The Secret Well-Endowed Right.

Josh Reeves' The Secret Right Volume 1:



We hear about Trilateral Commission, Council for Foreign Relations, Bilderberg, but we hear very little about the ultra-conservative, secret, right-winged group, Council for National Policy, who has ties to the American Eugenics Movement.  This fact conflicts directly with the pro-life stance almost all the members, some of whom are listed below, claim so passionately:

Tim LaHaye who started it.
Nelson Bunker Hunt who initially financed it
Richard Melon Scaife
George W. Bush
John McCain
Sarah Palin
Rudy Giuliani
Trent Lott
Jack Abramoff
Erik Prince of Blackwater
Rush Limbaugh
Tom Delay
Mitt Romney
Michelle Bachmann
Jack Kemp
Dick Armey
Dick Cheney
Stephan Harper
Ross Perot
Pierre DuPont
Bob Jones
Mike Huckabee
Donald Rumsfeld
Mark Sanford
Steve Forbes
Tom Clancy
James Dobson
Coors Family
Pat Robertson
Ollie North
Pat Buchanan
Phylis Shlafley
Pat Boone
Jerry Falwell
Jesse Helms
Rev Sun Myung Moon who declared himself as savior, NOT Jesus Christ, yet who so many so-called Christians are financially beholden.

There are many other various interlocking groups, although often much older, fall under the umbrella of the CPN,  The Bohemian Grove is one of those groups. It's  an all male summer camp for the powerful, where decision makers, from cabinet members to captains of industry, cement bonds, and many say, make policy.  A statue of St. John of Nepomuk, who was martyred in 1393 because of his refusal to break the seal of the confessional and divulge the secrets of the queen of Bohemia to the Protestants, stands as a reminder to the oath of secrecy one must take to attend. Those who attend also sacrifice an effigy to a statue of an Owl, often thought to be representative of Moloch, but which is really symbolic of  the owl of Minerva, in order to cast away care so that members will do whatever it takes to succeed in their particular field. Past and present members include anyone and everyone in a powerful position.

Another group is the Sovereign Military Order of Malta with past and present members:

Mayer Amschel de Rothschild
Alan Dulles
Alexander Haig
Avery Dulles
Michael Bloomberg
Bush Family
Bill Clinton
Pat Buchanan
J. Edgar Hoover
Kurt Waldheim
David and Nelson Rockefeller
Nelson Mandela
Rick Santorum
Gerald Ford
Ronald Reagan
Phyllis Schlafly
Erik Prince
Rupert Murdoch
Rudy Giuliani
William Casey
William F. Buckley
William Randolph Hurst
Frank Sinatra
Clay Shaw
Tony Blair
John Bolton
Michael Chertoff
H.L. Hunt
Oliver North
Rev Sun Myung Moon who declared himself as savior, NOT Jesus Christ, yet who so many so-called Christians are financially beholden.

However, the most interesting bit of information in the documentary, The Secret Right comes from the segment on standardized IQ.  One of the highly paid researchers, J. Philippe Rushton, in Charles Murray's highly controversial book, The Bell Curve (funded $3.5 million by The Pioneer Fund, established in 1937 to study racial purity as ideal) claimed that small genitalia may be a sign of superior intelligence.  Really?  I think this falls under the category of "too much information" about researcher, and, in a nutshell, exposes the group who really lacks intelligence: the secret right.

Of course, this same book concludes that blacks are permanently set and hard-wired at a lower level of intelligence than whites and therefore welfare and job-training programs should reconsider spending money to change people who cannot be changed. This is despite evidence to the contrary where blacks scored higher than whites when they came from states with good education systems.

Read more...

Liberals, Conservatives and Tax Dollars

Read more...

Could it Be? Bush Truly is a Compassionate Conservative.

"Is compassion beneath us? Is mercy below us? Should our party be led by someone who boasts of a hard heart? I am proud to be a compassionate conservative. I welcome the label. And on this ground, I'll take my stand. [...] I am running because my party must match a conservative mind with a compassionate heart, And I'm running to win." -- Presidential candidate George W. Bush

Well, we know for sure that four words are true, "I'm running to win." But what about the rest of this quote?

It seems as if the era of George W. Bush, the "Compassionate Conservative", never began as we found out, very early on, that President Bush wanted our poor, our sick, our elderly, and even our soldiers to fend for themselves against all odds. Health care and retirement security became luxuries. Meanwhile, he created billions in new tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans.

