Skip to main content

"We are no longer working to preserve the status quo. We are radicals, working to overturn the present power structure in this country."  Paul Weyrich
 

Got your attention?  Good, because this is important.

More below the fold . . .

Update: In the interest of moving the conversation off the title, and so people can send this as a link without worrying about being labeled anti-semetic, I've changed the title. I appreciate all those who defended my original title, but I'd like the focus kept on the information presented and what we can do to counter the influence of this group.

Ever wonder how the right always seems so coordinated in the strategy.  How all the multitude of organizations they've created all seem to use the same playbook?  How they all manage to focus on the same talking points each day, day after day, year after year.  Well it's no accident.  But how do they do it?

The answer my friends lies in a little known organization with the innocuous sounding name The Council for National Policy.  Don't go looking for an official website because you won't find one.  In fact this "think tank" goes out of its way to avoid publicity:

When a top U.S. senator receives a major award from a national advocacy organization, it's standard procedure for both the politician and the group to eagerly tell as many people about it as possible.

Press releases spew from fax machines and e-mails clog reporters' in-boxes. The news media are summoned in the hope that favorable stories will appear in the newspapers, on radio and on television.

It was odd, therefore, that when U.S. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) accepted a "Thomas Jefferson Award" from a national group at the Plaza Hotel in New York City in August, the media weren't notified. In fact, they weren't welcome to attend.

"The media should not know when or where we meet or who takes part in our programs, before or after a meeting," reads one of the cardinal rules of the organization that honored Frist. The membership list of this group is "strictly confidential." Guests can attend only with the unanimous approval of the organization's executive committee. The group's leadership is so secretive that members are told not to refer to it by name in e-mail messages. Anyone who breaks the rules can be tossed out.

What is this group, and why is it so determined to avoid the public spotlight?

That answer is the Council for National Policy (CNP). And if the name isn't familiar to you, don't be surprised. That's just what the Council wants.

The CNP was founded in 1981 as an umbrella organization of right-wing leaders who would gather regularly to plot strategy, share ideas and fund causes and candidates to advance the far-right agenda. Twenty-three years later, it is still secretly pursuing those goals with amazing success.

Since its founding, the tax-exempt organization has been meeting three times a year. Members have come and gone, but all share something in common: They are powerful figures, drawn from both the Religious Right and the anti-government, anti-tax wing of the ultra-conservative movement.

It may sound like a far-left conspiracy theory, but the CNP is all too real and, its critics would argue, all too influential.

What amazes most CNP opponents is the group's ability to avoid widespread public scrutiny. Despite nearly a quarter century of existence and involvement by wealthy and influential political figures, the CNP remains unknown to most Americans. Operating out of a non-descript office building in the Washington, D.C., suburb of Fairfax, Va., the organization has managed to keep an extremely low profile an amazing feat when one considers the people the CNP courts.

Sounds a little tin foil hattish to you?  Trust me it gets worse.  Founded in 1981, its first president was Tim LaHaye famed millenialist preacher and writer of the Left Behind series of

popular books about the "end-times" and the Second Coming of Christ. He was also a co-founder of the Moral Majority. In the 1980s he headed the American Coalition for Traditional Values. While heading that group, LaHaye said, "If every Bible-believing, Christ-loving church would trust God to raise up an average of just one person over the next 10 years who would get elected, we would have more Christian candidates than there are offices."

A list of former and past members reads like a who's who of conservative Christian Right activists, anti-tax and anti-government activists, billionaire right wing philanthropists and GOP office holders, past and present: Here's a partial list (as of 1998) assembled from this website:


Right Wing Religious Leaders:

Dr. Tim LaHaye, Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, James Dobson (Focus on the Family), Howard Ahmanson (Christian Reconstructionist), Rev. Donald Wildmon (American Family Association),  David W. Breese (Christian Identity), William R. Bright (International Christian Leadership University), Robert P. Dugan Jr. (National Association of Evangelicals), Robert Grant (Christian Voice), Haldeman "Hal" W. Guffey (International Ministries Fellowship), Sara DiVito Hardman (Christian Coalition of California), Seamus Hasson (Becket Fund for Religious Liberty), Donald Paul Hodel (Christian Coalition), James B. Jacobson (Christian Solidarity International), Bob Jones III (Bob Jones University),  Ed McAteer (Religious Roundtable, Inc.), Dal Shealy (Fellowship of Christian Athletes), John A. Stormer (I Chronicles 12:32 Ministries and authour of None Dare Call it Treason famous McCarthyite anti-communist screed), Jay Strack (Christian motivational speaker, former appointee to "Just say no" drug task force).

