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 Staff Writer
October 27, 2006

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

( – 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

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

Cracks in Arab Unity
By Micah Halpern | 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

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


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

  • 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

United Churches of Castro — The National Council of Churches (NCC) suffered a stinging rebuke last month when the North American Archdiocese of the Antiochian Orthodox Church decided to sever all ties to the organization. “It got to be too much,” said Antiochian spokesman Rev. Thomas Zain. “They have an almost politicized agenda…that opposes conservative Christianity.”

United Churches of Castro
By Johannes L. Jacobse | August 25, 2005

The National Council of Churches (NCC) suffered a stinging rebuke last month when the North American Archdiocese of the Antiochian Orthodox Church decided to sever all ties to the organization. “It got to be too much,” said Antiochian spokesman Rev. Thomas Zain. “They have an almost politicized agenda…that opposes conservative Christianity.”

Zain was being generous. The NCC plays a duplicitous game. Its public statements are laced with the language of Christian benevolence but its policies read like a laundry list of hard-Left causes. It’s a pattern that took a while for the Orthodox to see.


Disguising a Marxist past


NCC cooperation with the far-Left began in the last century. In the 1950’s and 1960’s, the NCC was one of the leading contributors to the Program to Combat Racism (PCR) created in 1939 by the World Council of Churches (WCC), an NCC affiliate.  PCR subsidized revolutionary Communists governments in the Third World, shuffling more than $5 million to 130 organizations in 30 countries – all under the guise of Christian charity.


When Reader’s Digest exposed the ruse in 1982, they reported more than half of the money that went to the PCR wound up in the hands of Communist guerillas. In the 1970’s alone: in excess of $78,000 went to the Cuban sponsored MPLA fomenting Communist revolution in Angola; $832,000 to Nambia’s Communist regime; and $108,000 to the Patriotic Front in Zimbabwe (then Rhodesia) to support a Communist guerilla force responsible for a campaign of terror that killed 207 white civilians, 1,721 blacks, and nine missionaries including their children.


NCC contributions toward the PRC were collected from member churches and funneled through the NCC treasury. When the Reader’s Digest report was published, the WCC frantically tried to cover the paper trail and to this day refuses to release the names of contributors and beneficiaries.


The fall of the Soviet Union and subsequent exposure of the moral and intellectual bankruptcy of Marxism caused donations to dry up. Throughout the 1990’s the NCC teetered on the edge of bankruptcy. A last minute cash infusion by a wealthy benefactor saved it from ruin.


The fall also forced the NCC to account for past sins and it fell to Rev. Joan Campbell, NCC president during the early 1990’s, to offer the mea culpa. “We did not understand the depth of the sufferings under Communism,” Campbell said. “And we failed to really cry out under the Communist oppression.”


Social(ist) Justice


Like many of its left-wing counterparts, the NCC displayed a slavish devotion to Marxist ideas and anti-American cant. It strove to become the official dispenser of religious respectability to those who adopted either. Dispensing respectability made NCC bureaucrats feel important and offered the rationale that justified the NCC’s existence.

“Liberation Theology” was the dominant fad in the late 1960’s and 1970’s – a patchwork of ideas that claimed that the Christian obligation to care for the poor was synonymous with Marxist social dogma. Liberation Theology dressed Marxist ideas in the Christian moral lexicon convincing gullible activists that Christ was really a crypto-Marxist. The ideology swept through the religious left like wildfire. The NCC was front and center.


Pope John Paul II fought Liberation Theology tooth and nail in Catholic circles (his first public rebuke being the scolding of an El Salvadoran priest). “Christian” Marxists would have none of it. Substituting Marx’s secular millennialism for the Gospel, these religious Marxists did what all Marxists do: they refused to take any responsibility for the suffering their ideas generated. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.


Campbell was no exception. Her apology was a lie. The NCC not only understood the suffering caused by Communist oppression, it funded and gave religious cover to the oppressors. The NCC wants us to believe that when it crawled into bed with Marx the affair was not consummated, when in fact it adulterated the Christian Gospel and thereby joined the ranks of those who foster evil in the name of religion.


The NCC continues the affair even today, mostly with Fidel Castro, revealing that the utopian delusion is as strong as ever. Castro’s seduction of the NCC goes back decades.


