Fox Sides With MSNBC, CNN On Matter Of ‘Gay Rights’

YouTube/Brian Stelter

The “Code of Ethics” of the Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ) says that the media should “avoid conflicts of interest, real or perceived.” But on the issue of homosexual rights, the media, from the left to the right, have taken a side. This includes the Fox News Channel, which many conservatives had hoped would stay true to its word of being “Fair and Balanced” on the issue of gay rights.

The Fox News Channel is joining CBS News and CNN as “silver” sponsors of the upcoming National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association (NLGJA) 20th annual New York “Headlines and Headliners” fundraising event. Gold sponsors include ABC News and Comcast Universal, owner of NBC and MSNBC. Daytime talk-show host Meredith Vieira is the host of this year’s event.

The SPJ ethics code urges the media to “avoid political and other outside activities that may compromise integrity or impartiality, or may damage credibility.”

But apparently that ethical standard doesn’t apply to media involvement in the homosexual movement.

Meanwhile, the media-supported Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) is ecstatic that the ABC Family network show “The Fosters” has aired a kiss between two 13-year-old boys. The show features two lesbians as “parents” and includes a “transgender teen.”

Media sponsors of the 26th Annual GLAAD Media Awards include 21st Century Fox, the parent company of Fox News; Comcast/NBC Universal; Time Warner, parent of CNN; CBS Corporation; and Bloomberg.

Don’t expect the media to trumpet the news in any headlines or stories about their financial involvement in the homosexual movement. It is a secret that has to be kept hidden from the public because it constitutes a blatant violation of acceptable standards of journalistic behavior and media ethics.

The pro-gay bias in the media is not a big secret, of course. But the involvement of Fox News in the cause may come as a surprise to some. You can be sure Fox News will not admit on the air that the news channel has taken sides in the ongoing debate and that it financially supports the NLGJA.

We have tried over the years without success to get Fox News chief Roger Ailes to explain why his channel pours money into the NLGJA. He simply ignores our inquiries. Many conservatives in the media are reluctant to press the issue out of fear they could be blackballed from appearing on the channel.

The bias shows up in certain ways, such as when the channel forced anchor Bret Baier to pull out of a Catholic conference devoted to traditional marriage. Reputed homosexual and Fox News anchor Shepard Smith occasionally badmouths supporters of traditional values on the air.

The NLGJA fundraiser two years ago showed Smith posing for a selfie taken by CNN anchor Don Lemon. Others posing for the picture included CNN’s Ashleigh Banfield, MSNBC host Ronan Farrow, Fox News anchor Jamie Colby, and ABC News correspondent Amy Robach.

Washington Blade Editor Kevin Naff claims to have “outed” Smith in 2005 “after Smith hit on him in a Manhattan bar,” according to the gay newspaper’s account.

As the Supreme Court prepares to rule in a case that could impose homosexual marriage on all 50 states, the pro-gay term “marriage equality” is being used more frequently by the media. It is supposed to imply that giving special status to a traditional marriage between a man and a woman is somehow discriminatory.

Bill O’Reilly of Fox News, supposedly the hard-right conservative on the channel, says that homosexuals have the most “compelling” argument, and that opponents only “thump the Bible.” The Bible condemns homosexual acts and declares that God’s plan for a family stems from a male-female union.

You can see from the list of “Special Guests” for this year’s NLGJA fundraiser that while outlets such as Fox News and MSNBC may disagree over some issues, on the matter of gay rights they are united. The list of “Special Guests” includes:

