The Assault On America
March 12, 2015
Commentary by Lucy Warner

America is moving toward a perilous future of control by the “1%” of our most wealthy citizens and corporations. It is occurring, however, on the grassroots level through a perversion of the concept of patriotism to mean a mindless “love of country,” hatred of those considered to be outsiders, and extreme materialism. Religious Dominionism is no longer a threat for the future either, but a day to day reality in the more conservative parts of our country. Hillary Clinton spoke of a shadowy “conspiracy” of right wing forces, which I didn't really take seriously at the time she said it, but since 9/11 it is becoming visible in small town life and attitudes around the country.

Three days ago 47 Republican senators actually wrote an open letter to the leaders in Iran who are in the process of working toward an international agreement to eliminate the threat of nuclear arms development there. This letter threatened that the President has no authority to conduct international agreements without Senate backing and that within “a few years,” Obama will be out of office and the newly elected president may do away with the agreement “with the stroke of a pen.” This letter came on the heels of a news article stating that Iran has expressed interest in a plan of dramatic reductions in the number of their nuclear centrifuges and stockpile of uranium, and the willingness to negotiate a pledge not to develop nuclear weapons. That should be all the Republicans want, after all.

Israel, however, under “Bibi” Netanyahu, is strongly concerned about Iran and its overall trustworthiness. They apparently fear armed attacks from Iran. CBS news last night also state that Saudi Arabia fears Iran as well. Interestingly the Iraqi government is accepting their aid against ISIS, even though it hasn't been too long since they were engaged in a war with Iran. Iraq, wisely, will accept any aid against ISIS.

The Republicans in Congress about two weeks ago also made an equally unprecedented move. They invited Netanyahu to speak to Congress – without so much as mentioning it to Obama beforehand. Both of these recent actions can be viewed in two ways – either they are so full of hatred toward Obama that they want to embarrass him as often as possible, even to the extent of destabilizing the US government, or they are moving toward an actual attempt to control the US government by unconstitutional and completely unethical means. Notably, not all of the Senate's Republicans signed that letter, but mainly because they thought it was a clumsy and ill advised move rather than because they disagreed. At least it does show, however, that there are a few Republicans who are not totally under the thumb of the Tea Party.

The real assault against our democratic traditions began at the grassroots level in the 1950's and '60s when school desegregation and the Civil Rights movement forced changes in state laws, which in nefarious ways such as the poll tax, had prevented blacks from voting freely and exercising all their guaranteed liberties. If that didn't work, the KKK was always there to step in and put those black folk who didn't “know their place” in fear of their lives. In 1954 Brown v Board of Education ended – theoretically at least – the segregated school systems throughout the country. The racist attitudes and behavior that had always existed were no longer sanctioned by the law. The South, West and Midwest white citizens were stripped of specialness and access to unbridled societal protection in matters of racial balance and fairness and their fury was profound.

The Republican party then began “colonizing” those formerly Democratic parts of the country, and the political philosophy of Barry Goldwater hit the public consciousness with a splash. Then came William F Buckley, a repulsively egotistical pundit who smirked constantly while mouthing the conservative viewpoints with what he hoped was the vocabulary of a Harvard professor. Many Americans were impressed by him. Also there was a rise in popularity of the author Ayn Rand. All of them had in common one thing – they were very close to being fascist thinkers. Ronald Reagan than popularized the “trickle down” theory of economics, which pleased those who thought of Social Security as “welfare,” and the recipients of welfare as generally black “welfare queens.” The assault on the social safety net was begun. The formation of the group now familiarly known as the Tea Party has driven the final nail into what may be the coffin of America as I know and love it.

I am watching the public reaction to this warning letter to the Iranians, however, both in this country and abroad. Many people, have voiced descriptions of the move as being ignorant and disgusting. No one, so far, has defended the 47 signers. I am greatly encouraged by this. A number of the Tea Party candidates have variously committed political errors, from recommending slavery as a modern day life style that would benefit blacks, to trying to introduce Christianity as the state religion and Biblical law as the basis of a new legal system. I keep waiting for those good honest citizens and Christians to stand up in the cause of fairness, and cast aside their new masters, the top 1% of net worth in this country and the Oil and Coal industries such as the infamous Koch brothers. That means vote the rascals out of office. Let 2016 see their defeat and the arrival of a US political philosophy that again values laws that aid the poor, educate all children equally, feed the hungry and treat all citizens with fairness and respect.






http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatism_in_the_United_States

Conservatism in the United States
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Historian Gregory Schneider identifies several constants in American conservatism: respect for tradition, support of republicanism, "the rule of law and the Christian religion," and a defense of "Western civilization from the challenges of modernist culture and totalitarian governments."[1]

Historians in recent decades argue that the conservative tradition has played a major role in American politics and culture since the American Revolution. However they have stressed that an organized conservative movement has played a key role in politics only since the 1950s. The recent movement is based in the Republican Party, but during the era ofsegregation, before 1965, many Southern Democrats were conservatives, and they played a central role in the Conservative Coalition that largely controlled domestic legislation in Congress from 1937 to 1963. The Southern white conservatives moved from the Democratic Party to the Republican Party (GOP) at the presidential level in the 1960s, and at the state and local level after 1990.[2][3][4]