The NCC wrote educational tracts for American children that praised Cuban totalitarianism. It lauded Cuban health care. It was front man for the deportation of Elian Gonzalez. It condemns the American economic embargo on Castro’s behalf.


Several years ago, NCC operatives exploited a visit to Cuba by Greek Orthodox Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I by protesting American policy at Guantanamo, but refused the pleas of an Orthodox delegate to protest Castro’s human rights abuses at a Cuban prison. The list goes on and on. It is impossible to find any substantive criticism of Castro’s brutal regime in nearly three decades of NCC documentation.

 Orthodox participation 

Given this history, why did the traditional and conservative Orthodox Church sign on with the NCC in the first place? The Orthodox Church, the second largest church in the world, with 216 million adherents, was long divided in North America along ethnic lines. Only three American jursidictions — the Antiochian Orthodox, which is primarily composed of Arab Christians; the Orthodox Church in America, which is of Russian heritage; and the Greek Orthodox — have belonged to the NCC. The answer is that most Orthodox in these jurisdictions were unaware of the NCC’s activist past. Despite having a presence on American soil for more than 200 years (through Russian missionary work in Alaska that spread to California, then New York), the American Orthodox are only now coming into their own. The majority of Orthodox Christians came to America during the great waves of immigration early in the last century and it took several generations for assimilation to take place. Only recently have American converts joined the ranks.


The fall of Communism prompted an NCC makeover that obscured their leftist orientation. Brown’s mea culpa was part of this effort, as was the toning down of radical language and the relative silence on divisive moral issues that threatened to alienate a more conservative constituency. The NCC went shopping for social respectability at the same time that the Orthodox sought a venue to make their faith more visible in American society. Each found the other and decided to give union a shot.


It was an uneven marriage from the star, with the NCC acting as hen-pecked suitor. The Orthodox contribute no funding to the NCC; a problem the NCC overlooks because Orthodox history and tradition lend an air of moral legitimacy and authority that the NCC could never muster on its own. Clearly the NCC needs the Orthodox a lot more than the reverse.


Most informed Orthodox have always been uneasy of the relationship with the NCC but reasoned that an imperfect relationship might be better than none at all. However, when word got out that NCC President Rev. Bob Edgar was actively courting George Soros and other like-minded benefactors, the Antiochian Orthodox Church took notice and began to ask questions.


Then Edgar signed a declaration against gay marriage along with the National Conference of Catholic Bishops, the Southern Baptist Convention, and the National Association of Evangelicals, causing outrage in his Lesbian, Gay, and Transgender delegation. They demanded he change his tune, and Edgar dutifully complied. He apologized, removed his signature, and assured the delegation that the NCC stands behind gay marriage. The proved the last straw for the Antiochian Orthodox.


The dustbin of history


The Antiochian withdrawal may be a sign of things to come. Within the Orthodox communion, only the Orthodox Church in America (OCA – formerly Russian Orthodox Church) and the Greek Orthodox remain NCC members. The OCA is debating the issue behind closed doors, with some rancor if reports are correct. A parliamentary maneuver narrowly avoided a vote at their national assembly earlier this summer that observers say would have resulted in an NCC ouster. Given that many OCA families have first hand experience with Communist oppression, the exposure of the NCC as a Communist fellow traveler should help close the question.


Complete Orthodox withdrawal leaves the NCC beholden to the declining mainstream of American Protestantism. (Catholics and Evangelical Protestants refuse to join.) NCC member churches comprise about a quarter of American Christians and their numbers decline every year. Only the conservative churches are growing. The Antiochian Orthodox decision pushes the NCC one step closer to the dustbin of history – where it belongs.