Right Wing Media and Communications:

L. Brent Bozell III (Media Research Center), Stuart W. Epperson (Salem Communications Corporation), Tracy Freeny (AmeriVision Communications, Inc.),Reed Irvine (Accuracy in Media), Mark Maddoux (USA Radio Network), Pat Matrisciana (Jeremiah Films), James D. McCotter (Media Management Group, Inc.), Liz McCotter (Channel 26 Orlando), Patrick B. McGuigan (The Daily Oklahoman), Sam Moore (Thomas Nelson Publishers), Thomas L. Phillips (Phillips Publishing International), Larry W. Poland (Mastermedia International, Inc.) , Gerry Snyder (member of editorial board, Valley Views, a conservative weekly newspaper),  Bill Tierney (Capital Communications, Inc.), George Uribe II (Uribe Communications and former political director of Alan Keyes for President).

Businessmen, Lobbyists, Lawyers and Political Consultants:

Gary Jarmin (Jar-Mon Consultants),  David Keene (American Conservative Union), Larry Klayman (Judicial Watch), Mark R. Levin (Landmark Legal Foundation), Christopher Long (Friess Assoc.), Edward A. Lozick (Nerts, Inc.), Edith D. Hakola (National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation), Carolyn Malenick (Triad Management Services, Inc.),  Thomas E. McCabe (Killion McCabe & Associates), Dana Meese (Deloitte & Tousche Consulting Group), Eugene Meyer(Federalist Society), Ralph Reed (Century Strategies), William Bradford Reynolds, Jay A. Sekulow (American Center for Law and Justice), Kyle Stallings (Permian Basin Acquisition Fund), Allen Stevens (Capital Insurance Services of Mississippi), Christine Vollmer (Aragua Services - K Street lobbyist), Jack Webb (Jack Webb & Assoc.), Somers White (Somers White Co.).

Funders of Conservative Causes:

Nelson Bunker Hunt (of the famed Texas based family of oil tycoons), Various members of the Coors' family (Beer Barons), Richard DeVos (Amway founder), Pierre S. duPont IV.

GOP Politicos:

Former Sen. Jesse Helms; Dick Armey and Tom Delay (GOP Congressional leaders); Gary Bauer, Ed Meese, William G. Batchelder III (Congressman), Dan Burton (Congressman), John Doolittle (Congressman), Robert K. Dornan,  Sen. D. M. "Lauch" Faircloth, Ernest J. Istook (Congressman), Sen. Jon Kyl, Sen. Trent Lott, Sen. Don Nickles, Tom Patterson (AZ State Sen.), Tony Perkins (La. State Rep.), H. L. Richardson (CA State Sen.), David C. Schultheis (CO State Rep.), Gov. John H.  Sununu, Gov. Tommy G. Thompson.

Conservative apparatchiks:

Paul Weyrich (Free Congress Foundation, etc.), Howard Phillip (Conservative Caucus),  Larry Pratt (Gun Owners of America ); Oliver North; Richard Viguerie (direct mail wizard), Morton C. Blackwell (Leadership Institute), Henry F. Cooper (High Frontier), Edwin J. Feulner Jr. (Heritage Foundation), Peter Flaherty (National Legal and Policy Center), Stephen Goodrick (National Right to Work Committee),  Lon Mabon (U.S. Citizen's Alliance), Raymond Moore (Moore  Foundation), Henry M. Morris (Institute for Creation Science), Grover Norquist, Phillip Olsen (Family Research Council), Phyllis Schlafly (Eagle Forum), John K. Singlaub, LaNeil Wright Spivy (Eagle Forum), Lt. General Gordon Sumner Jr. (Connected to various org. associated with Rev. Moon).

And what was the ultimate goals of this organization?  Well, they stated them pretty clearly early on:

In the summer of 1981, Woody Jenkins, a former Louisiana state lawmaker who served as the group's first executive director, told Newsweek bluntly, "One day before the end of this century, the Council will be so influential that no president, regardless of party or philosophy, will be able to ignore us or our concerns or shut us out of the highest levels of government."

