Discerning Truth in a Hux-Orwellian World.

We've never had so many options to choose from. Yet, despite the hundreds of cable channels, 24/7 "news", countless magazines, and the availability of the Internet, etc., the average person is less informed than ever before. Why is this the case? Well, for one, the choices aren't real; it's an illusion of choice.   Why? Because all of these choices are controlled by five or six ginormous multinational corporations that put out the same propaganda in slightly different packages.  All style and no substance.

There is an all-out effort to change the meanings of words, if not eliminate certain words entirely...or create new ones to facilitate the political/capitalist/corporate agenda. The broadcast-controllers subtly, or not so subtly, rework the definition of a word, until it means the exact opposite of its original meaning.

“The war is not meant to be won, it is meant to be continuous. Hierarchical society is only possible on the basis of poverty and ignorance. This new version is the past and no different past can ever have existed. In principle the war effort is always planned to keep society on the brink of starvation. The war is waged by the ruling group against its own subjects and its object is not the victory over either Eurasia or East Asia, but to keep the very structure of society intact.” -George Orwell

Demonizing a word is another tactic of our Orwellian leadership, because it very effectively shuts down further exploration of issues and/or controversial subjects.

Take the word, conspiracy, for example. This effort to equate the word conspiracy with lunacy can be traced back at least as far as the JFK assassination, maybe even further. The definition of conspiracy is: an agreement to perform together an illegal, wrongful, or subversive act. Uh...hello? This isn't happening in the highest corridors of the power structure that leads us astray? Must not be, if people's reactions to this despised word are any indication.

Nope. Despite the fact that 90% of our politicians are playing the game exclusively to line their pockets and secure their personal future. And it's almost always at the expense of these very same people, who look at you as if they want to set you on a fast-track to a lobotomy, for daring to suggest that the power-hungry, greedy leaders may be, indeed, conspiring. Yet, at the same time, most people will readily admit that the power elite are plundering the till with impunity.

Okay, so all of these politicians, world leaders, corporate leaders and banksters...they all act completely alone, without consulting with anyone else?  And it's all just one big coincidence that these independently acting individuals produce results that are excessively advantageous to one infinitesimally small group of people, time after time?  It would seem to me that the near-clockwork precision of a very well organized group would be required to achieve what appears to be near perfect results. If you doubt it, just compare and contrast their ever-growing wealth and power to that of the average American citizen.

Not only do they control the money, they control the language, which is the ultimate control of other people's thoughts.  When you combine the  manipulation of our language, and the suppression and twisting of information , with total control of the money supply, it ensures a constant state of mass confusion necessary to create a Hux-Orwellian world where war is peace. Ignorance is strength, and freedom is slavery.

This is Orwell's world.  Although the Huxley carrot is still dangling - here in the United States, anyway - the Orwellian stick is becoming more prominent every day. The over-abundant trinkets, trivia, and encouragement of mindless consumption serve to divert our attention away from the colossal surveillance society that is manifesting right before our distracted eyes.

In a nutshell, 2 + 2 no longer = 4. It's the annihilation of an objective reality through the alteration of everyday thought and language.

 Aldous Huxley v. George Orwell.

Read more...

Obama Signs His 86th Executive Order to Seize Greater Power Over “Food, Fiber, and Energy,”

On June 9, 2011, President Obama signed his 86th Executive Order (W signed total of 291). E.O. 13575 will largely impact 16% of the people...the rural population, to be exact. In addition Obama also formed the “White House Rural Council” (WHRC) while everyone was distracted by Weiner's Twitter fiasco.

Section One of 13575 states the following.

Section 1. Policy. Sixteen percent of the American population lives in rural counties. Strong, sustainable rural communities are essential to winning the future and ensuring American competitiveness in the years ahead. These communities supply our food, fiber, and energy, safeguard our natural resources, and are essential in the development of science and innovation. Though rural communities face numerous challenges, they also present enormous economic potential. The Federal Government has an important role to play in order to expand access to the capital necessary for economic growth, promote innovation, improve access to health care and education, and expand outdoor recreational activities on public lands.