  • Brooke Baldwin, CNN
  • Ashleigh Banfield, CNN
  • Josh Barro, The New York Times and MSNBC
  • Jason Bellini, The Wall Street Journal
  • Gio Benitez, ABC News
  • Kate Bolduan, CNN
  • Malan Breton, Fashion Designer
  • Contessa Brewer, WNBC
  • Frank Bruni, The New York Times
  • Jason Carroll, CNN
  • Carol Costello, CNN
  • Jamie Colby, FOX News
  • Frank DiLella, NY1
  • Ronan Farrow, MSNBC
  • Melissa Francis, FOX Business
  • Kendis Gibson, ABC News
  • Stephanie Gosk, NBC News
  • LZ Granderson, ESPN and CNN
  • Kimberly Guilfoyle, FOX News
  • Sara Haines, ABC News
  • Patrick Healy, The New York Times
  • Simon Hobbs, CNBC
  • Joseph Kapsch, The Wrap
  • Randi Kaye, CNN
  • Don Lemon, CNN
  • Tom Llamas, ABC News
  • Miguel Marquez, CNN
  • Erin Moriarty, CBS News
  • Bryan Norcross, The Weather Channel
  • Soledad O’Brien, Al Jazeera America
  • Richard Quest, CNN
  • Trish Regan, FOX Business
  • Rick Reichmuth, FOX News
  • Amy Robach, ABC News
  • Thomas Roberts, MSNBC
  • Troy Roberts, CBS News
  • Christine Romans, CNN
  • Mara Schiavocampo, ABC News
  • Brian Stelter, CNN
  • Kris Van Cleave, CBS News
  • Cecilia Vega, ABC News
  • Ali Velshi, Al Jazeera America
  • Gerri Willis, FOX Business
  • Jenna Wolfe, NBC News

The participation of representatives from Al Jazeera, which is funded by the Middle Eastern government of Qatar, is surprising. In Qatar, according to the State Department:

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) persons faced discrimination under the law and in practice. The law prohibits same-sex sexual conduct between men but does not explicitly prohibit same-sex relations between women.

The State Department says a man convicted of having same-sex sexual relations with a man 16-years-old or older in Qatar is subject to a sentence of seven years in prison, but that the number of such cases that came before this nation’s courts during 2013 was unknown.

In advance of the New York fundraiser, the NLGJA is hosting another event known as the LGBT Media Journalists Convening, as well as the NLGJA’s National Convention and 11th Annual LGBT Media Summit in San Francisco in September.

The theme for the latter event is “Coming Home,” a reference to San Francisco’s reputation as the “Gay Capital of the U.S.”

This article originally appeared at AIM.org and is reprinted here with permission.

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom

Liberal Commentator Makes News For Admitting The Truth About Ferguson

Flickr/Center for American Progress (cropped)

You know the standards of the media have hit rock bottom when a liberal commentator makes news for telling the truth. Jonathan Capehart of The Washington Post and MSNBC has become a media star for his belated recognition of the “Hands up, don’t shoot” lie out of Ferguson, Missouri. Better late than never, except for the fact that this liberal narrative was always in dispute. There was never any legitimate reason to believe that Police Officer Darren Wilson had simply fired on Michael Brown for no reason.

The appropriate reaction to Capehart’s Damascus Road conversion to the truth should be: What took you so long? And what will you do to make sure you never fall for such a vicious lie again?

Don Irvine, the chairman of Accuracy in Media, notes in his blog on the AIM website that Capehart admitted the narrative was wrong after the Department of Justice found Wilson’s side of the story to be true. Capehart said, “What DOJ found made me ill.” Irvine commented, “I would be ill too if I had helped push a false narrative that gave fuel to the riots in Ferguson that have cost businesses and taxpayers millions of dollars, and ruined the career of Officer Wilson.”

The people who should be ill are those who depend on Capehart and others like him for the truth. Capehart is just trying to recover some of the credibility he never had in the first place.

Those of us who don’t take Capehart and his ilk seriously as arbiters of truth are watching this celebration of his one-time truth-telling as an example of how, for much of the media, lies and distortions are the standard fare. Otherwise, why would telling the truth be so controversial?

But this case is much more than a few liberal commentators like Capehart taking the side of dishonesty and then waking up, months later, to what actually happened.

Colin Flaherty, an award winning reporter and author of Don’t Make the Black Kids Angry: The hoax of black victimization and those who enable it, says that what happened in Ferguson was a carefully orchestrated hoax. He notes how in an amazing turnabout, the false claims about an unprovoked murder of a young black man became complaints about too many traffic tickets for black people.

“We now know the Ferguson riots were all about racist traffic tickets and not the relentless white racism and violence that killed yet another black person,” Flaherty notes. “The greatest bait and switch of our generation and few reporters even seemed to notice. Why would they? They are used to it by now.”

“First they told us about ‘hands up, don’t shoot.’ When that turned out to be a lie, they told us about the Gentle Giant. It continued for months, one lie after another, each discarded, replaced and sometimes recycled.” Flaherty reminds us of several of the lies. We were told that Michael Brown was shot in the back, that he was minding his own business, and trying to surrender.

