Sadly, from Hezbollah’s perspective, these civilian casualties were but dispensable pawns in its chess match with Israel.

Click Here to support Frontpagemag.com

Cracks in Arab Unity — The Muslim world had fallen victim to its own violence

Cracks in Arab Unity
By Micah Halpern
MicahHalpern.com | October 27, 2006

One of my biggest and most often repeated critiques of the Arab world is their own lack of critique, their own lack of self-criticism. One of the most significant weaknesses of Arab-leadership, Arab intelligentsia and the Arab masses has been that they have all, blindly and boldly, followed the move to extremism. As fractured and as divided as they are internally, the Arab world has always determined to present a cohesive, united front to the rest of the world. Now, suddenly, we are beginning to see cracks in the facade of Arab harmony and unity. Distinct voices are being heard, publicly and in the press, speaking lovingly of their people but critical of the direction the Arab world has taken.

Muslim Fundamentalism is being chastised for turning the Arab world into a violent world. Muslim Fundamentalism is being blamed for altering the very fabric of Arab life and turning every facet of Arab life into an act of destruction.
Muslim Fundamentalists are being reminded that they are neither the ultimate nor the only decision making force when it comes to Arab lifestyle, Arab life or Arab diplomacy.

The fear of intimidation is gone. The fear of destroying the myth of Arab unity is vanishing. The fear of an Arab world bent only on violence and destruction has become too great to suppress. By embracing violence and by turning violence into their primary means of problem solving, both internally and in dealings with the outside world, the Arab world has severely diminished not only the way they are perceived by the outside world, but also the way in which they perceive themselves.

Hosni Mubarak the acknowledged big brother and political advisor to a large segment of the Arab world is the first Arab leader to acknowledge the flawed path Islam has taken and to speak out for change. Last week the president of Egypt delivered his message by means of the national Egyptian media. In a live television appearance Mubarak, a man who minces no words, said: “Shouldn’t we Muslims shoulder part of the responsibility of these wrong ideas about Islam? Have we fulfilled our duty in correcting the image of Islam and the Muslims? What did we do to face a terrorism that wears Islam’s cloak and targets the lives of the people.”

In essence, Mubarak was telling his fellow Muslim leaders as well as all believers that the future of the Arab world is in their own hands, that Arabs must play a major role in the way they themselves are perceived by the rest of the world, that they have done nothing to confront the murderers of innocent people, that they have instead supported terrorists by supporting Islamic radicals. Mubarak chose harsh words to clearly define an even harsher reality.

Even more revealing – and much more surprising than the critique leveled by Mubarak, is the very personal expression of concern and condemnation that came from Dr. Ghazi Hamad, one of the leading spokesmen of Hamas. Yes, Hamas.

In a very self critical column published in the Palestinian weekly al-Ayam. Hamad posed some very thoughtful and introspective questions reprimanding his own society. He takes them to task for embracing violence as a way of life, for allowing violent means to supplant any and all other forms of personal expression. Hamad asked: “Are we truly a violent society?” “Do we suffer from the chronic illness of violence?” “Have we become people who believe that all our problems can be resolved only through violence, with a bullet, a shell, a blatant leaflet and harsh words?”

Truly, this is one of the first times in a very long time that I am hearing material of this critical nature coming out of the Middle East. The best and only serious self-critique we have heard has, until now, come from ex-pat Muslims musing from the safety of the West, in interviews given to al-Hayat, the largest Arabic London-based newspaper, posturing on al Jazeera or even penning op-eds for The New York Times.

The Muslim world had fallen victim to its own violence. The radical Muslim world intended for violence to be a response to the non-Muslim world. And it was. But now that violence has spread and engulfs the world it was supposed to protect.

Muslim terror and violence will continue to haunt us in the West, but first it will haunt and destroy Arab culture and society. First it will cause the Arab world to implode and self-destruct.

The threat of Muslim violence to the Western world is real, but it is not existential. The true tragedy is that the Muslim world has attached so much value to the warped myth of Arab unity uber alis that is has empowered the myth to destroy the value of human life.

Click Here to support Frontpagemag.com.

Clinton Shills For Bad Energy Policy — Bill Clinton’s back, now touting tax hikes for ethanol to California voters. “If Brazil can do it, so can we,” he said, claiming an ethanol switch ended Brazil’s need for foreign oil. Once again, he’s telling whoppers.

Clinton Shills For Bad Energy Policy

INVESTOR’S BUSINESS DAILY

Posted 10/27/2006

Energy: Bill Clinton’s back, now touting tax hikes for ethanol to California voters. “If Brazil can do it, so can we,” he said, claiming an ethanol switch ended Brazil’s need for foreign oil. Once again, he’s telling whoppers.