Leftist Church Union Condemns Terror…Sort Of

Leftist Church Union Condemns Terror…Sort Of
By Mark Tooley | December 29, 2005

The National Council of Churches (NCC) has been infamous in recent decades for its unwillingness to criticize the human rights abuses of any adversary of the United States, from the old
Soviet Union to modern Islamic and Marxist states.
But now, the NCC is expressing concern about some Islamic “extremism,” though it declines specifically to name it as such. Thirty-five denominations with a combined population of over 40 million American church members belong to the New York-based NCC. Typically since the 1960’s, the NCC elites have been Religious Left activists rather than mainstream church members. Criticizing Marxist regimes usually has been taboo for the NCC because of its own discomfort with capitalism. And the NCC’s obsessive commitment to multiculturalism and inter-faith “dialogue” has typically prevented any critique of nasty Islamist regimes. In contrast, the NCC is not shy about condemning “fundamentalist” Christianity and policies of the Jewish state.The NCC took a little break from condemning America and Israel at its recent General Assembly, actually acknowledging “violence” and “attacks” against Christian targets in Egypt and
Turkey. These attackers were unnamed, of course, by the NCC, which is too polite to name names except, for example, when condemning conservative Christians.  
Even more unusual was the NCC’s criticism of Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s denial of the Holocaust and call for
Israel’s destruction. In the face of Mr. Ahmadinejad’s call for the obliteration of Israel, the National Council of Churches USA reaffirms its support for the security of the State of Israel, alongside a viable
State,” the NCC’s December 16 statement said. “We also reaffirm our respect for Judaism and our friendship with the Jewish people.NCC concerns about Islamist violence in Egypt and
Turkey were stated more vaguely but still were striking, by NCC standards. Introduced by Eastern Orthodox delegates at the NCC’s annual assembly, held in November outside Baltimore,
the resolution on Egypt lamented “horrific and violent acts against the Coptic Orthodox and Protestant Christians in
Alexandria” in October. It offered prayer for “Egyptian sisters and brothers in Christ” and for “equal rights” in their native land.

Similarly, but more briefly, another NCC resolution expressed “sadness and dismay” at “recent attacks and demonstrations by extremist elements” in
Turkey against the Eastern Orthodox Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople. It commended the
Istanbul police for their “timely response” to “these elements of fanaticism and extremism” and offered “solidarity” to Patriarch Bartholomew. This resolution also came from Eastern Orthodox delegates.
The Egypt resolution did not offer specifics, but it was alluding to an angry mob that surrounded Alexandria’s
St. George’s Coptic Church in October, in response to newspaper reports that a church play had insulted Islam. That play portrayed the attempted forced conversion to Islam of a Coptic youth. Egyptian police restrained the mob of 5,000 to 10,000 in a melee that resulted in several deaths by police and demonstrators. 
A Coptic nun was stabbed, nearby Christian businesses were looted and several other
Alexandria churches were attacked. Egyptian Copts complain that anti-Christian violence by Islamic groups is often abetted or ignored by the Egyptian government.  
The NCC resolution on Turkey, which also avoided details, was alludingto an October demonstration by Turkish nationalist “Grey Wolves,” who demanded that the Patriarch Bartholomew leave
Turkey. They placed a black wreath on the Patriarch’s
Istanbul compound to make their point.
In the
Egypt resolution, the NCC carefully thanked President Hosni Mubarak for his “exhortation” to Muslim scholars to “teach tolerance and shun extremism.” It also thanked Sheikh Mohammed Sayed El-Tantawi, rector of Al Azhar University for his ostensible encouragement of “peaceful coexistence” between Muslims and Christians.
Not surprisingly, an NCC’s resolution attacking the U.S. Patriot Act was significantly more detailed and sweeping than the resolutions about Christians living under Islam. Among other shibboleths of the left, the NCC warned of a “creeping reliance on selective religious fundamentalism [i.e. conservative American Christianity] as the lens for shaping public policy.”The NCC, in another resolution, also went after torture – by the
U.S. It declared, “We find it particularly abhorrent that our nation’s lawmakers would fail to approve the pending legislation disavowing the use of torture by any entity on behalf of the
United States government.”

A Coptic delegate to the NCC General Assembly complained that the anti-torture resolution did not condemn torture perpetrated by non-U.S. entities, such as the Iraqi insurgents. But the resolution remained U.S.-focused. Do not look for NCC resolutions to express alarm about torture practiced routinely by dozens of regimes around the world, from North Korea, to Cuba, to
Saudi Arabia.
Predictably, the NCC trumpeted its statements on torture by the
U.S. and opposition to the Patriot Act. But it largely ignored its own resolutions on Egypt and
Turkey, which had been crafted by Eastern Orthodox delegates rather than NCC staffers.  For the curious, NCC resolutions from the November 2005 General Assembly can be found here.