Flaherty adds, “The racial grievance industry and their beards in the press put on and took off each lie like a cheap suit. Cute kids made viral videos with the ‘hands up don’t shoot’ pose, and reminded white people of their relentless racism. Members of Congress followed from the floor of the House.

“The President talked about racists in Ferguson at the United Nations. The parents of Michael Brown were honored guests at the gala dinner of the Congressional Black Caucus. The President greeted them from the podium during his keynote speech to extended applause. Then he talked about Ferguson racism.

“The Attorney General travelled to Ferguson and made [a] ‘personal promise’ that he would stand with the people of Ferguson. As long as those people were not cops.”

Flaherty goes on: “Entire cable networks repeated the lie day after day, guest after guest, promo after promo. Death. Murder. White racism. How could we not see it? Were we so blind, so immersed in white privilege, like a fish unaware of the water?”

It turned out, according to the DOJ, that Ferguson was all about traffic tickets. “Funny: At the time, no one mentioned the traffic tickets that now stand with the firehoses and police dogs of Selma as icons of racist oppression,” Flaherty notes.

The facts were such that the Attorney General had to grudgingly admit what many others had been saying from day one. “The facts of the death and the fairy tale that followed were all concocted, spoon fed to a willing press corps that did nothing but ask for more,” he points out.

Then, suddenly, in another diversion from the essential truth of what happened, the media picked up on another narrative—that blacks were the victims of too many traffic tickets. “The day after the Attorney General’s confession, the manufactured outrage of Chris Cuomo of CNN was on full display as he and the Brown family attorney railed against the injustice of too many traffic tickets,” commented Flaherty.

The media moved on to another issue, without bothering to emphasize how wrong they had been in the months before. This is the performance of a media that promotes and even prefers lies over the truth. The lies, after all, gin up racial controversy and ratings.

Flaherty asks, What about the CNN anchors who were holding the “Hands up, don’t shoot” signs on the air?

That’s a good question indeed. These included what we called a prominent example of the “fake conservatives” in the media, such as when Margaret Hoover joined her fellow CNN panelists in a “Hands up, don’t shoot” display based on the fiction that Brown was surrendering to the police when he was shot.

Hoover has written a book titled, American Individualism: How a New Generation of Conservatives Can Save the Republican Party. This self-described conservative thinks she has the answer to saving the Republican Party. She engaged in that display despite the fact that she said the narrative had been discredited because of witness testimony from the grand jury.

So Hoover engages in something she knows to be untrue, simply because it is the fashionable thing to do. What does this say about her ethical standards? “As a reform Republican, who works for the GOP to broaden its base and reach new constituencies, I see no contradiction between supporting law enforcement and the policy solutions highlighted by these protesters,” Hoover says.

The “protesters” were not highlighting “policy solutions,” but a deadly and false narrative about alleged police violence. She could have told the truth. Instead, she participated on the air in a display of a false narrative.

Why doesn’t she have the decency to apologize? Why doesn’t CNN apologize?

Flaherty also wonders why, after the hoax was exposed, we didn’t hear one apology from the media. It’s because our media have no standards of ethical behavior and conduct. Instead, the media went on with their business, acting as if traffic tickets “justified all the rioting, vandalism, fire-bombing, looting, assaulting, attacks on police, gunfire and other mayhem in and out of Ferguson.”

The praise for Capehart for eventually telling the truth may be one way the media can attempt to atone for their sins in this coverage. But it’s not good enough.

This article originally appeared at AIM.org and is reprinted here with permission.

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom

Stan Evans’ Battle Against Paganism And Cultural Marxism

Twitter/Heritage Foundation

Those who assembled on March 12 at St. John the Apostle Catholic Church in Leesburg, Va., to celebrate the life of conservative thinker and writer M. Stanton Evans heard several references to his monumental 1994 work, The Theme is Freedom. This book is worth remembering and re-reading as we are being treated repeatedly to the spectacle in the media of “conservatives” endorsing gay rights and gay marriage.