From the beginning, the CNP sought to merge two strains of far-right thought: the theocratic Religious Right with the low-tax, anti-government wing of the GOP. The theory was that the Religious Right would provide the grassroots activism and the muscle. The other faction would put up the money.

The CNP has always reflected this two-barreled approach. The group's first president was LaHaye, then president of Family Life Seminars in El Cajon Calif. LaHaye, a fundamentalist Baptist preacher who went on in the 1990s to launch the popular "Left Behind" series of apocalyptic potboilers, was an early anti-gay crusader and frequent basher of public education and he still is today.

* * *

Bringing together the two strains of the far right gave the CNP enormous leverage. The group, for example, could pick a candidate for public office and ply him or her with individual donations and PAC money from its well-endowed, business wing.

The goals of the CNP, then, are similarly two-pronged. Activists like Norquist, who once said he wanted to shrink the federal government to a size where it could be drowned in a bathtub, are drawn to the group for its exaltation of unfettered capitalism, hostility toward social-service spending and low (or no) tax ideology.

Dramatically scaling back the size of the federal government and abolishing the last remnants of the New Deal may be one goal of the CNP, but many of the foot soldiers of the Religious Right sign on for a different crusade: a desire to remake America in a Christian fundamentalist image.

Since 1981, CNP members have worked assiduously to pack government bodies with ultra-conservative lawmakers who agree that the nation needs a major shift to the right economically and socially. They rail against popular culture and progressive lawmakers, calling them the culprits of the nation's moral decay. Laws must be passed and enforced, the group argues, that will bring organized prayer back to the public schools, outlaw abortion, prevent gays from achieving full civil rights and fund private religious schools with tax funds.

   

And what kind of conservatives are these?  Run of the mill, regular folks?  Or something else?

Alongside figures like LaHaye and leaders of the anti-abortion movement, the nascent CNP also included Joseph Coors, the wealthy beer magnate; Herbert and Nelson Bunker Hunt, two billionaire investors and energy company executives known for their advocacy of right-wing causes, and William Cies, another wealthy businessman.

Interestingly, the Hunts, Cies and LaHaye all were affiliated with the John Birch Society, the conspiracy-obsessed anti-communist group founded in 1959. LaHaye had lectured and conducted training seminars frequently for the Society during the 1960s and '70s a time when the group was known for its campaign against the civil rights movement.

* * *

In 1988, writer Russ Bellant noted in his book The Coors Connection . . .  that many CNP members have been associated with the outer reaches of the conservative movement.       
* * *

Tom Ellis, a top political operative of the ultra-conservative Jesse Helms, followed LaHaye as the CNP president in 1982. Ellis had a checkered past, having served as a director of a foundation called the Pioneer Fund, which has a long history of subsidizing efforts to prove blacks are genetically inferior to whites.

* * *

In addition to obsessing over communist threats and buttressing white supremacist ideology, the CNP has included many members bent on replacing American democracy with theocracy.

LaHaye, like the whole of the nation's Religious Right leaders, nurtures a strong contempt for the First Amendment principle of church-state separation, because it seriously complicates their goal of installing fundamentalist Christianity as the nation's officially recognized religion. LaHaye has worked within the CNP and other groups to replace American law with "biblical law."

* * *

For many years, the late leader of the Christian Reconstructionist movement, Rousas J. Rushdoony, was a member. Reconstructionists espouse a radical theology that calls for trashing the U.S. Constitution and replacing it with the harsh legal code of the Old Testament. They advocate the death penalty for adulterers, blasphemers, incorrigible teenagers, gay people, "witches" and those who worship "false gods."

Another CNP-Reconstructionist tie comes through Howard Phillips, the Constitution Party leader. Phillips, a longtime CNP member, is a disciple of Rushdoony and uses rhetoric that strikes a distinctly Reconstructionist tone. In a 2003 Constitution Party gathering in Clackamas, Oregon, Phillips told party members and guests, "We've got to be ready when God chooses to let us restore our once-great Republic." A report by the Southern Poverty Law Center said that Phillips proclaimed that his party was "raising up an army" to "take back this nation!"   