Brazil did achieve independence from foreign oil all right. It happened this past April. But Clinton, true to form, doesn’t quite recall the critical point showing how it was done.

Here’s a clue for the semi-retired former president and policy wonk: Brazilian President Luiz Inacio “Lula” da Silva didn’t celebrate the oil independence milestone out in an Amazon sugar field.

No, he smashed a champagne bottle on the spaceship-like deck of Brazil’s vast P-50 oil rig in the Albacora Leste field in the deep blue Atlantic. Why? Brazil’s oil independence had virtually nothing to do with its ethanol development. It came from drilling oil.

Which is the very thing Clinton, in his Proposition 87 television ads, seeks to pile taxes on.

Clinton is hawking the idea that taxing offshore oil drilling companies, from 1% to 6% — a 600% hike for some — and then turning the spoils into a new government bureaucracy for ethanol development is the way to end California’s dependence on imported oil.

“Imagine if we stop being dependent on foreign oil. Brazil did it. They made a simple switch to their cars. Switched to ethanol, grown from their own crops. And it’s 33% cheaper than gas,” Clinton said, neglecting one key detail: cars must use three times as much ethanol as gas.

“With Proposition 87, we can switch to cleaner fuels, wind and solar power,” he says in a political ad, “and free ourselves from foreign oil. If Brazil can do it, so can California.”

But as a matter of fact, that’s not what Brazil did.

It launched a crash program of offshore oil drilling in the late 1990s, working with a Manhattan Project-like determination to develop its own natural resources.

In 1997, Brazil opened its oil sector to foreign competition, encouraging companies like Royal Dutch Shell to explore and drill for oil in its offshore waters for the first time. It offered incentives — like tax cuts. It also turned its inefficient state oil company, Petrobras, into a for-profit company run like a real business instead of a government cash cow, forcing it to compete on an international-standard level. In short, it got out of the way.

Net result, lots more oil for Brazil — enough to enable the once-oil-dependent country to actually export some, all from fewer energy reserves than the U.S.

Brazil’s new P-50 rig has boosted output to an average 1.9 million barrels of oil a day, a bit more than the 1.85 million Brazil consumes.

By contrast, ethanol output in Brazil, the world’s biggest producer, is only a small share of its energy consumption.

Last year, the country squeezed out just 282,000 barrels a day mostly using sugar, a more efficient and clean-burning energy source than the corn-based stuff produced in the U.S. But sugar-based ethanol still isn’t as efficient as gasoline.

Not surprisingly, Brazil’s ethanol production began as a big government project in 1975, curiously similar to what Clinton is touting. It was run by the military junta, and was costly — the junta pumped in about $16 billion in loans and price supports to sugar companies over two decades. The output still was meager.

Ethanol output didn’t take off until government fetters were lifted in 1989 and the market was free to develop it without government involvement. It became a far more viable energy source after that.

Clinton has had a long history of raising political funds from agri-biz giants — like Archer Daniels Midland — interested in government contracts. As Brazil’s example shows, taxing oil to subsidize ag firms is exactly the wrong way to produce ethanol — or oil. If Clinton were really sincere about ethanol itself, he’d be lobbying for an end to tariffs on cheap ethanol from Brazil.

But it looks like he’d rather repeat Brazil’s decades of energy mistakes instead of cutting to the real reason for Brazil’s success: its decision to drill offshore for oil.


–>

NBC’s “crazy christians” show — But Hollywood writers know that in a free-speech society, people are free to denounce Hollywood’s shows when they are vile and disgusting. There’s also a remarkable double standard at work here. While denouncing the free-speech rights of “crazy Christians,” Hollywood exercises its own restrictions, zealously avoiding on camera the many social taboos — smoking cigarettes, say — to which it subscribes.

NBC’s “crazy christians” show
By Brent Bozell III
Friday, September 15, 2006
Maybe it’s a good thing that television writers don’t try too hard to get involved with plots about religion. The thoroughly secular TV world seems to tolerate about one seriously religiously themed series at a time. It’s much more common to engage the topic of religion as an odd joke, as an intensely greedy racket of quacks or as the inspiration for a flock of oppressive mind-numbed zombies out to ruin everyone’s guilty pleasures. Usually, they’re simply “crazy Christians.”

That’s the central plot twist in the premiere of the new NBC drama “Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip,” created by “West Wing” producer-writer Aaron Sorkin. The show goes behind the scenes of a fictional sketch-comedy program resembling “Saturday Night Live” at a fictional network called UBS. The censors at UBS have scratched a skit titled “Crazy Christians,” and now all hell will break loose. We’re never shown the skit, but we’re told repeatedly that it’s demonstrably hilarious.