In an illustration of what Stan called the “pagan ethic,” he cites on page 128 “the campaign to change societal views of homosexuality—to treat it as an ‘alternative lifestyle,’ as valid in its way as heterosexual conduct.” Stan comments, “Among other things, this is a reversion to pagan ways of thinking.” He cites acceptance of homosexuality in ancient civilizations such as Babylon and notes, “All of this was unequivocally condemned by the religion of the Bible.”

Yet, as Austin Ruse points out in his Breitbart article, “GOP Elite Ask Supreme Court to Impose Gay Marriage on America,” a brief to celebrate homosexual “marriage” as equal to traditional marriage has been submitted to the court and signed by 300 conservatives and/or Republicans, including no less than 26 former senior Mitt Romney staffers.

These so-called “conservatives,” who are not conservative in any real sense, are part of a “Project Right Side” that is designed to confuse the public about the meaning of the term. The “media” section of the website tells us how news organizations have covered the “conservative case for gay marriage.”

But there is nothing “conservative” about asking the Supreme Court to impose homosexual marriage on all 50 states. What’s more, as Stan Evans says, it is a return to paganism.

The fact that many don’t recognize this as paganism demonstrates how the definition of “conservatism” is being changed right before our eyes.

Many are deceived because the media repeatedly offer up so-called “conservatives” who endorse homosexual marriage. The names of several of them appear on the brief to the Supreme Court. They are:

  • Alex Castellanos, a Republican media advisor who appears regularly on NBC’s Meet the Press and currently serves as a member of CNN’s “Best Political Team on Television”
  • S.E. Cupp, CNN commentator
  • Margaret Hoover, CNN contributor
  • Abby Huntsman, MSNBC political commentator
  • Ana Navarro, CNN commentator
  • Nicolle Wallace, co-host of ABC’s “The View”

The subtitle of The Theme Is Freedom is “Religion, Politics, and the American Tradition.” The dedication reads, “For my father, who kept the faith.” The acknowledgments include the touching comments, “…these pages are not only dedicated to the memory of my father, but also reflect the many conversations I had with him across the decades about the religious basis of our society, and countless other issues.”

Stan described the book as “an effort to trace, conceptually and as a matter of historical fact, the nexus between religious values and the rise of our political system.” He notes for example:

  • “That biblical teaching was the formative influence in the creation of Europe, and that Europe was the nursery of freedom as we know it, are both established facts of record.”
  • “If Christian doctrine is opposed to freedom, then liberty ought to flourish where Christianity has had the smallest degree of influence, and languish where that influence is the greatest. That a general survey prima facie says the opposite suggests that something in the conventional history is mistaken.”
  • “…this correlation of Christianity with the rise of freedom is anything but accidental. In fact, the precepts of our religion provided the conceptual building blocks for the free societies of the West—including the very idea of liberty as we know it, limits on the power of the state, and institutions that gave these practical expression.”

The so-called conservatives who promote gay marriage can say anything they want, but their position is not conservative or Biblical. Regarding the latter, Robert A. Gagnon’s book, The Bible and Homosexual Practice, is the best authority. The case against same-sex intercourse is based on scripture.

In chapter seven of his book, The Rise of Neopaganism, Stan Evans explains why and how Marxist concepts have become embedded in Western thought. “More problematic in an immediate sense,” he writes, “are aspects of the Marxist worldview, generally not recognized as such, that have already penetrated liberal thought and are considered perfectly routine and normal.”

He is describing what we know to be the process of cultural Marxism. The return of paganism is cultural Marxism dressed up in “progressive” camouflage.

Paganism also denies the humanity of the unborn. “The Christian tradition from the earliest period says the unborn child is a human life that deserves respect and ought to be protected; the pagan view tells us it is not a legal person, and thus entitled to no protection,” Stan writes.

The pagan view is dominating America, thanks to the “conservatives” who join the liberals in either adopting or refusing to fight it. Stan describes how it works in practice for America’s children:

…it is considered perfectly proper for children from religious homes to be taught the precepts of Darwinian-Huxleyan evolution, extreme environmentalism, the value-free “alternative lifestyle” view of homosexuality and sexual conduct generally and other Neopaganism in their school work…Children may be taught the precepts of neopagan nature worship; they may not be taught the precepts of the Bible.