Not long after the NCC General Assembly, a Thanksgiving essay from NCC Associate General Secretary for International Affairs and Peace Antonios Kireopoulos related that the “our torture of detainees, directly or through extraordinary rendition, makes us a target of contempt,” while “assaults on constitutional guarantees – attempts to dismantle due process, the prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures, and basic privacy norms – call into question our commitment to justice.”   Meanwhile, “with the policy of preemptive strike, the manipulation of intelligence to justify war, and the willingness to use white phosphorus in
Iraq, our country is now seen as a major threat to security worldwide,” Kireopoulos fretted. “With a “penchant for unilateralism, blustering in the United Nations, the discarding of treaty obligations, and disregard for environmental protections, the
U.S. is fast becoming the lonely bully on the block.”

So the NCC is still the NCC, with all of its usual preoccupations. But the oblique criticism of Islamic radicalism in Egypt and Turkey, and the condemnation of the Iranian president’s call for
Israel’s destruction, at least show some potential capacity for non-leftist moral reflection within the church council, however rare.

Click Here to support

Economically flexible morality — One of the reasons I abandoned the Left was because I came to believe that, while there are certainly moral individuals who hew Left politically, the Left collectively has no morality. By morality, I mean a transcendent set of ethical rules, external to specific individual needs and concerns. The best example is the Ten Commandments, which are unconcerned with individual situations or cultures but, instead, are ethical practices applicable to all people at all times. Abiding by these virtues is good; failing to abide by them, bad.

Economically flexible morality
October 28th, 2006

Art, or things that pass for art, can be useful.  Otherwise, how can one explain the epiphany I had when watching 2004’s Maria Full of Grace, a critically acclaimed movie about a teenager from Columbia who smuggles drugs into America.  Both the movie, and the critics’ unconditional praise for the movie, helped clarify something I’ve been struggling with for a long time, which is defining what exactly constitutes morality on the Left.

One of the reasons I abandoned the Left was because I came to believe that, while there are certainly moral individuals who hew Left politically, the Left collectively has no morality.  By morality, I mean a transcendent set of ethical rules, external to specific individual needs and concerns. The best example is the Ten Commandments, which are unconcerned with individual situations or cultures but, instead, are ethical practices applicable to all people at all times.  Abiding by these virtues is good; failing to abide by them, bad.

The most obvious thing that has replaced traditional morality on the Left is the elevation of personal feelings.  Thus, a Leftist who has given up on old-fashioned morality confidently defines the ethical thing to do in any given situation by deciding whether it feels good or not.

One of the great examples of this approach – and a defining moment in my drift from Left to Right – was a story I heard long ago on NPR about a high school ethics class.  The subject on the day the reporter attended class was theft.  The teacher asked students to describe how they imagined they would feel if they learned someone had stolen their purse or wallet.  Some described rage, some sadness, some frustration.  At that point, the NPR reporter observed with some incredulity, the class simply ended.  The teacher made no effort to draw any larger conclusions about whether theft is morally right or wrong.  Instead, the teacher apparently thought it sufficient for the students to understand that, were they to steal a purse or wallet, their victim might be as unhappy as they had imagined themselves being under similar circumstances.

A more recent example of feelings-based morality is the Michael J. Fox video  aired during the World Series.  In this video, Fox, showing the distressing effects of his Parkinson’s disease, urges Missouri voters to choose Democrat Claire McCaskill as their Senatorial candidate because, he claims, Republican Senator Jim Talent is all for making stem cell research illegal.  Aside from the commercial’s significant factual errors, its whole point is that you, the voter, can make Michael J. Fox feel better by allowing unfettered, government sponsored stem cell research to go forward.  After all, wouldn’t you want someone to make you feel better? Of course, in a more traditional universe, where feelings do not substitute for ethics, neither Michael J. Fox’s manifest suffering, nor your feelings about his suffering, would replace a reasoned, principled approach to a challenging moral dilemma.

For a long time, the fact that so many on the Left subscribe to the amorphous, situational navel gazing school of morality blinded me to the fact that there is indeed a hard and fast rule guiding those on the Left as they face situations that don’t personally involve them.  Maria Full of Grace, however, revealed to me that there is a second element to modern Leftist morality that transcends mere feelings.  It is, if you will, Marxist morality.  This ethical paradigm isn’t premised on right and wrong.  It is, instead, concerned with oppressor and oppressed.

We all know, of course, that Marxism orders the world by oppressors and oppressed.  I always saw this hierarchical standard, however, as ex post facto retrofitting explaining, not why someone was right to do as he did, but why he shouldn’t be punished.  This Marxist approach was an explanation for things that had already happened (a la the Officer Krupke song), not a moral justification for determining future conduct.  Maria Full of Grace, however, puts this Marxist algorithm in a whole new light.