The history of American conservatism has been marked by tensions and competing ideologies. Fiscal conservatives andlibertarians favor small government, low taxes, limited regulation, and free enterprise. Social conservatives see traditional social values as threatened by secularism; they tend to support school prayer and the Second Amendment rights of private citizens to own firearms and to oppose abortion and oppose same-sex marriage.[5][6][7][8][9] Neoconservatives want to expand American ideals throughout the world.[10] Paleoconservatives advocate restrictions on immigration, non-interventionist foreign policy, and stand in opposition to multiculturalism.[11] Nationwide most factions (except the libertarians) support a unilateral foreign policy, and a strong military. The conservative movement of the 1950s attempted to bring together these divergent strands, stressing the need for unity to prevent the spread of "Godless Communism."[12]

William F. Buckley Jr., in the first issue of his magazine National Review in 1955, explained the standards of his magazine and helped make explicit the beliefs of American conservatives:[13]

“Among our convictions:

It is the job of centralized government (in peacetime) to protect its citizens’ lives, liberty and property. All other activities of government tend to diminish freedom and hamper progress. The growth of government (the dominant social feature of this century) must be fought relentlessly. In this great social conflict of the era, we are, without reservations, on the libertarian side. The profound crisis of our era is, in essence, the conflict between the Social Engineers, who seek to adjust mankind to conform with scientific utopias, and the disciples of Truth, who defend the organic moral order. We believe that truth is neither arrived at nor illuminated by monitoring election results, binding though these are for other purposes, but by other means, including a study of human experience. On this point we are, without reservations, on the conservative side.”

President Ronald Reagan set the conservative standard in the 1980s; in the 2010s the Republican leaders typically claim fealty to it. For example most of the Republican candidates in 2012, "claimed to be standard bearers of Reagan's ideological legacy."[14] Reagan solidified conservative Republican strength with tax cuts, a greatly increased military budget, continuedderegulation, a policy of rollback of Communism (rather than just containing it), and appeals tofamily values and conservative morality. The 1980s and beyond became known as the "Reagan Era."[15] Typically, conservative politicians and spokesmen in the 21st century proclaim their devotion to Reagan's ideals and policies on most social, economic and foreign policy issues.

Other modern conservative beliefs include opposition to a world government, skepticism about the validity of environmental risks such as global warming.[16][17] They support a strong policy oflaw and order to control crime, including long jail terms for repeat offenders. The "law and order" issue was a major factor weakening liberalism in the 1960s.[18] From 2001 to 2008, Republican President George W. Bush stressed cutting taxes and minimizing regulation of industry and banking, while increasing regulation of education.[19] Conservatives generally advocate the use of American military power to fight terrorists and promote democracy in the Middle East.

Conservatism appears to be growing stronger at the state level. The trend is most pronounced among the "least well-off, least educated, most blue collar, most economically hard-hit states."[23][24]

Conservatives generally believe that government action cannot solve society's problems, such as poverty and inequality. Many believe that government programs that seek to provide services and opportunities for the poor actually encourage dependence and reduce self-reliance. Most conservatives oppose affirmative action policies, that is, policies in employment, education, and other areas that give special advantages to members of certain groups. Conservatives believe that the government should not give special treatment to individuals on the basis of group identity.

Conservatives typically hold that the government should not play a major role in regulating business and managing the economy. They typically oppose efforts to charge high tax rates and to redistribute income to assist the poor. Such efforts, they argue, do not properly reward people who have earned their money through hard work. However, social conservatives place a strong emphasis on the role of private voluntary charitable organizations (especially faith-based charities) in helping the poor.

Because conservatives value order and security, they traditionally favor a strong government role in law enforcement and national defense.





http://www.kansascity.com/news/government-politics/article11115413.html

Conservatives are changing Kansas law in ways that enshrine their power, weaken opponents
THE KANSAS CITY STAR
BY BRAD COOPER
02/25/2015 

Topeka – As the lobbyist for Wyandotte County’s Unified Government, Mike Taylor testified against a bill easing gun restrictions.

As he laid out his case, Taylor was put on the spot by state Republican Rep. Brett Hildabrand of Shawnee.

Hildabrand asked if Taylor knew a state law bars the use of public money to lobby for gun control. The legislator wondered whether Taylor violated the law.

Taylor countered that the law only applied to state money. He was on Wyandotte County’s payroll. Hildabrand later requested an opinion from the attorney general, who declined to weigh in.

It was a small dust-up a year ago, but it underscores how conservatives’ virtually unchallenged control of the Capitol opens the way for new policies that could undercut the influence of their traditional opposition for years to come.

Those efforts figure to weaken the lobbying efforts by cities, hamstring the power of teachers unions, limit how academics can speak out on public controversies and mold a more conservative judiciary.