Now, this will raise the red flags of some who are familiar with Agenda 21, a plot to take over the world a United Nations plan for “sustainable development” that was backed by George H.W. Bush and 177 other world leaders.  As one person pointed out: 1 + 3 + 5 + 7 + 5 = 21.

Agenda 21 proposes an array of actions which are intended to be implemented by every person on earth. … [I]t calls for specific changes in the activities of all people. … Effective execution of Agenda 21 will require a profound reorientation of all humans, unlike anything the world has ever experienced.- One of the agenda's planners at the Earth Summit Strategy to Save Our Planet.

This is one powerful council, as it includes every single department:

• Timothy Geithner, Department of the Treasury
• Robert Gates, Department of Defense
• Eric Holder, Department of Justice
• Ken Salazar, Department of the Interior
• Department of Commerce, Gary Locke
• Hilda Solis, Department of Labor
• Kathleen Sebelius, Department of Health and Human Services
• Shaun Donovan, Department of Housing and Urban Development
• Ray LaHood, Department of Transportation
• Dr. Steven Chu , Department of Energy
• Arne Duncan, Department of Education
• Eric Shinseki, Department of Veterans Affairs
• Janet Napolitano, Department of Homeland Security;
• Lisa Jackson, Environmental Protection Agency
• Federal Communications Commission, Michael Copps
• Peter Orszag Office of Management and Budget
• John Holdren, Office of Science and Technology Policy
• R. Gil Kerlikowske, Office of National Drug Control Policy
• Austan Goolsbee, Council of Economic Advisers
• Melody Barnes(former VP Center for American Progress)Domestic Policy Council
• Gene B. Sperling, National Economic Council
• Karen Mills, Small Business Administration;
• Nancy Sutley, Council on Environmental Quality
• Valerie Jarrett, White House Office of Public Engagement and Intergovernmental Affairs
• Chris Lu (and/or anyone else designated by the 24 aforementioned), White House Office of Cabinet Affairs

I have no idea as to the authenticity of this map. Supposedly, it was presented to the US Senate to stop the "biodiversity" agenda of the UN. If nothing else it's fun to see whether you may stand in the way of the system to protect the the piping plover and the pallid sturgeon .

Read more...

Potential of Gay Men...Hence Society's Fear

Why is society terrified of male homosexuals, in particular? Why is 90% of the population terrified of a group of males who make up at the very most (according to Kinsey) 10% of the population?

After all, society in general, makes it clear that gay men are weak, lack strength, can't even hold down a pair of loafers etc.

Okay...if gay men are so fragile, feeble, and collapse under the strain, what's the big deal? Why must most boys who, from the moment their less than "masculine" traits manifest, experience habitual intimidation, cruelty, and persecution from every corner of their world, even their own families?

Racial and religious minorities still have the support of family and friends growing up; however, young "effeminate" boys must withstand and bear the weight of society's hatred all alone. In general, "tomboys" are accepted for the most part, even preferred in some cases, whereas everyone, including their own family members, often ostracizes boys who do not conform to society’s standards of masculine. I've heard some adults go as far as to say they would rather hear their son had cancer than find out he is a homosexual. What is it about male homosexuality that can turn, what appears to be a normal person, into a fearful, sadistic, raging lunatic? What is it about male homosexuality that can make parents turn on their own child?

Years ago, this conversation -- as much as I can recall -- transpired between my Aunt and Uncle, the same ones who unmercifully punished their kid for cursing, and later that day told the boy, "Be careful next time" after he shot the dog’s eye out just for something to do. Keep in mind, my mother told me this and considering how she feels about my father’s side of the family, this may contain some embellishment.

Aunt: "Bill, I’m afraid I have bad news.it..it's Jimmy. You better sit down..."

Uncle: "OK, what did he do this time? Should I get the strap?"