If you haven’t seen the movie, the plot précis is that a poor, unemployed, pregnant Columbian girl gets herself a job as a mule, running cocaine into America.  The San Francisco Chronicle, in its review, introduced the movie as follows:

A “Bonnie and Clyde’’ moment — when you find yourself rooting for the outlaw over the authorities — comes a third of the way into “Maria Full of Grace,’’ a revelatory independent film whose moments of incredible sadness are offset by the same state of grace that blesses its astonishing title character.

Given that the lead character is an unwed pregnant woman engaged in illegal conduct, I naively assumed that the “state of grace” to which the review refers was the moment in which Maria suddenly realizes that she is engaged in evil, immoral conduct; repents; and works to undo the wrongs in which she was involved.  Had I begun by reading the Roger Ebert review, I never would have made this silly mistake.  Thus, Ebert has this to say, in relevant part:

Long-stemmed roses must come from somewhere, but I never gave the matter much thought until I saw “Maria Full of Grace,” which opens with Maria working an assembly line in Colombia, preparing the roses for shipment overseas. I guess I thought the florist picked them early every morning, while mockingbirds trilled. Maria is young and pretty and filled with fire, and when she finds she’s pregnant, she isn’t much impressed by the attitude of Juan, her loser boyfriend. She dumps her job and gets a ride to Bogota with a man who tells her she could make some nice money as a mule — a courier flying to New York with dozens of little Baggies of cocaine in her stomach. [….]

Maria is a victim of economic pressures, but she doesn’t think like a victim. She has spunk and intelligence and can think on her feet, and the movie wisely avoids the usual cliches about the drug cartel and instead shows us a fairly shabby importing operation, run by people more slack-jawed than evil. Here is a drug movie with no machineguns and no chases. It focuses on its human story, and in Catalina Sandino Moreno, finds a bright-eyed, charismatic actress who engages our sympathy.

By writing the above, Ebert unwittingly defines the second part of Leftist morals, the part that states that, if you are on the bottom of the Marxist hierarchy, your status preemptively sanctifies any conduct in which you engage, provided that it is directed against oppression (however you define that oppression, or whoever creates that oppression).  In other words, morals aren’t just about feelings, anymore.  Instead, they can be determined relative to a person’s status on the economic ladder. “Maria is a victim of economic pressures.”  Given her situation, she cannot make immoral choices.  All of her choices are virtuous responses to her degraded situation.

As it happens, I saw the movie very differently. Maria’s travails appeared to arise less because of economic concerns and more because of her sour, selfish personality — a personality that drives every minute of this ugly, demoralizing movie.

Although Maria certainly has a dead-end job – stripping thorns off roses – there’s no indication that the environment is unduly abusive.  In a short scene, we see that her boss is a petty, quota-driven bully, but Maria’s problems with him actually appear to arise from her own oppositional personality.  As for that boyfriend that Ebert so casually denigrates, he’s responsible for the one traditionally moral moment in the movie.  When he learns that Maria is pregnant, he immediately offers to marry her.  Maria turns him down with insults aimed at letting him know what a boring pig he is, and immediately goes off with another man who introduces her to the drug trade.

When Maria heads off to America with a large load of cocaine in her stomach, she enters into a superficial of friendship with one of the other women doing the run.  She is understandably upset and frightened when this woman dies from a ruptured cocaine pod, and the drug dealers eviscerate her for any remaining pods.  Maria doesn’t respond by having second thoughts about the morality of her conduct; instead, she just gets scared.  As a clear-headed Rhett Butler says to a weeping Scarlett after her selfish conduct leads to her husband’s death in an abortive Klan raid,

“Your ethics are considerably mixed up too.  You are in the exact position of a thief who’s been caught red handed and isn’t sorry he stole but is terribly, terribly sorry he’s going to jail.”

Faced with the risk that she may be killed for knowing too much, Maria decides she should hide from the drug runners by going to the dead woman’s pregnant sister.  There’s no indication in the movie that it’s morally wrong to impose on an innocent women the risk that murderous thugs might come to the door seeking their drugs.  (The drug operatives do not, in fact, hunt Maria down, but I sweated through that whole part of the movie, convinced that Maria’s selfish decision would result in a bloodbath.)