“The reason why conservatives gained control of the House, the Senate and the governor’s office is because the people wanted us to,” said state Rep. Scott Schwab, a six-term veteran from Olathe. “If we get here and we don’t make the changes that the people sent us to do, then we fail them.”

But aggressive action on several fronts has triggered criticism — some of it coming from fellow Republicans — that the conservative majority might strip away basic fairness from the state’s political dynamics, especially with bills seen as targeting professors and the media.

“A lot of these legislators don’t like to hear opinions different from what they believe,” said Taylor, the Wyandotte lobbyist. “There should be room for robust debate and the ability to express contrary opinions in this building, of all places.”

Hildabrand describes himself as a “huge” free-speech supporter. The legislator said he was just uncertain about the law when he challenged Taylor last year.

He simply didn’t think taxpayer money should be used to advocate against gun rights enshrined in the U.S. Constitution.

“I have absolutely no problem,” Hildabrand said, “with people being able to voice their opinion.”

Since coming to power in the last four years, conservatives have reshaped state government — cutting taxes, curbing abortion, tilting the workplace in favor of the employer and restricting the power of teachers unions.

Along the way, conservatives pushed new policies seen by some as stifling political dissent.

Public employee unions are now barred from deducting money from members’ paychecks to help bankroll political activities, which tend to be directed against conservatives. State money can no longer be used to lobby for gun control. And lawmakers have pushed repeatedly to overhaul the makeup of a state Supreme Court that’s ordered the Legislature to spend millions more on schools and that the legislative majority sees as hostile to the death penalty.

“There is an attempt to have a great deal of control and as much control as possible,” said state Rep. Barbara Bollier, a Mission Hills Republican. “That’s not unusual in government, but I think it’s escalated. I’ve been here five years, and I can see more of it.”

Conservative leadership doesn’t see it that way. Its lawmakers say they’re pressing good public policy that makes sense for many reasons — whether it’s saving tax dollars, encouraging higher voter turnout or making teachers more accountable in the classroom.

House Speaker Ray Merrick said in a statement that legislators must ensure that state laws are “fair and modern.”

“Oftentimes, that irritates people who are determined to maintain the status quo, but it certainly doesn’t indicate malice or retaliation,” Merrick said. “We have an obligation to examine the way things have always been done to make sure it’s still the most effective policy for the state.”

But Republican state Rep. Don Hineman of western Kansas said attempts to muffle dissent are “very, very real.”

“It’s an effort to more narrowly dominate the discussion of really important issues with viewpoints from one side of the political spectrum,” Hineman said.

Some lawmakers say this year has been particularly acute for legislation aimed at clamping down on opposing views.

▪ A pair of lawmakers are backing a bill prohibiting university employees from providing or using their official title when writing newspaper columns.

Critics said the bill was directed at a group of Kansas political science professors who’ve written critically of Republican Gov. Sam Brownback and the Legislature.

Republican state Rep. Joe Seiwert of south-central Kansas said some constituents have complained about critical columns.

“If you’re going to be a professional and use your professional title, then you (should) be professional and talk about the facts,” he said. “Don’t criticize somebody. That’s not professional.”

Constituents, Seiwert said, want to know if the opinions expressed by professors are their personal opinions or reflect the views of the university. “Do the universities approve of what these professors are saying?”

Seiwert has since proposed softening the bill to only require universities to make a policy for determining when a title should be used.

▪ One bill would move city and school board elections from the spring to the fall. The measure’s sponsor, Republican state Sen. Mitch Holmes of central Kansas, issued a news release suggesting the bill would dilute the power of teachers unions. “The teachers unions do not want to give up the majority they currently enjoy in low turnout, off-cycle elections.”

The senator, however, said driving down the influence of the teachers union was not the motivation of his bill. Rather, he said the legislation aims to boost voter turnout for local elections.

“I do want the majority to be the majority,” Holmes said, “but I don’t think that’s unfair.”

▪ Republican state Rep. J.R. Claeys introduced a bill allowing city and county governments to post their legal notices on the Internet instead of publishing them in newspapers. The bill was introduced after Claeys’ residency was questioned by a Salina Journal report last September. The bill could cost newspapers thousands but also would save taxpayers money.

Claeys said his bill is not connected to the newspaper report about his residency.

“I don’t know that any argument could be made,” he said, “that by changing the way legal notices are done it is somehow going to prevent the Salina Journal from printing lies.”

But overall, some political observers argue that dissenters have been punished, including a group of moderate Republican senators who were booted out office in 2012 with the help of Brownback.

“We are on the march toward this idea that dissent is treason,” said Mark Desetti, lobbyist for the Kansas National Education Association. “That’s troublesome.”

Conservative Rep. Jerry Lunn of Overland Park said the criticism over dissent is an outgrowth of the state’s political makeup.

“I don’t see it as a conspiracy,” Lunn said. “The state is very red and people may not like that, but that’s the fact.”