* * *

The CNP's current executive director, a former California lawmaker named Steve Baldwin, has tried to downplay the organization's influence on powerful state and national lawmakers. He has remained cagey about the CNP's goals, insisting it is merely a group that counters liberal policy arguments.

In many ways, Baldwin himself exemplifies the CNP's operate-in-secret strategy. As a political strategist in California in the early 1990s, Baldwin was one of the key architects of the "stealth strategy" that led to Religious Right activists being elected to school boards and other local offices.

"Stealth candidates" were trained to emphasize pocketbook issues such as taxes and spending. But once elected, they would pursue a Religious Right agenda, such as demanding creationism in public schools.    

* * *

In the spring of 2002, while working at the CNP, he penned a controversial article for the law review at TV preacher Pat Robertson's Regent University. The piece, "Child Molestation and the Homosexual Movement," linked pedophilia to homosexuality.

The article went on to become a staple in the Religious Right's anti-gay canon, despite the fact that its claims were challenged by legitimate researchers.

"It is difficult to convey the dark side of the homosexual culture without appearing harsh," wrote Baldwin. "However, it is time to acknowledge that homosexual behavior threatens the foundation of Western civilization the nuclear family."

And who do these folks honor with their most prestigious awards (even though they don't publicize them?  Why the most conservative leaders, judges and politicians, of course.  Here are some of their honorees:

Thomas Jefferson Award
for Servant Leadership

2004 Bill Frist
1997 Ward Connelly
1996 Paul Weyrich
1995 Edwin J. Feulner Jr.
1994 Phyllis Schlafly
1993 Daniel O. Graham
1992 Clarence Thomas
1991 Robert H. Krieble
1990 James Dobson
1989 Ellen St. John Garwood
1988 William Armstrong
1987 Fred Schwarz
1986 Edwin Meese III
1985 William J. Bennett
1984 John F. Lehman
1983 Jesse Helms
1982 Jeane J. Kirkpatrick

The New York Times in a 2004 article (link) reported that Bush attended a 1999 CNP function, and Rumsfeld and Cheney have both been speakers since the Iraq war was initiated.  So clearly the Bush administration takes these folks very seriously.  Other speakers at the August 2004 event included Arnold Schwartzenegger and Rudy Guiliani, two supposedly "moderate" Republicans.

Fellow Kossacks, these are the people who should go on our enemies list.  I urge you to read the full article at the American United for Separation of Church and State website.  It's daunting but well worth the time and effort.  We're way behind, but better late than never.

Otherwise:

"The destiny of our nation is on the shoulders of the conservative movement," the Senate majority leader, Bill Frist, Republican of Tennessee, told the gathering as he accepted its Thomas Jefferson award . . . according to an attendee's notes"

It's past time to relieve Senator Frist and these other conservative nut jobs of that burden, don't you agree? Other good links for information about CNP are:

http://www.buildingequality.us/ifas/cnp/index.html   

http://rightweb.irc-online.org/org/cnp.php

http://newsletters.cephasministry.com/ncp8.html

http://rightweb.irc-online.org/groupwatch/cnp.php

http://www.blessedquietness.com/journal/prophecy/cnp-1.htm

http://www.dkosopedia.com/index.php/Council_for_National_Policy

http://prosocs.tripod.com/cnp.html

http://www.politicalfriendster.com/showPerson.php?id=1006

http://www.publiceye.org/conspire/clinton/Clintonculwar8-27.html

 

Originally posted to Steven D on Tue Feb 22, 2005 at 12:55 PM PST.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Please tip (4.00)
    This was way too much work!

    Thanks

    •  Holy motherfucking shit. (4.00)
      Did you just do what I think you did?

      Did you just expose the Ultimate Cabal?

      I think you just exposed the Ultimate Cabal.

      Rage, rage, against the lying of the Right.

      by Maryscott OConnor on Tue Feb 22, 2005 at 01:42:32 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Beating all around the Bush (4.00)
        The Gannongate work was beating all around this cabal.  Wondered when contact would be made.

        Bingo!

        Now figure out which one of these subsidiaries in the "holding company" structure is the most powerful...

      •  Dammit! (4.00)
        Just when I think I've come to terms with the true ugly face of the beast it gets worse.

        Why do I always feel like I have my fucking tin foil hat on whenever I look hard at what these bastards are REALLY up to?

        These are truly dark times and you've got to be seriously crazy to handle them.