I might have spent several days brooding over the movie’s complete immorality, and the critics’ swoons over that same movie, if I hadn’t heard the next day a laudatory review on NPR  about the new Battlestar Galactica series. In that science fiction show, cyborgs have conquered humans living on a distant colony, and the humans are struggling to deal with the situation and to overthrow the cyborgs.  The critic interviewed in the NPR spot said that, to him, the show worked to make the viewer understand the insurgents in Iraq by showing us that they have an “oppressed minority fighting against conquering majority” viewpoint. In other words, it makes the Iraqi insurgents sympathetic.

Frankly, I have a hard time being sympathetic to people who back regimes that murder millions of its own people; who enjoy beheading innocents; and who would like to impose a relentlessly grim religious rule that requires death sentences for eating ice cream, singing, playing tennis, or putting on a clown show for children. These are not good people whether they’re in power or are seeking power.

In the Leftist moral view, however, just as all workers are exploited and should be praised for taking the initiative by engaging in utterly immoral, illegal activity, so too are all underdogs virtuous. If you’re in charge, you’re bad; if you’re struggling to overthrow those in charge, you’re good. It doesn’t seem to occur to Leftist moralists to examine the motives of those involved in any given struggle.

Lest you think I’m imagining this, just cast your mind back a few days to the way in which Byron Calame finally acknowledged that he acted wrongly when, in his capacity as public editor of the New York Times, he appoved of a story exposing the government’s secret program tracking terrorist finances.  While he conceded that he erred, he nevertheless advanced his moral justification for having written the story in the first place:

What kept me from seeing these matters more clearly earlier in what admittedly was a close call? I fear I allowed the vicious criticism of The Times by the Bush administration to trigger my instinctive affinity for the underdog and enduring faith in a free press — two traits that I warned readers about in my first column.  [emphasis mine.]

The “underdog” to which he’s referring is either the terrorist or the New York Times itself, a striking example of poor writing from an editor. If his meaning is the latter, he is seeing the most powerful critic of the Bush administration as as victim and approving of damaging national security to hurt its oppressor. If his meaning is the former, in a battle to the death between America and terrorists, he’s rooting for the terrorists.  And he’s rooting for them, not because he cares about their ideas (violent oppression, genocide, degradation of women, etc.) but simply because, at this moment in time, their relative position on the economic hierarchy is lower than America’s.

You can just imagine a modern Leftist moralist passing backward through time, and putting his spin on 20th Century events. If he were to land in 1920s Berlin, he’d see a valiant Hitler (spouting violent, anti-Semitic rhetoric) and his beleaguered Brownshirts (breaking Communist, Jewish, and gay heads) involved in a valiant insurgency against the oppressive Weimar government. In mid-20th Century China, he’d pay homage to the downtrodden peasants, led by the brave Mao (mass murderer unparalleled), fighting against the corrupt Chinese regime. And in the early 1970s, our time-traveling Leftist would cheer on the Khmer Rouge in their underdog fight against a capitalist system dominated by glasses-wearing intellectuals.

Heck, I don’t even need to imagine some of these time-travel scenarios. We know for a fact that, a credulous, Leftist Western press carefully framed Mao’s underdog story for public consumption.    Likewise, you all know by now how the press in the 1930s, especially the New York Times, turned a blind eye to the worst Soviet depredations against the Russian people.

In the non-Leftist world, of course, in a world hewing to traditional Judeo-Christian moral standards, an underdog’s position is not validated simply because he’s at an economic or military disadvantage.  Instead, traditionally moral people focus on the nature of the cause.  A clear-eyed moralist, looking at words and acts, would know that Hitler, Lenin/Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot were all utterly evil, regardless of their relative place in their societies.

So don’t be fooled into thinking that modern Liberals (or Leftists, or Progressives, or whatever self-identification idealogues choose) have no morals.  They are relentlessly moral.  It’s simply that they operate in a Marxist moral universe that gives a pre-emptive pass to anyone in the one-down position, regardless of that person’s beliefs or conduct. 

Understanding this allows you to appreciate why the Left will always be there for Islamist insurgents (Third World soldiers fighting America’s military might), the Stanley “Tookie” Williams of this world (economically oppressed products of American racism), and American and British Muslim who, despite all evidence to the contrary, have had the insight to position themselves as victims.  I don’t know how you feel about all this, but I can assure you that Big Brother would be proud of this morally inverse world.