“Hildabrand asked if Taylor knew a state law bars the use of public money to lobby for gun control. The legislator wondered whether Taylor violated the law. Taylor countered that the law only applied to state money. He was on Wyandotte County’s payroll. Hildabrand later requested an opinion from the attorney general, who declined to weigh in. It was a small dust-up a year ago, but it underscores how conservatives’ virtually unchallenged control of the Capitol opens the way for new policies that could undercut the influence of their traditional opposition for years to come. Those efforts figure to weaken the lobbying efforts by cities, hamstring the power of teachers unions, limit how academics can speak out on public controversies and mold a more conservative judiciary.”

“We are on the march toward this idea that dissent is treason,” said Mark Desetti, lobbyist for the Kansas National Education Association. “That’s troublesome.” Conservative Rep. Jerry Lunn of Overland Park said the criticism over dissent is an outgrowth of the state’s “political makeup.” This Kansas fight over control by the far right rather than moderate Republicans is one of many in the US these days, especially in the South and West. Religion and political brass knuckles rule in those areas. Individual rights of people who aren't among the wealthy – except for gun issues of course – are being attacked repeatedly and fiercely.

Right wing elements are trying to do the things that dictators always do first – close down the more liberal newspaper voices and arrest or cripple the most educated people. Why? So they can eliminate dissent. They have proposed a law to allow political announcements to be made over the Internet (poor people are less likely to have computers) rather than in the newspaper and one to limit professors' authoritative voice.





http://www.politicususa.com/2015/02/25/57-republicans-dismantle-constitution-christianity-national-religion.html

57% Of Republicans Say Dismantle Constitution And Make Christianity National Religion
By: Keith Brekhusmore from Keith Brekhus
February, 25th, 2015

A Public Policy Polling (PPP) national survey conducted between February 20th and February 22nd of Republican voters, found that an astonishing 57 percent of Republicans want to dismantle the Constitution, and establish Christianity as the official national religion. Only 30 percent oppose making Christianity the national religion.

Although the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment clearly states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,” GOP voters want to cast aside that provision and impose Christianity as the official American religion.

While a number of red states have passed statutes forbidding the implementation of Islam-based sharia law in their states, Republicans apparently have no misgivings about turning the United States into a Christian theocracy. The poll’s crosstabs reveal that support for making Christianity the official religion is strongest among Mike Huckabee (94 percent), Rick Perry (83 percent), and Ben Carson (78 percent) supporters.

Ben Carson is the preferred presidential candidate of those who want to impose Christianity on the nation with 24 percent support. Mike Huckabee and Scott Walker are tied for 2nd place at 16 percent. Scott Walker (35 percent) and Jeb Bush (22 percent) are the leading candidates among GOP voters who do not want to establish a national religion.

The PPP survey also found that 2/3rds of Republican voters do not believe in global warming, and 49 percent do not believe in the theory of evolution. Not only do they wish to establish a national religion, but it appears that their version of Christianity is one that is at odds with the scientific consensus in climatology and biology.

While a clear majority of Americans self-identify as Christians, most Americans outside the GOP, would be uncomfortable with conservative Dominionist theology. Dominionism calls for imposing a theocracy in America where Christianity is declared the official religion, and the nation is governed by “Biblical law”.

Republican voters seem all too eager to embrace Dominionist theology, even though doing so would violate the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Freedom of Religion is one of the bedrock principles established in our founding documents. Republican voters are gearing up to elect candidates who will undermine the First Amendment and take away our Freedom of Religion. Independents and Democrats must be prepared to stop any candidate who would dismantle the Establishment Clause, whether it be Mike Huckabee, Ben Carson or one of the other GOP presidential candidates.



http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/constitution/
The Constitutional Amendment Process

The Archivist has delegated many of the ministerial duties associated with this function to the Director of the Federal Register. Neither Article V of the Constitution nor section 106b describe the ratification process in detail. The Archivist and the Director of the Federal Register follow procedures and customs established by the Secretary of State, who performed these duties until 1950, and the Administrator of General Services, who served in this capacity until NARA assumed responsibility as an independent agency in 1985.

The Constitution provides that an amendment may be proposed either by the Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures. None of the 27 amendments to the Constitution have been proposed by constitutional convention. The Congress proposes an amendment in the form of a joint resolution. Since the President does not have a constitutional role in the amendment process, the joint resolution does not go to the White House for signature or approval. The original document is forwarded directly to NARA's Office of the Federal Register (OFR) for processing and publication. The OFR adds legislative history notes to the joint resolution and publishes it in slip law format. The OFR also assembles an information package for the States which includes formal "red-line" copies of the joint resolution, copies of the joint resolution in slip law format, and the statutory procedure for ratification under 1 U.S.C. 106b.