Nevertheless, if you ask most conservatives if President Bush lied, thhe would tell you, that he didn't because as Myron Magnet wrote, in the article Compassionate Conservative or Cowboy Capitalist,they have a different idea of what compassion is and it goes something like this:

Implicit in compassionate conservatism was an epochal paradigm shift that is now all but explicit. Taken together, compassionate conservatism’s elements added up to a sweeping rejection of liberal orthodoxy about how to help the poor, which a half-century’s worth of experience had discredited. If you want to help the poor, compassionate conservatives argued, liberate them from dependency through welfare reform, free their communities from criminal anarchy through activist policing, give them the education they need to succeed in a modern economy by holding their schools accountable, and let them enjoy the rewards of work by taxing their modest wages lightly or not at all. For the worst off—those hampered by addiction or alcohol or faulty socialization—let the government pay private organizations, especially religious ones, to help. Such people need a change of heart to solve their problems, the president himself deeply believed; and while a clergyman or a therapist might help them, a bureaucrat couldn’t.

After eight years, it's safe to say "compassionate conservatism" did not work. However was it a lie? Or was it just politics... a political strategy that revolved around code words, dog whistle politics, and double speak that used Jesus Christ to uphold everything from vengeance to violence?

While you decide, consider this. Bush's use of the phrase, “compassionate conservative”was derived from a book called The Tragedy of American Compassion, by Marvin Olasky. This book takes a look at the late 19th century where there were no social nets for the poor or any type of government assistance, all the while, emphasizing the undeserving poor.

The author, Marvin Olasky, editor-in-chief of the World Magazine, who was also a Bush campaign advisor, and who has been associated with groups like the Council for Biblical Man and Womanhood and other organizations that blame society's predicament on feminists, homosexuals, the media, college professors, etc., leaned toward absolving society's institutions of any responsibility for the well-being of its weakest members in his book. He completely ignored the reality of the "working poor" and the surging profits of those at the top while those in the middle and the bottom were subject to massive lay-offs and downsizing aimed solely at making rich stockholders richer. In other words, Olasky blamed poor people for their problems.

The word compassion is defined as "a feeling of deep sympathy and sorrow for another who is stricken by misfortune, accompanied by a strong desire to alleviate the suffering." Maybe Bush didn't lie at all, rather he targeted his "compassion" to those who needed it least...the criminally wealthy. He's not lying because he knew all along that they would, one day need his "compassion" more than ever, thus, the reason he's so anxious to bail them out now. He knew that, down the road, the criminally wealthy would be stricken by the "misfortune" of getting caught.

Read more...

Anti-Abortionists and Advocates for Gay Marriage Naturally Form a Symbiotic Relationship.

Believe me, it's not easy to oppose abortion and advocate for gay marriage at the same time, as those who believe this way tend to ruffle the feathers of both conservatives and liberals. So, I will frame this argument from a "morally relativistic" point of view (even though I'm a moral realist), as it eliminates any type of overall morality from interfering with my attempt at "logic".

Christians often choose abortion as the issue that determines which lever they pull when choosing who they want to represent them in Washington. Unfortunately, those same Christians often oppose gay marriage. This is clearly a non-sequitur, as gay marriage is a natural "antidote" to abortion. On the other hand, advocates of same-sex marriage often support the right to choose when abortion should be a non-issue for the exclusively homosexual, as homosexuality naturally limits abortion. Remember, this argument is from a morally relativistic point of view as a moral relativist has no right to impose his sense of morality on anyone else.

Therefore, I propose the following argument to support my position.

1. Premise: Life begins at conception.
2. Premise: Homosexuals who practice homosexuality exclusively cannot conceive.
3. Premise: Abortion ends the process that conception began.
4. Inference: This implies that homosexuals cannot begin the process of life.
5. Inference: Therefore homosexuals cannot have abortions.
6. Conclusion: Homosexuals naturally limit the number of abortions.

Right off the bat, people will dispute premise #1 because most "pro-choicers" do not believe life begins at conception, however I argue it does. With the exception of Jesus Christ, without conception, 99.9% of us would not exist. Evidence to debate premise #2 and #3 is non-existent.