Sorkin uses his first script to throw sharp knives and rusty razors at the Americans who’ve lobbied for less filthy television. The show begins with an improbable “standards and practices” censor telling the producer of the fictional “SNL” that he can’t run “Crazy Christians” because “what do you want me to say to the 50 million people who are gonna go out of their minds as soon as it airs?” The producer cracks wise: “Well, first of all, you can tell ‘em we average 9 million households, so at least 41 million of them are full of crap. Second, you can tell ‘em that living where there’s free speech means sometimes you’re gonna get offended.”

But Hollywood writers know that in a free-speech society, people are free to denounce Hollywood’s shows when they are vile and disgusting. There’s also a remarkable double standard at work here. While denouncing the free-speech rights of “crazy Christians,” Hollywood exercises its own restrictions, zealously avoiding on camera the many social taboos — smoking cigarettes, say — to which it subscribes.

What Hollywood likes is having the almighty power to offend — to “challenge” society, as they like to describe it — freely. But only some people are sought out for offending. For every supposedly crazy parent who worries about sex, violence and smutty talk on TV, perhaps there’s another supposedly crazy parent who worries about different offenses, such as Twinkie commercials or scenes with cool, beautiful people smoking cigarettes. But those parents don’t get mocked by scriptwriters. It is those with religious objections who get singled out.

But Sorkin wasn’t done lecturing. When his skit is axed, the outraged fictional “SNL” producer bounds onto the stage and unleashes a lecture on live television. It’s what Sorkin has probably wanted to say about network executives (and their alleged overreaction to those crazy Christians) many times: “The two things that make them scared gutless are the FCC and every psycho religious cult that gets positively horny at the very mention of a boycott.” Sorkin was so impressed with his own insult that it reruns later in the show in fictional news clips.

Two major characters fight over how their romance broke up when the woman sang hymns on “The 700 Club.” Again, Sorkin aims low, insisting Pat Robertson is a vicious racist. “You put on a dress and sang for a bigot.” When the woman replies that the faithful audience of the show inspires her, he cracks, “Throw in the Halloween costumes and you got yourself a Klan rally.”

Sorkin actually pushed a similar plot for the first episode of “The West Wing,” in which lovable liberal President Josiah Bartlet instructed a clueless, caricatured Christian evangelist who didn’t know the order of the Ten Commandments and then unloaded a long sermon on vicious Christian pro-lifers threatening his 12-year-old granddaughter. He told the conservative Christians to get their fat (bottoms) out of his White House.

Maybe cursing out the Christians is his show-opening good luck charm.

While Sorkin has an obvious problem with Christianity, it’s actually broader than that. He thinks religion in general is bunk. In 2002, he told a crowd at the Sinai Temple in Los Angeles that “I was turned off on religion.” The rabbi interviewing him asked him if he believed in God. He said he viewed the wide array of religions as “many fairytales” that “seem hardly to be doing what they intended.” For Sorkin, spirituality was “a meditative thing that has to do with helping others and not waiting for it to come from a divine source.”

What this means is Sorkin — and all the Sorkins in Hollywood — are probably never going to write a daring, potentially offensive script with the concept of mocking “crazy atheists.” Instead, in our upside-down popular culture, the unbeliever is the sacred cow.

Lecturer, syndicated columnist, television commentator, debater, marketer, businessman, author, publisher and activist, L. Brent Bozell III, 51, is one of the most outspoken and effective national leaders in the conservative movement today.

At its founding in 1950, the New York City-based National Council of Churches (NCC) absorbed its predecessor, the communist front-group known as the Federal Council of Churches. At one time an overt supporter of the communist cause, NCC has today recast itself as a leading representative of the “religious Left — . It also gets funding from political advocacy groups like the Sierra Club and MoveOn.org.

  • Largest coalition of leftist religious denominations in the United States
  • Has long record of financial support for Communist regimes
     