Incredibly, the paganism even infiltrates groups which call themselves religious. The organization Dignity USA, which claims to be Catholic, is holding a conference featuring Dan Savage, described merely as a “writer, TV personality and gay activist.” Peter LaBarbera of Americans for Truth describes Savage, who has been invited to the White House to celebrate “gay pride,” as “the face of progressive hate.” Catholic League president Bill Donohue says Savage has a history of offering obscene anti-Catholic rants.

The latest “conservative/libertarian” to jump aboard the gay marriage bandwagon is Charles C.W. Cooke of National Review, a Brit who argues in his new book, The Conservatarian Manifesto, that “there is more to be gained by including gays in the institution [of marriage] than by keeping them out.” With that statement, he dismisses the Judeo-Christian tradition, which is the foundation for our freedoms. “Gay Marriage: The Wrong Fight” is one of his chapter titles. The battle against gay marriage “has been lost,” he says.

It might be worthwhile to be pro-life, he concedes, since “scientific advances” might yet prove the unborn child is a human life. Again, there’s no reference by this modern “libertarian” to the religious tradition that human life is sacred.

Cooke, a legal immigrant to the United States, would be well-advised to return to Britain and fight for the Christian values that are quickly disappearing in his home country. Mike Overd, a Christian street preacher, is going on trial in Britain for proclaiming the gospel in a public setting. The group Christian Concern reports, “Mike has been preaching the gospel on the streets of Taunton for over five years. But he’s faced real opposition—police even appealed to the public in a local newspaper to record him preaching so that they could get evidence of him making ‘offensive remarks.’” He was previously charged with quoting anti-homosexual references from the Bible.

Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch reports that one of his most recent “offensive” comments may have been discussing the Muslim Prophet Muhammad marrying a 9-year-old girl by the name of Aisha. Overd compared the life of Muhammad to the perfect life of Jesus. Spencer asks, “Will British authorities seize and destroy copies of the hadith of Bukhari for stating that Aisha was nine [when] Muhammad consummated his marriage with her?” Bukhari’s collection is recognized by most Muslims as an authentic record of stories about Muhammad.

Commenting on the case, Spencer notes, “Britain is dying, while its authorities do nothing to save it, for fear of being called ‘racist.’ When telling the truth becomes an offense for which someone can be arrested and prosecuted, the society in which this happens [is] in its death throes.”

Who and what killed Britain? Consider the book, The Rise of Gay Rights and the Fall of the British Empire. The author defines homosexuality as “resistance” to Western religious traditions and “imperialism.”

This is how Britain began its decline. The Brazilian philosopher and writer Olavo de Carvalho says every nation has an elite or aristocracy. When this group goes against the traditions of their own country, rather than defending them, we see the nation begin to decline in influence and power. He says the elites begin focusing on their egotistical sexual desires rather than the good or interests of the nation.

The same thing is happening in the United States. The founder of the modern gay-rights movement in the United States was Harry Hay, a member of the Communist Party who also championed the rights of pedophiles. Now, key members of the Republican establishment have joined this campaign for gay rights.

What “Project Right Side” has done for us is name the members of the conservative movement and the Republican establishment who are signing up to accelerate our own nation’s decline. One notable name on this list is David H. Koch, described as a “philanthropist,” but more widely known as a major funder of the conservative movement and the Republican Party. The groups taking his money have a lot to answer for.

The result of these efforts, as Stan Evans predicted in his book, will be to help Barack Obama transform America into something we won’t be able to recognize as being in any sense American. It will be a Marxist or pagan America stripped of its Christian traditions.

Just like the Christian street preacher on trial in Britain, our children will lose their freedoms in the process. Stan Evans saw it coming. He warned us. Whether it’s called paganism or cultural Marxism, surrender would not be an option for Stan Evans.

This article originally appeared at AIM.org and is reprinted here with permission.

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom

Catholic Church Linked To Communism And ‘Progressive Forces’

Flickr/Catholic Church England and Wales

Armando Valladares, Castro’s political prisoner for 22 years, said his Catholic faith was strengthened behind bars by hearing young Catholics shouting, “Viva Cristo Rey,” for “Long Live Christ the King,” and “down with communism!” as they faced the firing squad. It has been his hope that Cuba would one day be free of communism. But he is far less hopeful now that Pope Francis has taken measures that he says “objectively favor the political and ecclesiastical left in Latin America” and could undermine the “Christian future of the Americas.”