Okay, where does "symbiosis" enter the equation? Well, homosexuality, by its very nature cuts down on the rate of abortion without any effort from anti-abortionists. Abortion, by its very nature, is a non-issue for homosexuals, if they are allowed to love the way God intended and since marriage, supposedly, is the ideal institution for the love between two people to flourish, then gay marriage is inevitable, as it promotes love, contains promiscuity, and greatly cuts down on the rate of abortion in more ways than one.

In addition to the natural deterrent gay marriage plays in lowering the abortion rate, it also has the potential to reduce the rate of abortion even further. Gay married couples, because they cannot conceive on their own, often adopt children, something "pro-lifers" often argue as an alternative to terminating a pregnancy.

So, in my humble opinion, anti-abortionists arguing against gay marriage is like...like, I don't know, anti-evolutionists arguing against the bible.

Read more...

Red-Scare Rhetoric Still Packs a Mean Punch

If you ask any American today what they think of McCarthyism, the vast majority will condemn it as a dark period in our nation's history yet more than likely these same people will cringe at anything associated with "Communism" even if what is associated, has nothing at all to do with that form of government.

Conservative politicians, very aware of the power "McCarthyism" still holds, figured out that by appropriating certain parts of the English language under the banner of communism, they could make most Americans vote counter to their own interests. In other words, they select benign words; soak them in a "communist red" solution until the whole spectrum of "red-scare rhetoric" is represented, ranging from "commie pinko" to full-blown "soviet crimson”, and then apply them to anything that interferes with their agenda. This tactic is so powerful it can convince the majority to deliver themselves into the hands of the enemy.

"Socialized" is an example of one of the words this group has chosen to soak in their "communist red" solution, allowing the word to absorb just enough of the color to manifest a distinct shade of pink. Any government-sponsored program that tries to level the playing field between the haves and the have-nots is labeled with this pink word. Yet, what about all the Republicans who are in favor of publicly funding defense? What about publicly funding capitalism?

If the word socialized is defined as any program that is publicly financed or under government control, our defense program, and capitalism are most certainly, socialized. True, President Bush is trying to semi-privatize the military by using independent contractors in Iraq; however, defense and military spending consumes most of his budget, therefore it is socialized.

In contrast to the word, socialized, the term capitalism is pink-free, all-American, and totally supported by all those who circulate among the right-winged, wealthy elite. Yet despite the American flag, wrapped letters, only a very small part of the private sector reap the rewards of capitalism, and "we the people" always pay for its failure, especially every time the government bails out an industry or company. Not only that, between corporate welfare, rules, and regulations or lack thereof, created to benefit the rich, and a 28th grade level of education - or the money to hire people with that level of education required to figure it all out - American capitalism sounds pretty socialized to me.

As long as the socialized program does not enable or prop up the part of the population who struggle to make ends meet or who may have hit hard times, then, not only is it OK to bankroll, according to conservatives, its perfectly patriotic to run a deficit so large we can barely keep track of what it truly is.

Those who embody conservatism, whether they like Ayn Rand or not, embrace her egoistic ethics and believe in her "every man for himself" philosophy, totally discounting the importance of social structure and co-operation that allowed humanity to survive and evolve over time.

I am certainly not advocating Socialism, merely pointing out that just as each one of us is a complex composite of many different qualities, our society is also a composite of capitalism, democracy and yes, even socialism. Our job is to adjust, balance, and tweak the ratio of each element to create the kind of society our Founding Fathers so eloquently established in the Constitution.

Read more...

What are Conservatives Really Interested In?

Conservapedia statistics:
1. Main Page‎ [1,899,525]
2. Homosexuality‎ [1,518,111]
3. Homosexuality and Hepatitis‎ [516,389]
4. Homosexuality and Promiscuity‎ [417,946]
5. Homosexuality and Parasites‎ [387,620]
6. Homosexuality and Domestic Violence‎ [339,502]
7. Gay Bowel Syndrome‎ [329,463]
8. Homosexuality and Gonorrhea‎ [329,081]
9. Homosexuality and Mental Health‎ [263,979]
10. Homosexuality and Syphilis‎ [263,029]

Read more...

What is a "Compassionate Conservative"?

Compassionate Conservatives argue liberate the poor from dependency through welfare reform, which reinforced self-defeating attitudes.free their communities from criminal anarchy through activist policing, give them the education they need to succeed in a modern economy by holding their schools accountable, and let them enjoy the rewards of work by taxing their modest wages lightly or not at all. For the worst off—those hampered by addiction or alcohol or faulty socialization—let the government pay private organizations, especially religious ones, to help. Such people need a change of heart to solve their problems, the president himself deeply believed; and while a clergyman or a therapist might help them, a bureaucrat couldn’t.