Aunt: "Now Bill, please...I want you to remain as calm as you poss....getting.."

Uncle: "Oh my God! My son's a homo, isn't he"?!?!?

Aunt: "Oh Heaven forbid! Of course not...I said, bad news not devastating..."

Uncle: "Goddammit! What the hell is it?"

Aunt: "Honey, your language...our Lord...He's listening..and..."

Uncle: "Fuck! What the hell is it?"

Aunt: "Our Jimmy is a murderer."

Uncle: "...don’t ever scare me like that again! Murder...we can deal with. Call my attorney...I'm sure he has the names of some good defense attorneys...By the way. Who did he kill?

Aunt: "Bria.."

Uncle: "You mean that kid who ruined Jimmy’s chances at a baseball scholarship..the same kid who threw a ball like my Great Aunt Ethel, and the one who lost that all important final game that would have given Jimmy the exposure....

Aunt: "That’s the one."

Uncle: " Well as usual, Jimmy took things a little too far, but...."

Aunt: "...but we always knew Jimmy was “all boy” didn’t we Bill? He was always.."

Uncle: "That poor kid was so disappointed when that homo Brian didn't get the ball... "

From this strange conversation, I would say my aunt and uncle value "masculinity" more than anything else, more than their Lord, and even more than life itself.

Why all the hatred toward people who society makes very clear, are "frail"? Why does society insist upon convincing this group, who they perceive as "less than masculine", that they are powerless? Why does this cruel form of "brainwashing" begin, in many cases, before some of these boys even start school?

More than biology, gender is mostly a social construct. Gender specifically dictates what is socially and culturally "normal" for men and women in our patriarchal system. Gender inequality makes certain the established few will maintain authoritative and/or dominating influence over the many. The United Nations sums it up this way.

"Women, who comprise half the world's population, do two thirds of the world's work, earn one tenth of the world's income and own one hundredth of the world's property."

Men rule, that's for sure, but it only takes a small minority of men...the rest of the population, including the men excluded from this small minority - 99% of all men - must be kept in line so that the structure of the patriarchal system can continue to exist. Society achieves this by clearly defining what is masculine and what is considered "less than" masculine, labeling it "feminine" or "weak".

Conditioned from birth on how to act and respond, most males conform by repressing any side of themselves that defies qualities traditionally ascribed to men. The irony is their quest to be men is rooted in fear, fear of not living up to society's agenda for them. In other words, sheep, scared to death of anything that might interfere with their "virility"...hardly what I'd call manly.

Boys who read more books than are physically active or express emotions more than is appropriate are labeled less than masculine. There is a very good reason this is so...passionate men, who think for themselves pose a great danger to what took thousands of years to build; therefore, it's best if masculinity is defined in such a way that pretty much eliminates both passion and intellect.

For example, American men, it seems, are only allowed to express excessive emotion when it comes to sports, dogs, and patriotism. Intellectual men are classified as commie, pinko, weak and not as manly despite the fact that most of the founding fathers could be described as intellectuals. Too many thinking men in touch with their emotions in combination with their physical strength could wreak havoc on a system where authority is vested in "maleness"?

The one emotion men are allowed to express, and still be men is anger. It's important not to eliminate anger from a man's repertoire of emotion because anger is mobilizing, and channeled correctly can make for a better warrior. However, in order for anger to remain "manly" it must be directed toward non-conformity, men's bluster takes on a "pinkish" hue, because of all the emotions, anger is the most dangerous if ever it's directed toward "thee man".

By their very presence, gay men dare to challenge all of the protocols derived from a society organized around male privilege and the oppressive relationship between "masculine" and "feminine." Acceptance of gay male characteristics could very possibly undermine not only the definition of what it is to be a man, but make acceptable, feminine qualities.

So, what's the deal? Why so much effort to keep gay men down?