    At its founding in 1950, the New York City-based National Council of Churches (NCC) absorbed its predecessor, the communist front-group known as the Federal Council of Churches. At one time an overt supporter of the communist cause, NCC has today recast itself as a leading representative of the “religious Left.” It claims a membership of 36 Protestant, Anglican and Orthodox Christian denominations, and some 50 million members in over 140,000 congregations. In the 1950s and 1960s, under the rubric of charity, NCC provided financial assistance to the communist regimes in Yugoslavia and Poland, funneling money to both through its relief agency, the Church World Service. In the 1970s, working with its Geneva-based parent organization, the World Council of Churches (WCC), NCC earmarked money for Soviet-sponsored guerrilla incursions – which it characterized as “liberation movements” – into Zimbabwe, Namibia, Mozambique, and Angola. Other beneficiaries of NCC philanthropy included El Salvador’s Sandinista guerrillas.A staunch supporter of Communist Cuba, NCC has pushed for the United States to normalize relations with the Castro regime since 1968. In 1977, after heading a delegation of American church officials to Cuba, the Methodist bishop James Armstrong, who would be elected NCC President the following year, stated: “There is a significant difference between situations where people are imprisoned for opposing regimes designed to perpetuate inequities, as in Chile and Brazil, for example, and situations were people are imprisoned for opposing regimes designed to remove inequities, as in Cuba.” 

    An advocate of “liberation theology” in the 1980s, NCC was silent about the depredations of Ethiopia’s Marxist government, which left 10,000 dead and shuttered 200 churches. Nor did it criticize the Soviet Union’s 1978 invasion of Afghanistan. Not until after the Soviet Union’s collapse did NCC speak out on the subject of Communist oppression, when in 1993 Joan Brown Campbell, a former NCC General Secretary, said: “We did not understand the depth of the suffering of Christians under Communism. And we failed to really cry out under the Communist oppression.”

    Nonetheless, to this day NCC’s human rights charges are aimed mostly at the U.S. and Israel. One study, conducted by the Institute of Religion and Democracy in September 2004, found that “of the seven human rights criticisms [NCC] issued from 2000-2003, Israel received four, the United States two, and Sudan one.”

    NCC was a signatory to a November 1, 2001 document characterizing the 9/11 terrorist attacks as a legal matter to be addressed by criminal-justice procedures rather than military reprisals. Ascribing the hijackers’ motives to alleged social injustices against which they were protesting, this document explained that “security and justice are mutually reinforcing goals that ultimately depend upon the promotion of all human rights for all people,” and called on the United States “to promote fundamental rights around the world.”

    NCC claims that the Patriot Act, instituted shortly after 9/11, tramples on the civil liberties of Americans. “We believe it is time for us to stop and think about where we should draw the line in our search for security,” said the NCC in 2004. “… Only a self-obsessed society pursues security at all costs.” Citing the counsel of the New Testament —  “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God” (Matthew 5:9) — in 1991, the NCC played a central role in opposing the first Gulf War, claiming that the risks of such an action were “out of proportion to any conceivable gain.”  Its assessment of the second Gulf War was identical. In January 2003, NCC’s President, the Methodist Bishop Thomas L. Hoyt, Jr., joined 46 other religious leaders in signing a letter to President Bush expressing “continuing uneasiness about the moral justification for war on Iraq.” NCC is a member organization of the Win Without War and United for Peace and Justice anti-war coalitions.  In February 2005 NCC condemned Israel for having “established hundreds upon hundreds of checkpoints, roadblocks, and gates across the Occupied Territories, making daily life and travel extremely difficult for ordinary Palestinians.” Proclaiming that “[s]tereotypes of all Palestinians as terrorists must be broken,” the Council explained that “[t]he crushing burden of Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territory contributes to deep anger and violent resistance, which contributes to fear throughout Israeli society.”In March 2006 NCC General Secretary Rev. Dr. Bob Edgar joined other prominent Christian and Jewish religious leaders in Washington, DC to support legislation that would legalize illegal aliens in the United States.While proclaiming the virtues of the Kyoto Protocol in 1998, NCC’s then-General Secretary, Rev. Joan Brown Campbell, insisted that an acceptance of the radical environmentalist movement’s assertions about global warming ought to be made a “litmus test for the faith community.” In 2002 NCC was a party to “What Would Jesus Drive?” — a campaign that exhorted car manufactures to embrace stricter emissions standards. NCC has been plagued by a history of financial mismanagement. The organization’s leadership has long spent beyond its means, and in 1998 NCC faced a deficit of $1.5 million. In 1999, NCC expenses exceeded total revenues by some $4 million. These budgetary shortfalls compelled NCC to appeal to its member denominations—seven of which account for 90 percent of NCC’s budget—to step up their contributions. For instance, in 1999 NCC requested that its chief sponsor, the United Methodist Church, increase its yearly contribution of $2.5 million by an additional $700,000. NCC has received funding from a handful of foundations, including: the Ford Foundation, the Annie E. Casey Foundation, the Beldon Fund, the Carnegie Corporation of New York, the Lilly Endowment, the Rasmussen Foundation, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, and the Tides Foundation. It also gets funding from political advocacy groups like the Sierra Club and MoveOn.org.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 55 other followers