"Is compassion beneath us? Is mercy below us? Should our party be led by someone who boasts of a hard heart?" I am proud to be a compassionate conservative. I welcome the label. And on this ground, I'll take my stand. [...] I am running because my party must match a conservative mind with a compassionate heart, And I'm running to win."

Read more...

Neurobiology of Politics

A new study finds that a person's political orientation is related to differences in how the brain processes information. Liberals tolerate ambiguity and conflict better than conservatives and therefore are more open to new ideas.

"...the results provided an elegant demonstration that individual differences on a conservative-liberal dimension are strongly related to brain activity." -- Frank J. Sulloway, UC Berkeley's Institute of Personality and Social Research

Read more...

This Conspiracy is No Theory

By Paul Krugman

In 1981, Gary North, a leader of the Christian Reconstructionist movement — the openly theocratic wing of the Christian right — suggested that the movement could achieve power by stealth. “Christians must begin to organize politically within the present party structure,” he wrote, “and they must begin to infiltrate the existing institutional order.”

Today, Regent University, founded by the televangelist Pat Robertson to provide “Christian leadership to change the world,” boasts that it has 150 graduates working in the Bush administration.

Unfortunately for the image of the school, where Mr. Robertson is chancellor and president, the most famous of those graduates is Monica Goodling, a product of the university’s law school. She’s the former top aide to Alberto Gonzales who appears central to the scandal of the fired U.S. attorneys and has declared that she will take the Fifth rather than testify to Congress on the matter.

The infiltration of the federal government by large numbers of people seeking to impose a religious agenda — which is very different from simply being people of faith — is one of the most important stories of the last six years. It’s also a story that tends to go underreported, perhaps because journalists are afraid of sounding like conspiracy theorists.

But this conspiracy is no theory. The official platform of the Texas Republican Party pledges to “dispel the myth of the separation of church and state.” And the Texas Republicans now running the country are doing their best to fulfill that pledge.

Kay Cole James, who had extensive connections to the religious right and was the dean of Regent’s government school, was the federal government’s chief personnel officer from 2001 to 2005. (Curious fact: she then took a job with Mitchell Wade, the businessman who bribed Representative Randy “Duke” Cunningham.) And it’s clear that unqualified people were hired throughout the administration because of their religious connections.

For example, The Boston Globe reports on one Regent law school graduate who was interviewed by the Justice Department’s civil rights division. Asked what Supreme Court decision of the past 20 years he most disagreed with, he named the decision to strike down a Texas anti-sodomy law. When he was hired, it was his only job offer.

Or consider George Deutsch, the presidential appointee at NASA who told a Web site designer to add the word “theory” after every mention of the Big Bang, to leave open the possibility of “intelligent design by a creator.” He turned out not to have, as he claimed, a degree from Texas A&M.

One measure of just how many Bushies were appointed to promote a religious agenda is how often a Christian right connection surfaces when we learn about a Bush administration scandal.

There’s Ms. Goodling, of course. But did you know that Rachel Paulose, the U.S. attorney in Minnesota — three of whose deputies recently stepped down, reportedly in protest over her management style — is, according to a local news report, in the habit of quoting Bible verses in the office?

Or there’s the case of Claude Allen, the presidential aide and former deputy secretary of health and human services, who stepped down after being investigated for petty theft. Most press reports, though they mentioned Mr. Allen’s faith, failed to convey the fact that he built his career as a man of the hard-line Christian right.

And there’s another thing most reporting fails to convey: the sheer extremism of these people.

You see, Regent isn’t a religious university the way Loyola or Yeshiva are religious universities. It’s run by someone whose first reaction to 9/11 was to brand it God’s punishment for America’s sins.

Two days after the terrorist attacks, Mr. Robertson held a conversation with Jerry Falwell on Mr. Robertson’s TV show “The 700 Club.” Mr. Falwell laid blame for the attack at the feet of “the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians,” not to mention the A.C.L.U. and People for the American Way. “Well, I totally concur,” said Mr. Robertson.

The Bush administration’s implosion clearly represents a setback for the Christian right’s strategy of infiltration. But it would be wildly premature to declare the danger over. This is a movement that has shown great resilience over the years. It will surely find new champions.

Read more...

Conservative Bias at Fox??

I never would have guessed.

Read more...