Meanwhile, Marxist writer Richard Greeman has written an extraordinary article, “Catholicism: The New Communism?,” arguing that “progressive forces” have  “captured” the Vatican, and that Francis is conducting a “purge” of traditional elements, such as those loyal to anti-communist Pope John Paul II.

Valladares, author of Against All Hope: A Memoir of Life in Castro’s Gulag, was the United States Ambassador to the U.N. Human Rights Commission under the Reagan and Bush administrations. He writes in a recent column that Francis was the “most eminent architect and mediator” of the Obama administration deal with Cuba that will “now provide the repressive apparatus of the Cuban regime with rivers of money and favorable publicity.”

He goes on, “We are witnessing one of the greatest examples of media sleights-of-hand in history: From a well-deserved image of aggressor, a regime which for decades spearheaded bloody revolutions in Latin America and Africa and continues to spread its tentacles in the three Americas, has been craftily made to look like a victimized underdog.”

He says the responsibility lies with the unexpected rise of a Francis-Obama “axis” in foreign affairs that benefits Marxist governments throughout Latin America.

Valladares, who received the Citizen’s Presidential Medal from President Ronald Reagan, was sentenced to 30 years in prison in communist Cuba in 1960 for being philosophically and religiously opposed to communism. He was tortured and kept in isolation for refusing to be “re-educated.” He was released after 22 years in prison, in 1982, when international pressure was brought to bear on the regime.

Valladares says it’s not just the Cuba betrayal that concerns him. He notes that Francis overturned the suspension of Nicaraguan priest Miguel D’Escoto Brockmann, a former communist Sandinista foreign minister and a leading pro-Castro figure in liberation theology.

Despite his credentials as a political prisoner turned human rights activist and powerful voice for freedom, his column on the Obama-Francis “axis” has received very little attention. An associate says it seems “too politically incorrect,” an apparent reference to the fact that Francis is a global media star for identifying with the poor, and that liberals and conservatives alike are reluctant to criticize him.

Valladares, however, says the pope has gone far beyond taking up the cause of poor people. His column notes that Francis personally attended something called the World Meeting of Popular Movements last October in Rome. “It gathered 100 revolutionary world leaders, including well-known Latin American professional agitators,” Valladares points out. “The meeting turned out to be a kind of marketing ‘beatification’ of these Marxist-inspired revolutionary figures.”

One of the participants in the Vatican event was Evo Morales, the Marxist President of Bolivia who dedicated his election victory last year to Cuba’s Fidel Castro and the late Venezuelan Marxist ruler, Hugo Chávez.

The Vatican’s own description of the meeting referred to changing “an economy of exclusion” and “an idolatrous system of money.” The statement went on, “Together we want to discuss the structural causes of so much inequality (inequidad) which robs us of work (labor), housing (domus) and land (terra), which generates violence and destroys nature. We also want to face the challenge Francis himself sets puts [sic] to us with courage and intelligence: to seek radical proposals to resolve the problems of the poor.”

Valladares isn’t the only one to notice the “radical” or leftward drift of the papacy. Greeman’s article wondering if Catholicism is the “new communism” appears in New Politics, a socialist magazine “committed to the advancement of the peace and anti-intervention movements” and which “stands in opposition to all forms of imperialism…”

New Politics has strong links to the Democratic Socialists of America, a group that backed Barack Obama’s political career from the start. Its “sponsors” include Noam Chomsky, Frances Fox Piven, Michael Eric Dyson, Barbara Ehrenreich, Cornel West, and the late communist historian Howard Zinn.

Greeman notes that the world’s Catholic Bishops have “explicitly pointed to capitalism as the basic cause of impending global catastrophe,” in the form of climate change, and have “called for a new economic order.” He was referring to a group of Catholic Bishops who met at the U.N. climate talks last December and blamed “the dominant global economic system, which is a human creation,” for global warming. They argued for “a new financial and economic order” and the phasing out of the use of fossil fuels.

Greeman says the Bishops’ attack on capitalism was generally ignored, even on the left, and he understands why. There have been so many “rapid changes” coming out of Rome “since the ascension to the Throne of Saint Peter” by Pope Francis that it is hard to keep up with them, he says.

