Five examples of the morally bankrupt who refuse to recognize evil

We each have protective mechanisms, meant to provide us with the tools to avoid danger. On a physical level, it’s our five senses. 

On a moral level, it is our God-given conscience, the inner navigational system of morality, helping us to judge right from wrong, good from evil and sanity from insanity. Without it, we would be helpless to make correct choices rather than those which will harm us.

But what happens when individuals are incapable of making those crucial distinctions? They end up displaying a moral bankruptcy, disqualifying them from leading others. And yet, many of those in authority, today. seem incapable of recognizing evil. 

Take the present-day war in Iran. Short of the current U.S. president, no one else was willing to take on an oppressive, tyrannical regime that brutalized its people, stripped them of all freedoms, forced them into subservience and kept them in bondage for 47 years.

While it should be amazingly simple to condemn such a shameful rule, here are five examples of those who fail to do so as they stand against the ones taking on the fight against evil:

1. Pope Leo XIV who has “warned against escalating the Iran conflict, calling for all sides to stop the spiral of violence.” By appealing to both sides to “assume the moral responsibility of halting the spiral of violence,” the pontiff is either unaware that tyrants don’t share a sense of moral responsibility or believes evil should be ignored and not stamped out, especially when it threatens to dominate all others. In his March 1 address, at St. Peter’s Square, Pope Leo spoke about “stability and peace – not being built with mutual threats nor with weapons that sow destruction, pain and death, but through a dialogue that is reasonable, authentic and responsible.” 

These are the words of someone living in an alternate reality, unfamiliar with the twisted ideology of radical Islam that justifies the killing of non-Muslims by whatever means necessary, including every form of violence imaginable. Did Pope Leo miss the savage events of October 7th?

2. British PM Keir Starmer: Initially refusing to allow access to British bases for offensive strikes, Starmer has repeatedly stated that the UK has had no involvement in the Iranian offensive, as it is not in the best interest of British national interests. For whose benefit is he saying that – the millions of Muslims living in the U.K. or to avoid being struck by the Iranian regime? Churchill is turning in his grave!

3. Zohran Mamdani – The Democrat Socialist NY Mayor, categorized the decision to go to war with Iran, as an "illegal war of aggression,” confidently stating that “Americans don’t want the bombing of cities, killing of civilians or regime change.”  Of course, he speaks for all Americans. Does he prefer to see the ongoing suffering and oppression under which the Iranian people have been forced to endure, many of them for a lifetime?

Senator Ted Cruz posted on X: "Comrade Mayor is rooting for the Ayatollah." Cruz is right, because to criticize a war, meant to free people and prevent the spread of Islamic world domination, can only be presumed as tacit approval of the leaders who financed and executed the Israeli massacre, through their proxies. These evil monsters have managed to obtain Mamdani’s endorsement. It’s hard to find an example of more corrupted character than that!

4. Members of Congress: Amongst the 435 members, who serve in the House of Representatives, 27 bipartisan lawmakers have introduced a resolution to prohibit military action against Iran, unless approved by Congress. Given their feckless governance, how long would they take to come to a majority decision to save the imperiled lives of Iranian citizens, already slaughtered by the tens of thousands?

How long would their deliberations extend before being able to agree that stopping the fast and furious uranium enrichment should be halted, so that Iran could not reach their goal of obtaining nuclear weapons?  

Can the world wait for these ineffective leaders to take the reins of a battle to save humanity? Sadly, the answer is no, because too many of them lack the constitution as well as the empathy needed to recognize the blatant evil right before their eyes.

Finally, as an ex-pat American, the last group pains me to name them, but they are:

5. The American People: According to a number of polls, the percentage of Americans who support the war in Iran hovers from 21% to 47%, depending upon which poll you consider to be reliable. The New York Times and Seattle Times both site 21%, Al Jazeera - 25%. CBS News says that 51% of Americans would favor U.S. military action against Iran, to stop them from making nuclear weapons, but 74% conditioned that on congressional approval.

That leaves more than half of Americans being against this war, making us wonder if they even understand what’s at stake.

Perhaps, the best response came from Iranian American activist and journalist Masie Alinejad who posted on X the following:

"We Iranians do not allow you to lecture us about war while you had nothing to say when the Islamic Republic shot schoolgirls and blinded more than 10,000 innocent people in the streets. You were busy celebrating the hijab while women of my beloved country Iran were jailed and raped by Islamic Security forces for removing it. 

"And NOW you find your voice to defend the regime? No. I will not let you claim the moral high ground. The people of Iran want to be free. Where were you when they needed solidarity?"

Who would know better than a woman who lived in Iran for 33 years, today exiled in N.Y. and still the target of Iranians who hope to silence her forever?

To quote billionaire hedge fund manager, Bill Ackman who posted on X: "Why is this so hard for you?" that’s the real question. Why should supporting human rights and preventing world domination be hard for anyone to denounce? 

Conclusion: Those unable to do so are simply morally bankrupt!