The Archivist submits the proposed amendment to the States for their consideration by sending a letter of notification to each Governor along with the informational material prepared by the OFR. The Governors then formally submit the amendment to their State legislatures.... When a State ratifies a proposed amendment, it sends the Archivist an original or certified copy of the State action, which is immediately conveyed to the Director of the Federal Register. The OFR examines ratification documents for facial legal sufficiency and an authenticating signature. If the documents are found to be in good order, the Director acknowledges receipt and maintains custody of them. The OFR retains these documents until an amendment is adopted or fails, and then transfers the records to the National Archives for preservation. A proposed amendment becomes part of the Constitution as soon as it is ratified by three-fourths of the States (38 of 50 States). When the OFR verifies that it has received the required number of authenticated ratification documents, it drafts a formal proclamation for the Archivist to certify that the amendment is valid and has become part of the Constitution. This certification is published in the Federal Register and U.S. Statutes at Large and serves as official notice to the Congress and to the Nation that the amendment process has been completed.

In recent history, the signing of the certification has become a ceremonial function attended by various dignitaries, which may include the President. President Johnson signed the certifications for the 24th and 25th Amendments as a witness, and President Nixon similarly witnessed the certification of the 26th Amendment along with three young scholars. On May 18, 1992, the Archivist performed the duties of the certifying official for the first time to recognize the ratification of the 27th Amendment, and the Director of the Federal Register signed the certification as a witness.



"A Public Policy Polling (PPP) national survey conducted between February 20th and February 22nd of Republican voters, found that an astonishing 57 percent of Republicans want to dismantle the Constitution, and establish Christianity as the official national religion. Only 30 percent oppose making Christianity the national religion. Although the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment clearly states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,” GOP voters want to cast aside that provision and impose Christianity as the official American religion.... Scott Walker (35 percent) and Jeb Bush (22 percent) are the leading candidates among GOP voters who do not want to establish a national religion. The PPP survey also found that 2/3rds of Republican voters do not believe in global warming, and 49 percent do not believe in the theory of evolution. Not only do they wish to establish a national religion, but it appears that their version of Christianity is one that is at odds with the scientific consensus in climatology and biology. While a clear majority of Americans self-identify as Christians, most Americans outside the GOP, would be uncomfortable with conservative Dominionist theology. Dominionism calls for imposing a theocracy in America where Christianity is declared the official religion, and the nation is governed by “Biblical law”.... Republican voters are gearing up to elect candidates who will undermine the First Amendment and take away our Freedom of Religion. Independents and Democrats must be prepared to stop any candidate who would dismantle the Establishment Clause, whether it be Mike Huckabee, Ben Carson or one of the other GOP presidential candidates.”

“Scott Walker (35 percent) and Jeb Bush (22 percent) are the leading candidates among GOP voters who do not want to establish a national religion.” As I read this I think about the entire early history of our country. We are an amalgam of Europeans who came here often specifically to escape the mandatory state religions where they were born. Not only were they required to worship as an Anglican or other national religion, but they were required to attend services actively, rather than quietly refraining from any religion. Up until King Henry VIII the English church was Catholic, and all dissenters had to hide from government persecution, or perhaps even end up dead. After Henry the state religion was declared the Protestant faith, which ended up being the Anglican/Episcopalian belief. Anybody who didn't want to practice the proper religion could go to the new colonies of America. As a result, the freedom from any established religion of any kind was one of the most important cornerstones on which our republic was founded.

Now 57% of the Republicans who were polled are actually desiring to change the Constitution to require membership in the Christian Church – or maybe just suffer some social consequences for abstaining entirely from religious participation, following Judaism, Islam, Unitarian Universalism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Agnosticism, Atheism, or simply speaking out publicly against fundamentalist Christianity. And this news article doesn't say whether the required form would be Catholic or Protestant, for instance. That inevitable conflict is enough to start a revolution in itself if we can judge from history.

Maybe dissenting individuals simply can't vote, can't hold office, can't own property or will have to pay a fine rather than actually being put in prison or killed as they were in large numbers in merry old England. We really need to combat this matter strongly. It would help if we Democrats were to close our primary elections to anyone except our own party. Or perhaps we could all officially switch to the Independent party, and then Republicans wouldn't know what our actual position on issues was. Republicans have been voting in the Democratic primaries to select the most conservative Democrats for years, just because our party rules allow it. We could also use the power of visible mass persuasion by taking to the streets. How many of us are actually willing to fight for our rights? This news article does leave me worried about what is happening in my country. Do I love America? You bet, I do. That's why I'm completely against this sweep toward a Neo-Nazi form of government that some Republicans would foster.


ABOUT THE KOCH BROTHERS

http://www.religionnews.com/2015/01/30/controversial-koch-brothers-give-big-catholic-university/

Controversial Koch brothers give big (again) to Catholic University
David Gibson
January 30, 2015 

(RNS) Billionaire brothers Charles and David Koch recently made headlines by pledging nearly $900 million to help elect candidates who support their libertarian strain of economic conservatism, but the industrialists are also nearly doubling their investment in the business school of Catholic University of America, which is overseen by the U.S. Bishops.

That’s despite the fact that many Catholics — including Pope Francis — say the kind of unregulated capitalism that the Kochs promote runs counter to church teaching.