Francis will issue a Vatican document, known as an encyclical, on climate change in June or July.

Greeman writes that these “radically anti-capitalist Catholic positions” have got him wondering whether Catholicism is “the new Communism,” Rome “the new Moscow,” and the church “the new Comintern.” The term “Comintern” refers to the Communist International, an association of national communist parties started by Lenin.

Growing up as a “red diaper baby” during the Cold War, Greeman writes, Catholicism was “synonymous with militant anti-Communism.” But changes that started coming years ago in the church have been accelerating under Francis, he writes. He attributes some of this “change” to Francis, who is from Buenos Aires, Argentina, and a Jesuit, which is a “progressive” religious order whose “solid organization and discipline” and “attempts to take over the Church” go back centuries.

Greeman refers to the Catholic or “universal” Church as “the only actually existing organized world-party,” whose “vast wealth and influence are now in Francis’ hands.” He writes about “the capture” of the church by “progressive forces,” a development which opens up “huge possibilities for human liberation and perhaps a chance for the planet to avoid climate catastrophe.” He believes Francis “and his allies” are now conducting a “purge of the apparatus” in the Vatican.

Writing in Links, an international socialist journal, Canadian activist Judith Marshall discusses meeting the pope during the World Meeting of Popular Movements and witnessing his presentation to the group. “Pope Francis’ forthright statements on the social ministry of the church hearken back to the 1960s and 1970s when liberation theology was such a dynamic force in promoting struggles for social justice, particularly in Latin America,” she wrote. “The symbolism of a World Meeting of Popular Movements which brought a multitude of the poor right into [the] heart of the Vatican has not been lost on those looking for a resurgence of liberation theology.”

Liberation theology was manufactured by the old KGB to dupe Christians into supporting Marxism.

She also insisted that Francis “has arguably made the Papacy the most radical and consistent voice in pointing to the profanity of global inequality and exclusion. He has also repeatedly named the inordinate power of multinational corporations and finance capital as key factors in reproducing global poverty and destruction of the planet.”

She says Francis met with several Marxist activists from Latin America and even met privately with President Morales of Bolivia who “stressed how Mother Earth had become ill from capitalism,” and that “under the prevailing global economy, the planet would actually do better without humans—but humans need the planet.”

In a previous meeting Morales told the pope, “For me, you are brother Francis.” The pope responded, “As it should be, as it should be.”

This article originally appeared at AIM.org and is reprinted here with permission.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom

The U.S. And Israel’s Common Enemies

The White House Blog

As Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu visits Washington and speaks to Congress, bypassing the Obama administration, the stakes could not be higher. But President Obama is not the only, and certainly not the most significant, opponent of Israel. The important new book, “The USA and The New World Order,” features a debate in which one of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s key advisers, Alexander Dugin, criticizes Israel’s “imperialist” role in the Middle East and America’s role in the world as a whole.

A careful reading of this important debate, which occurred in 2011 and has recently been published in book form, demonstrates that it is Russia which is the main threat to Israel and the United States.

Dugin’s debate opponent, the anti-communist Brazilian writer and philosopher Olavo de Carvalho, sees Dugin as the brains behind Putin’s geopolitical strategy that embraces “genocidal violence.” He notes that Dugin has “advocated the systematic killing of Ukrainians—a people who, according to him, do not belong to the human species.”

As for Israel, the debate transcript shows that Dugin regards the Jewish state as “a modern capitalist and Atlantist entity and an ally of American imperialism.” This is a rather straightforward view of how the Moscow regime views Israel today, and why it backs the government of Iran with weapons, nuclear technology, and diplomatic support.

The term “Atlantist” or “Atlanticist” is meant to refer to trans-Atlantic cooperation between Europe, the United States, and Canada in defense and other areas.

Iran is a key part of the anti-American alliance. Dugin has explained in the article, “Eurasianism, Iran, and Russia’s Foreign Policy,” that a “strategic alliance” exists between Iran and Russia, and Russia “will not cease its efforts to reduce sanctions against Iran” over its support for terrorism and pursuit of nuclear weapons.

In the debate with de Carvalho, Dugin proclaims, “I have nothing against Israel,” then quickly added, “but its cruelty in repressing the Palestinians is evident.”