First of all, openly gay men are anything but weak, the reason the process of indoctrination begins so early. Enduring a lifetime of animosity, hate, rejection and threats to body, mind and soul, openly gay men have shown the kind of courage the majority of the population does not have and never will possess in their lifetime. This is especially true of gay men whose effeminacy outs them at a very young age. Even if these men never officially "come out" the courage it must take to face and overcome the abuse inflicted upon them, sometimes on a daily basis from early childhood on is remarkable. In contrast, dig beneath the surface of male bravado and you will find insecurities and fear so deeply ingrained it would take years of psychological therapy to penetrate. Someone once said, those "who worship power are the most terrified creatures on earth".

Secondly, due to the stigma of male homosexuality, there is no telling how many gay men really exist. If homosexuals suddenly became as worthy as heterosexuals, therefore providing the generative force necessary to push all men attracted to other men out of the closet ; gay men might band together and discover how powerful they really are.

Thirdly, all openly gay men, to one degree or another, defy society's definition of what it is to be a "man", blurring the boundaries relating to gender, and many pay the price that other men are not willing to take. What if we remove the price and tolerate gay men the same way we accept straight men? "Masculine" would be redefined over time to include the complete spectrum of emotion, creativity, intellect, and all the characteristics currently defined as "less than" masculine. These same qualities kept in check by the powers that be, once released, might allow men, in turn, to release their fears and embrace who they really are instead of letting family, friends, social institutions and tradition dictate who they should be.

Most gay men have learned to depend on themselves, having no one to turn too when growing up, therefore making it difficult to trust others and less likely to unite. Unfortunately, this greatly advantages those who want to keep gay men "in their place". However, if openly gay men, already courageous, unite and harness that courage, greatly increasing their power, and encourage those more inhibited to shear the wool coat, a true revolution of values could result and put an end to the lies that keep us all in line.

Read more...

Are Republicans Hijackers?

Embedded in the DNA of American culture is the notion that the activities of external life - doing, fixing, accumulating, competing, accomplishing etc. - trumps the activities of internal life - reflecting, thinking, becoming, evolving, etc. In addition, Americans tend to value obedience, conformity and simplistic thinking over depth of knowledge, dissent, and critical thinking. This type of atmosphere, where reflection, self-awareness, and intellectualism are disposable and, in some circles, seen as a sign of weakness, providing fertile ground for the agenda of despotism as it creates the perfect "hijackee" (emotional).

What is emotional hijack? Supposedly, in stressful or threatening circumstances, emotion "hijacks" our rational thought processes. The signals we receive in a "threatening" situation bypasses our "thinking brain" (cortex), and sends the signal straight to the amygdala, which is the most primitive part of our brain and functions primarily to react in a defensive and self-protective manner.

So, what does all of this have to do with politics or Republicans? Studies have shown that people retain information better when that information is accompanied by emotion; therefore, there is no better time to inform habits of thought than when the brain is seized by sorrow, fear, anger, or hate. This is the time to convince "Joe the Plumber" that his interests align perfectly with big moneyed interests.

Republicans excel at emotionally "hijacking" the American public, either as the catalyst for combustion or ready to jump in and exploit the "threatening" situation to their benefit. This is when the GOP intentionally diverts America's attention away from the actual source of the problem and targets a scapegoat - a group or program (gay, poor, African Americans, Welfare, New Deal etc.) - who, not only are innocent of wrongdoing, but are victims of the disruptive or upsetting conditions, as well. Republicans are notoriously good at paving the way to hell so that we, the people look forward to the trip, so much so, that we actively participate in our own undoing as the politically elite cash in.

So, are Republicans hijackers? It depends. Obviously, if the Republicans orchestrate an event for the sole purpose of exploiting its citizenry, the label hijacker applies. However, if Republicans did not plan the threatening event, which is more than likely the case, rather they readily pounced on the first calamity to exploit it to further their agenda, the label does not apply, because their ability to take advantage of a negative event requires our permission to do so.

Having said all that, emotional "hijacking" does not account for the complex, intricate relationship that exists between thinking and emotion in human beings. Thinking underlies our emotions and emotions propel our thinking and it is up to us to control both in such a way that we consider the good of the greatest number of people involved, otherwise, it is likely that political leaders will succeed when employing manipulative techniques to get us to act against self interest.

Ironically, if we indulge in intellectual laziness, and show no interest in evolving our thinking beyond that of a 2-year old, where everything is about me, me, me, our myopic, self-centered thought patterns will prevent us from seeing the whole picture, making us the perfect candidate for politicians who will do their very best to make us accomplices in efforts to disenfranchise ourselves.

We can prevent the greedy, power-hungry political elite from emotionally hijacking us by differentiating ourselves from them. We can do this by consciously transforming our egocentric, self-serving thinking, unconcerned with the rights of others, to a more self-aware, non-egocentric, comprehensive way of employing one's mind. Then, and only then, can we impose intelligence on our emotions and challenge the destructive dynamics that the politically elite create to remain in power and enables all 1% of them to earn more than the bottom 50% and own more than the bottom 90% of our population combined.

Read more...

Using Children to Forward Our Own Agendas.

I didn't write this. A friend, who in her own words identifies herself as a baby-boomer "soccer mom" who hates soccer, asked me to post this. She said, in response to my suggestion that she set up her own blog, "I don't see why anyone would want to read what I have to write every day. She obviously does not have the narcissism required to blog.

Children. What are they good for?

They cost a hell of a lot of money, can be a huge obstacle to reaching our goals, complicate our lives and can be totally irrational. In other words, children are a burden on society, yet without them, the future would be non-existent.

Children were not always the burden they are now. Not long ago, the more children, the more farm hands or able bodies there were to pitch in, bettering the family’s chance of maintaining a decent standard of living. Of course, like everything else, it's not as simple as I'm making it sound. Keeping that in mind, children definitely contributed and had to sacrifice for the sake of the family and society, unfortunately, in some cases, to the extent of sacrificing their childhood. The sad part is as much as we have tried to change this aspect of childrearing, the more it’s stayed the same or perhaps, gotten worse.

Back in the day that children “were seen and not heard”, in order to get children to cooperate, what would have been considered child abuse today, was not only tolerated, it was encouraged and children were vulnerable to whatever cruel and unusual treatment their parents chose to inflict upon them. However, instead of doing a 180° to correct the wrongs of raising children in past generations, we did a 360° and discarded the real gold with the fool's gold. In addition to eliminating the concept of sacrifice, selflessness, “teamwork” – unless it’s their soccer, football, baseball team - we have encouraged them to believe that any material item they desire can be theirs without lifting a finger. In this society of “bigger is better” and “who we are depends on what we have or can afford”, we are raising our children to be bottomless pits, who will always try to fill the voids in life with material possessions instead of opportunities to better themselves and society.

With a vast knowledge of child psychology at our fingertips, we try to do what’s best for our children, instead of what’s easiest for us. Let’s face it, it’s a lot easier to put the fear of God in our children by beating them to a pulp than to “democratize” the family unit, and respect children as real human beings. Child psychology made us scrutinize the way we raise our children. We no longer tolerate child abuse and realize children are not our possessions to treat as we wish but human beings who have rights. However, rather than stop there, we’ve taken the “all or nothing” approach and cast aside valuable lessons from past generations such as teaching children the value of a dollar, the importance of supporting the family unit, selflessness, the meaning of respect etc. Parents, who are able, instill an unprecedented sense of entitlement instead of preparing them for the reality that the world does not revolve around them and that they are entitled to very little.

Both parents normally work full-time to meet a standard of living that affords them not only everything they want, but everything their children want or think they want as well. These kids raised in "soccer mom" suburbia , grow up with no expectations of having to earn anything until they graduate college. Not only do they cost a fortune but all their materialistic wants and desires are met before their even aware of them, half the time.