The $1.75 million dollar grant from the Charles Koch Foundation, one of several nonprofits with ties to the industrialist brothers, is part of a $3 million pledge to CUA announced in January that includes $500,000 from the Busch Family Foundation and $250,000 each from three business leaders.

The donation to the Washington-based university comes just over a year after the Koch Foundation gave an initial $1 million grant that allowed CUA to launch its own School of Business and Economics. The school is run by Andrew Abela and it is dedicated to promoting what it calls “principled entrepreneurship.”

The grant fits with the Kochs’ strategy of funding business and other programs at universities around the country. (They are also generous underwriters of numerous cultural institutions.) But from the moment the first CUA donation was announced in the fall of 2013, many Catholic theologians and others raised questions about why the only pontifical university in the country would take so much money from the Kochs.

Dozens of theologians and academics wrote to CUA president John Garvey and Abela expressing concern that “by accepting such a donation you send a confusing message to Catholic students and other faithful Catholics that the Koch brothers’ anti-government, Tea Party ideology has the blessing of a university sanctioned by Catholic bishops.”

They renewed that criticism last February, saying the Kochs’ libertarian-leaning positions “are in direct conflict with traditional Catholic values.”

A few months later, at a conference sponsored by Catholic University’s Institute for Policy Research & Catholic Studies, the Honduran cardinal who is one of Francis’ top advisers blasted today’s free market system as “a new idol” that is increasing inequality and excluding the poor.

Cardinal Oscar Rodriguez Maradiaga was joined at the conference, and in his critique, by Bishop Blase Cupich, who in September was personally tapped by Francis to be the new archbishop of Chicago, the pontiff’s most important U.S. appointment to date.

Francis himself has focused on economic inequality in the nearly two years since he has been pope, repeatedly denouncing the current capitalist system and in particular the “trickle down” economics favored by many Republicans and libertarians.

Those statements have generated a great deal of friction and unusually direct and sharp criticism of Francis from Catholic conservatives, especially in the U.S. Some conservatives have responded by arguing that Francis is not talking about capitalism as it is practiced in the U.S., or that he simply doesn’t understand economics.

In a Jan. 22 statement announcing the new gift, Abela said that the donation will help the school create “a cadre of faculty dedicated to research exploring how we can make business and economics more humane.” As if anticipating criticism, he added that is also “a moral imperative that Pope Francis has been championing with great passion.”

That same day, Tim Busch, co-founder of the Busch Foundation and a Koch ally, wrote an op-ed in The Wall Street Journal arguing that “the principles behind this initiative and the principled entrepreneurship program are consistent with Catholic teaching.”

Critics said Busch was exaggerating that overlap and glossing over the real goals of libertarian free-market advocates, which they say are in no way compatible with church teachings.

While Busch is a practicing Catholic, the Kochs are not, and in fact David Koch supports gay marriage and abortion rights.

Critics of the CUA gift say it is ironic that the school would seek such massive support from a social liberal when Catholic charities are not allowed to take any money from any person or group that supports abortion rights or gay rights.




http://www.politicususa.com/2014/12/08/kochs-brothers-funded-religious-groups-eliminating-womens-rights.html

The Koch Brothers Fund Religious Groups That Are Eliminating Women’s Rights
By Rmuse
December, 8th, 2014

There is an idiom, “politics make strange bedfellows,” that generally means people who would normally despise and avoid one another will work together if they think it is politically advantageous. The so-called proverb is particularly prescient when considering that libertarians, noted for championing the abolishment of government they claim interferes in Americans’ private lives, are heavily funding extremist Christians intent on forcing biblical principles on Americans by government fiat.

It is beyond refute that the libertarian Koch brothers spend hundreds-of-millions of dollars to abolish government to eliminate taxation and regulatory agencies they claim interferes with their crusade for power and wealth. However, to accomplish their goal of controlling the government, they have had to climb in bed with fundamentalist Christians intent on using the government to control and subvert women’s rights and force adherence to biblical values on all Americans. The Kochs have claimed, on several occasions, that their interest in social and cultural issues, particularly religious attacks on women and gays is non-existent, but through their “Secret Bank” (Freedom Partners) they are heavily-funding Christian women’s groups whose stated mission is to eliminate women’s reproductive health choices and push “biblical values on all citizens;” not exactly a libertarian agenda.

In their drive to control the U.S. Congress, and soon the federal government, the Kochs left no stone unturned in backing organizations that challenge America’s so-called equality in issues of race, gender, and freedom from religious imposition, and whose stated goal is enforcing Christian moralistic teachings on all Americans. The Kochs’ funding vehicles, such as the Freedom Partners, is not forthcoming on where or how it allocates its untold millions to control Congress, but according to its most recent tax filing it is flush with anonymous money and doled out more than $40-million in just the past 12 months to bible-based groups intent on electing candidates who oppose women’s rights from abortion to private and personal healthcare choices to contraception use among many, many other control mechanisms.

Over the past two years to better influence Senate races, control Congress, and eliminate the government, the Kochs funneled tens-of-millions of anonymous dollars to groups such as Concerned Women for America, the Susan B. Anthony List, the Independent Women’s Forum, and untold other, less-prominent, Christian groups. All groups whose intent is dominating and controlling women, gays, and eventually the entire population by empowering a biblical government to police key areas of personal conduct that a traditional libertarian, and free people, would find intolerable. One group in particular, Concerned Women of America (CWA), makes no secret that besides outlawing abortion, it is fighting ferociously to criminalize same-sex marriage, pornography, and force mandatory Christian prayers in public schools as a prelude to a Christian theocracy.

The support of the Koch’s Freedom Partners for CWA is important because like most blatantly anti-women’s rights organizations, it does not garner much support from foundations according to data from the Foundation Center. In fact, CWA has only received support from a handful of foundations since 2003, and most grants are quite modest in size which is why, as is typical of extremist religious groups, it relies heavily on support from major individual donors with a specific agenda. As a so-called “non-profit religious organization,” it is virtually impossible to say who those donors are because CWA is not required to list its funders or publish an annual report. If not for the requirement for the Koch’s Freedom Partners to file tax documents, the Koch’s support for CWA and other anti-women’s rights groups would be hidden from the public.

Concerned Women for America is so entrenched in keeping women in biblically-subservient roles, it has made blocking the proposed National Women’s History Museum a major crusade on par with criminalizing abortion, gay marriage, and contraceptives. The CWA president and CEO, Penny Nance, wrote a patriarchal op-ed expressing her vehement opposition to the proposed museum to be situated on the National Mall. Nance did her best Republican, biblical patriarch, impersonation and warned that the National Women’s History Museum “baldly favors a liberal jaundiced view of history,” and would “disproportionately feature and elevate the histories of women who embrace such policies as the whiny ‘banbossy’ campaign and other phony feminist ‘battles’ of the American left.” Battles like fighting for equal pay for equal work, maternity leave, the right to vote, the right to use contraceptives, and to make reproductive healthcare choices the religious right opposes.

One prime example of the Kochs funding extreme anti-women candidates to win control of the Senate is Iowa fanatic Joni Ernst. At the Koch not-so-secret gathering last June, Ernst won wild plaudits for “exceeding the Kochs’ wildest expectations;” not because of her extreme position on abolishing women’s rights, but because her extremist anti-women’s rights stance would incite the religious right voting bloc to flock to the polls to elect a theocratic candidate. Ernst, like most Republicans in Congress, supports a federal personhood law to effectively ban abortion and criminalize all forms of “unnatural birth control” as defined by the Vatican’s Humanae Vitae.

This column has reported, ad nauseum, that for the past three years Republicans in the House overwhelmingly passed a personhood bill only to be thwarted by the Democratic Senate. It also reported that in each of those three years, the same House personhood bill was introduced in the Senate but failed to make it out of committee. Now that the Kochs bought control of the Senate by funding anti-women’s rights candidates, the anti-women’s rights Senate will, like the religious anti-women’s rights House, easily pass a personhood law and libertarians will get precisely what they claim to hate; a theocratic government interfering and controlling their wives’, daughters’, mothers’, and sisters’ personal life decisions. And the Kochs could not possibly care less because they will have leverage to begin eliminating the two agencies “economic libertarians” hate most; the Internal Revenue Service and the Environmental Protection Agency.





http://www.jewornotjew.com/profile.jsp?ID=1904

Jew Or Not Jew
Koch Brothers
(Charles Koch, David Koch)
1935 — , 1940 —
July 31, 2014

There will be two types of responses to this profile: 1) They finally profiled the Koch brothers!, and 2) Who the heck are the Koch brothers? Let's deal with the second one first.

The Koch brothers are billionaire siblings who are known for their numerous contributions to right-wing causes. There are four brothers altogether; however, when one says "Koch brothers", one only means Charles and David. We're not sure why the other two are excluded. We did catch one of the four on TV; he is apparently some kind of a collector who pays hundreds of thousands for a bottle of wine (and was sold bathtub swill in the process). In any case, their possibly Jewish last name raises the usual question. So here's the answer: no, they are not Jewish. German/Dutch/WASPy goys.

Now for the first part: why did it take us so long? Well, it's quite simple. We don't really give a rat's ass about the Koch brothers...

Verdict: Not a Jew.



ON THE ARTICLES ABOVE:

Religion News – “... but the industrialists are also nearly doubling their investment in the business school of Catholic University of America, which is overseen by the U.S. Bishops. That’s despite the fact that many Catholics — including Pope Francis — say the kind of unregulated capitalism that the Kochs promote runs counter to church teaching. … The school is run by Andrew Abel and it is dedicated to promoting what it calls “principled entrepreneurship.”.... But from the moment the first CUA donation was announced in the fall of 2013, many Catholic theologians and others raised questions about why the only pontifical university in the country would take so much money from the Kochs.... They renewed that criticism last February, saying the Kochs’ libertarian-leaning positions “are in direct conflict with traditional Catholic values.” A few months later, at a conference sponsored by Catholic University’s Institute for Policy Research & Catholic Studies, the Honduran cardinal who is one of Francis’ top advisers blasted today’s free market system as “a new idol” that is increasing inequality and excluding the poor.... Those statements have generated a great deal of friction and unusually direct and sharp criticism of Francis from Catholic conservatives, especially in the U.S. Some conservatives have responded by arguing that Francis is not talking about capitalism as it is practiced in the U.S., or that he simply doesn’t understand economics. .... While Busch is a practicing Catholic, the Kochs are not, and in fact David Koch supports gay marriage and abortion rights. Critics of the CUA gift say it is ironic that the school would seek such massive support from a social liberal when Catholic charities are not allowed to take any money from any person or group that supports abortion rights or gay rights.”

Mainstream Catholics are opposed to this huge gift by two socially liberal economic conservatives. They also are against the “trickle down” economic theory that we practice in this country today, as the church members who follow the Pope are against the increasing divide between the rich and the poor here. The university needs money, of course, and until last year it apparently didn't have a school of business such as the one that the Koch money funded. It is embarrassing to many good Catholics, I'm sure, that their primary university has so completely caved in just to get a few million dollars. Clearly money talks.


politicususa.com – “The so-called proverb is particularly prescient when considering that libertarians, noted for championing the abolishment of government they claim interferes in Americans’ private lives, are heavily funding extremist Christians intent on forcing biblical principles on Americans by government fiat.... to control and subvert women’s rights and force adherence to biblical values on all Americans. The Kochs have claimed, on several occasions, that their interest in social and cultural issues, particularly religious attacks on women and gays is non-existent, but through their “Secret Bank” (Freedom Partners) they are heavily-funding Christian women’s groups whose stated mission is to eliminate women’s reproductive health choices and push “biblical values on all citizens; not exactly a libertarian agenda. In their drive to control the U.S. Congress, and soon the federal government, the Kochs left no stone unturned in backing organizations that challenge America’s so-called equality in issues of race, gender, and freedom from religious imposition.... The support of the Koch’s Freedom Partners for CWA is important because like most blatantly anti-women’s rights organizations, it does not garner much support from foundations according to data from the Foundation Center. In fact, CWA has only received support from a handful of foundations since 2003, and most grants are quite modest in size which is why, as is typical of extremist religious groups, it relies heavily on support from major individual donors with a specific agenda. As a so-called “non-profit religious organization,” it is virtually impossible to say who those donors are because CWA is not required to list its funders or publish an annual report.... Concerned Women for America is so entrenched in keeping women in biblically-subservient roles, it has made blocking the proposed National Women’s History Museum a major crusade on par with criminalizing abortion, gay marriage, and contraceptives. The CWA president and CEO, Penny Nance, wrote a patriarchal op-ed expressing her vehement opposition to the proposed museum to be situated on the National Mall. Nance did her best Republican, biblical patriarch, impersonation and warned that the National Women’s History Museum “baldly favors a liberal jaundiced view of history,” and would “disproportionately feature and elevate the histories of women who embrace such policies as the whiny ‘banbossy’ campaign and other phony feminist ‘battles’ of the American left.” Battles like fighting for equal pay for equal work, maternity leave, the right to vote, the right to use contraceptives, and to make reproductive healthcare choices the religious right opposes.... Ernst, like most Republicans in Congress, supports a federal personhood law to effectively ban abortion and criminalize all forms of “unnatural birth control” as defined by the Vatican’s Humanae Vitae.”

Is all this transformation in American thought coming about because the South lost its iron-fisted control over the black race in 1964 and became so very angry that they are willing to completely corrupt our nation “of the people, by the people and for the people” in retribution? Could the Koch brothers really have bought local, state and national elections so fully that they are already now imposing their cynical views on the average everyday American Joe , so that he will vote these radical fascist-like changes into law? I used to have confidence in the wisdom of the US citizenry, but I no longer do. Hillary Clinton's statement that there is “a vast right wing conspiracy” at work is no longer preposterous to me, because it is beginning to look as though that is a correct statement.

As for the freedom of religion, I'm not saying that the fundamentalist Christians shouldn't have their churches and beliefs; but that the public school system should teach the following – literature, science, history, no mandatory religion at all, and the basics of our political philosophy, as based on our guaranteed liberties from the Bill of Rights and Constitution – freedom from government control of thought and speech, and that the right to the free press, freedom of dissent,the right to vote for all citizens, citizenship based on birth in the US rather than skin color or religion, and the freedom of association, political party and religious group, including Atheism. Any less than that is not a Republic, but oppression. I don't want to live under oppression whether it be in the form of one dictatorial leader, an overbearing church, or a group of very rich oligarchs. I especially don't want America the Beautiful, which I learned to love in my earliest years, to become an empty shell composed of patriotic propaganda under the actual control of the 1% of our wealthiest people.