To which de Carvalho counters, “The rockets that the Palestinians fire practically every day at non-military areas of Israel are never reported by the international big media, whereas any raid by Israel against Palestinian military installations always provokes the greatest outcry all over the world.”

He tells Dugin, “I know the facts, my friend. I know the dose of violence on both sides. I know, for instance, that the Israelis never use human shields, while the Palestinians almost always do it. I know that, in Israel, Muslims have civil rights and are protected by the police, while, in countries under Islamic rule, non-Muslims are treated as dogs and often stoned to death.”

This exchange is only part of a debate that puts Israel in the context of a global conflict that Dugin sees as “The West against the rest.” The world is going through a “global transition,” away from dominance by the U.S. and its allies, he asserts.

De Carvalho commented that Dugin, himself the son of a KGB officer, is “the political mentor of a man [Vladimir Putin] who is the very incarnation of the KGB.” He said that Dugin has emerged as “the creator and guide of one of the widest and most ambitious geopolitical plans of all time—a plan adopted and followed as closely as possible by a nation which has the largest army in the world, the most efficient and daring secret service and a network of alliances that stretches itself through four continents.”

De Carvalho describes Eurasianism as “a synthesis of the defunct USSR and the Tzarist Empire” that includes philosophical elements of Marxism-Leninism, Russian Messianism, Nazism, and esotericism. The last element is a reference to certain occult influences in Russia.

“In order to fulfill his plans,” de Carvalho explains, “he counts on Vladimir Putin’s strong arm, the armies of Russia and China and every terrorist organization of the Middle East, not to mention practically every leftist, fascist and neo-Nazi movements which today place themselves under the banner of his ‘Eurasian’ project.”

He says the historical roles played by Russia and China in sponsoring and arming terrorist groups help explain why global Islam has targeted the United States and Israel. “Some theoreticians of the Caliphate allege that socialism, once triumphant in the world, will need a soul, and Islam will provide it with one,” he notes.

In this global war for domination, however, he also identifies a “globalist elite,” including in the U.S. government and society, which wants to destroy traditional Christianity and share in “the spoils” from the decaying West.

What we are witnessing, he writes, is an “alliance of Russia with China and the Islamic countries, as well as with part of Western Europe,” that has come together in a “total war against the United States and Israel,” which is to be followed by “the establishment of a worldwide dictatorship.” It is the replacement of an “Atlanticist Order” by the “Eurasian Order.”

For those who doubt such global schemes could come to pass, de Carvalho says that Dugin “is not a dreamer, a macabre poet creating imaginary hecatombs in a dark dungeon infested with rats.” Rather, he is “the mentor of the Putin government and the brains behind Russian foreign policy,” whose ideas “have long ceased to be mere speculations.”

De Carvalho identifies among these “material incarnations” of the Dugin vision the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), a group founded by Russia, China, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan, which “intends to be the center of a restructuring of military power in the world.” Iran has been an observer state at the SCO since 2005. He also cites the Paris-Berlin-Moscow axis, a geopolitical term for countries which are seen as developing a mechanism to replace NATO, the one-time anti-communist alliance.

Another such international organization is the BRICS alliance of nations, incorporating Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa. Iran is also discussing joining BRICS.

On January 20, Iran and Russia signed an agreement expanding their military ties. Russian defense minister Sergei Shoigu said Moscow wants to develop a “long-term and multifaceted” military relationship with Iran. Just a few days ago, Russia offered to sell the Antey-2500 anti-aircraft and ballistic missile system to Iran. “The United States and Israel lobbied Russia to block the missile sale, saying it could be used to shield Iran’s nuclear facilities from possible future air strikes,” Reuters reported.

For its part, the government of Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu has been warning about Iran while simultaneously conducting cordial relations with Russia and refusing to condemn Putin for invading Ukraine. Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman says Israel will maintain “neutrality” in the Russian-Ukrainian conflict. “Maintenance of good relations with Russia is a priority moment for Israel and its principal stance,” Lieberman said.

It has been estimated that more than 6,000 people have died in eastern Ukraine since Russia’s invasion of the country. The Obama administration has refused to supply Ukraine with weapons for its own self-defense.

This article originally appeared at AIM.org and is reprinted here with permission.

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom