The beheading of any American should send every American into orbit from outrage. That includes the beheading of James Foley. What must be made known, however, is that evidence suggests Foley was sympathetic to the Muslim Brotherhood’s cause and may have been a liberal.

If that’s true, why would ISIS behead him?

The answer is strangely simple. ISIS beheads liberals too, in much the same way that the Tsarnaev brothers set off pressure cooker bombs in a predominantly liberal city – Boston.

Foley Betrayed by those he supported
A look at Foley’s twitter feed from 2012 indicates he was a supporter of the Syrian opposition (FSA).  It’s now being reported by IBT that Foley may have been handed over to ISIS in a good faith gesture by a group that had been aligned with the FSA:

According to Syrian sources who have worked previously to locate and rescue kidnapped journalists in Syria, American journalist James Foley, who was beheaded by Islamic State in a video the militant group made public on Tuesday, was most likely used by another guerrilla group as a token of allegiance to ISIS.

According to those sources, Foley was in the hands of the Dawood Bridgade, a group that was originally aligned with relatively moderate opposition groups such as the Free Syrian Army, but recently pledged allegiance to ISIS.

Here are some of the tweets from Foley in 2012 (h/t FPM):

Of course, the very sick and twisted irony is that Foley was being sympathetic to a group that ultimately betrayed him. Though Foley’s fate was not predictable, such a betrayal was.

On Supporting Muslim Brotherhood
Foley also seemed to express support for the Muslim Brotherhood’s agenda. Barely a month prior to the Benghazi attacks, Foley tweeted a link to a defamatory CNN propaganda piece that suggested “right-wing” terrorism was equal to the brand practiced by al-Qaeda. In the article, Nazi terrorists were identified as “right-wing” when in reality, Nazis are extreme leftists as is the KKK, which was founded by the Democratic Party.

In another tweet, Foley linked to an article which made the argument that Muslim Brotherhood winning elections is a good thing. That argument is demonstrably absurd:

Essentially, the author argued that by meeting the Brotherhood’s demands and giving them what they want, the Brotherhood will moderate:

The fact is, however, the victory of Islamist political parties in democratic elections, especially the Muslim Brotherhood, is beneficial to the United States, the region, and the future of democracy for two reasons.

In short, those two reasons amounted to 1.) Give the Islamists what they want and they’ll stop killing and 2.) Once the Islamists achieve political power, they will be voted out of power after a few election cycles and they’ll become peaceful, political animals who will follow the rules.

How’s that working out?

With the gift of hindsight, this paragraph from the aforementioned article is salient:

Radical Islamist terrorists like Ayman al-Zawahiri of al Qaeda have harshly criticized Islamist political parties, especially the Muslim Brotherhood. Zawahiri understands that the spread of democracy through the Arab Spring has the potential to destroy al Qaeda by drying up recruitment and funding, and undermining the supposed ‘need’ for jihad in the first place.

Perhaps no better application of that theory can be found in Egypt. The article was actually written on the eve of the inauguration of the Muslim Brotherhood’s Mohammed Mursi as President of that country. Contrary to the premise that Islamists would moderate if elected to office and eventually be voted out, Mursi became a tyrant overnight and within months attempted a complete power grab by signing Shariah law into the Constitution, as Shoebat.com reported at the time.

As for the argument that someone like al-Zawahiri would become marginalized when someone like Mursi came into power, the opposite happened. As Shoebat.com reported, Mursi hired al-Zawahiri’s first cousin as his Chief of Staff and sought the assistance of the al-Qaeda leader in keeping the Egyptian military from doing what it ultimately did – throw Mursi out of power.

Sadly, Foley lost his life despite being on what he thought was the right side.

This is not about an ‘I told you so’ moment for the right. It’s a plea for leftists to wake up.

Psychoanalyzing the Left
It’s very difficult to psychoanalyze the minds of the left. Some may suffer from a strain of Stockholm Syndrome in which they think being sympathetic to Islamists will keep them safe. Some may think that by treating Islamists like civilized beings, they will then become civilized beings. Some may just hate conservatives and Christians so much, they’re comfortable aligning with those who hate them too (common cause). Still others may just flat-out agree with Islamists.

Take a look at the protesting and rioting in Ferguson. The New Black Panther Party (NBPP) – a Muslim group – descended on that city to gin up anger. The left-wing, mainstream media either ignores the NBPP or attempts to dismiss its significance. While doing a news report in Ferguson, Jake Tapper completely ignored the “ISIS is HERE” sign being held up behind him for no fewer than two minutes.

Then there was the issue of far left-wing MSNBC personality Chris Hayes. While spouting pro-rioter propaganda, Hayes had rocks thrown at him by the very people he works so hard to defend. Even then, he didn’t catch the irony. The rocks clearly did not knock any sense into Hayes:

Regardless of the reasons, leftists sympathetic to Islamists are counterproductive to the process of preventing the spread of Islamism. As such, leftists are used as vehicles to push the Islamist agenda. In the U.S. stealth jihad groups speak of interfaith dialogue, bridge-building, tolerance, and diversity while endorsing “COEXIST” bumper stickers. Anyone who sounds alarm bells is then painted as racist. This endears utopian-minded liberals to the Islamist cause while simultaneously pitting those liberals against Christian conservatives who believe in God, His Son, and the Trinity exclusively. Said Christians also believe in and defend Christianity’s Jewish heritage.

Other than that, any attempt to spiritually “coexist” waters down Christianity, which true Christians find grossly offensive and blasphemous. That doesn’t make them racist; it makes them strong in their beliefs.

Save for Judaism, which shares a common heritage with Christianity, a belief in Christianity must necessarily include not accepting other religions. Besides, it’s Islamic countries that ban other religions and persecute those who don’t practice Islam.

Then again, there are plenty of ‘Christian’ pastors who don’t get what’s going on either. Take this example. It’s a photo of Clark Lobenstein, whose stole indicates he’s bought into the ‘Coexist’ mentality. He’s flanked by Bassam Estwani, the former chairman of the notorious Dar al-Hijrah mosque and Rateb al-Nabulsi, a pro-Hamas figure who endorsed suicide bombings and has raised funds for the Syrian opposition while in the U.S., as Shoebat.com has reported.

Estwani serves on the boards of at least two highly suspect Syrian opposition groups – the Syrian Emergency Task Force (SETF) and Mercy Without Borders (MWB).

Bassam Estwani (L), Clark Lobenstein (C), and Rateb al-Nabulsi (R)