One has to wonder what’s in it for these parents of these children? After all, the current generations of parents are not exactly known for depriving themselves. Baby-boomer parents (those born from approx. 1946-1964), the first generation of children in the US to cost more than they could ever contribute, and the first generation to experience the over-indulgence that post-WWII conditions made possible, creatively found the solution to lessening the “burden” of this expensive task, because we all know “baby-boomers”, couldn't fathom doing something for nothing, even raising their own children. There had to be something in it for them.

What makes parenting in "soccer mom" suburbia all worth it? For one, a second chance for Mom and Dad to vicariously achieve what they could not, temporarily finding a reprieve from growing old, the baby-boomer’s biggest fear. By over scheduling the childhood of their offspring away in all sorts of extra curricular activities, in order to show them off like prized race horses, today’s parents do not altruistically sacrifice themselves for the sake of their children. Not to say parents do not love their children just as much, if not more than generations of parents before them, but that their expectations are often very self-serving and not in the true best interest of their child even though it appears as if it is.

In the end, it all comes down to what’s in it for the parents. Are two parents working beneficial to the children if the second parent only works for more square footage, better vacations, and designer clothes? Or does the child benefit more from living in a smaller house, transported around in no-status cars, going on low cost vacations, shopping at Value City in an attempt to spend as much time as possible with him or her?

When we schedule every minute of our child’s time, is it because we truly believe this is the best thing for them? Or are we trying to do over our own childhood in an attempt to do the things we could not, were not very good at, or did so well that we want to relive the experience?

The answer is not always obvious, however, when you find yourself so involved in your child’s activities that you start to enjoy them more than your children, that’s always a clue that perhaps you may be using your child to forward your own agenda.

Read more...

Know the "Agenda" of Your" Proxy Representation"

The representation of people through professionals whose whole career is based on the knowledge of a certain subject or field is sometimes absolutely necessary, but that doesn't mean you (the one being represented) is required to passively accept everything your representative or "expert" says and/or does. Quite the contrary, if you can speak for yourself, then you should do so, but if you must seek representation, you should speak up as well because no one knows "you" as well as you.

After reading Gore After Gore in Vanity Fair Magazine, it occurred to me that letting someone else represent or stand or act in place of you, as a substitute, proxy, or agent is a very risky enterprise considering everyone has a personal and professional "agenda." Not only that, the representative’s organized plan for matters to be attended, or things to be done on your behalf, may be based on one or a combination of many different reasons that range from selflessness, empathy, compassion, love, altruism, idealism to ambition, greed or the desire to gain financially, anger, hatred, revenge, sexual and the list goes on indefinitely, but usually falls under one or many of the categories I mentioned above. The scariest part of "agenda" is that the person serving as a representative may not be conscious that his "agenda" exists, or cognizant that it is completely at odds with the "agenda" he is aware of.

Journalism and law are perfect examples of professions that demand a certain level of objectivity.

Take for example an attorney who works for a firm. Above and beyond all else, he must zealously represent his or her client to the best of his ability, defending the rule of law our Justice system has established and he must also be mindful of the deficiencies in the administration of justice concerning the ability to afford legal representation. This attorney must also establish a career and a reputation amongst the judges and his or her peers that he will be associating with now and in the future. And then of course, there is one's personal "agenda"...conscious or subconscious, one's personal "agenda" is not supposed to play a part in representing his client, but it most certainly does for better or worse.

The problem is that many "professionals" do not admit to having a bias or that their view is somewhat limited depending on the prism of popular culture, personal experience and significant others have had on influencing the construction of their reality and belief system. Therefore, it's best that the person "representing" is as aware as he can be of his personal bias and acknowledge it so that he can recognize when it starts to interfere with his duties.

Unfortunately, many "professionals" do not admit to or are not aware of their personal bias. It's up to "us" as consumers, clients, citizens to know the person representing "us" is indeed human, and that his past, present and what he hopes for the future all will affect the quality of his representation or in a journalist's case, reporting.

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...