        Fear and Loathing indeed.

        •  Under cover of darkness (4.00)
          As secretive as these folks are, a handful of prepared remarks and speeches at national CNP meetings have filtered out and are still available on the internet.  We may shudder at the thought of a "secret society" of very powerful ultra-conservative religious, business and political leaders conspiring to reshape our country in their image, but nothing brings home the true nature of the beast like reading the transcripts of their private little gatherings.  If you haven't taken the time to hunt down and read through a few of these "table scraps," please do so -- or, at the very least, read the following excerpt from a speech given by Rev. James Dobson to the Council for National Policy in 1998:

          The other thing I came to say to you, and I really am through, is that there is very good news on the home front. No one foresaw that the whole Soviet empire was getting ready to collapse. I didn't read one Sovietologist who said, "This thing is getting ready to blow up!" Other than Ronald Reagan who said that we would transcend communism, I heard no one say, "This thing is built on sand. The whole thing could come down." No one saw that! No one perceived that the wall was getting ready to fall. But, it was a house of cards and it was ready to come down.

          I have reason to believe that modern liberalism is also built on the sand. The American people don't go with the National Organization for Women. They don't believe Patricia Ireland speaks for them. The women of this country don't identify with her. She's noisy. She gets a lot of press; but, the American people are not with her. They have, as they claim, 250,000 members. Goodness! We have 5,000,000 on our list of names. 250,000 is nothing! The people are not with her! They're not with the American Civil Liberties Union. They don't believe that crazy nonsense! They're not with People for the American Way. They're not with NARAL. They're not with all these organizations! They're still deeply conservative because there is something written on their hearts that they cannot get away from! [applause]

          If we simply had a moral leader or a party of moral leadership who had the courage like Ronald Reagan did with the Soviets despite everything the press threw at him for calling it the Evil Empire. If we had people in government who stood up for these things we believe and didn't dance around and try to apologize and try to avoid criticism by the press, but, went right to the heart of it, "This is right and I stand on it if no one believes it!" [sic]. We could win this thing and we could do it fairly quickly, in my view. And, what we need are people of courage. [applause]

          *

          (VO, Bernie Shaw):  "Stand by, stand by ... CNN right now is moving our earlier declaration of Florida back to the too-close-to-call column ..."

      •  What Maryscott said. (3.50)
        Usually things like this get written up in dubious novels by Dan Brown or made into films where the once-hot but now-fizzled-due-to-association-with-anorexic-Calista Flockhart Harrison Ford finds some artifact or another to wipe out this sort of goonsquad.
      •  Hilary (4.00)
        was right all along it seems.
        •  Hillary (4.00)
          You know what would be amazing?  Getting some people like the Clintons and John Kerry who have inside dirt to sit down and candidly talk about these issues without fear of losing reputation for doing so.  I really wonder what they know but can't talk about because of political sensitivity - or even what things they feel in their gut but can't assert for sure.
          •  The best article on the subject (4.00)
            As others downthread have pointed out, there aren't a whole lot of articles about the Council for National Policy.  Indeed, if you search the magazine database at Lexis-Nexis, you'll only find a dozen, dating all the way back to 1981.  (That doesn't count newspaper articles; I'll check on those later.)  Probably the best of this limited sample is an article by Frederick Clarkson ("The Clinton Contras' Smoke & Mirrors," In These Times, May 3, 1998), which lays out how the CNP orchestrated the whole Clinton impeachment push.  It makes for chilling reading, but unfortunately it isn't unavailable online other than through Lexis-Nexis.  Clarkson has his own website (www.frederickclarkson.com), so it might be possible to get him to drop by here and add something to the discussion; he lists DailyKos as a recommended site.
        •  Yes, yes, yes (none)
          Hillary WAS right about the right-wing conspiracy, and now I feel bad that I was skeptical at the time she mentioned it.  Not since 2000!
      •  The ultimate cabal (4.00)

        The most frightening thing is that conspiracies are now immune to public scrutiny because the term "conspiracy" has become virtually synonymous with "hoax" in the English language.  Conspiracies like this, which are literally trying to intentionally destroy the entire economy of our nation and utterly destroy our way of life in order to force ourselves and our children into indenture servitude while their members openly state their intent to commit genocide on all of the homosexuals and non-christians after seizing power, can operate completely out in the open now because, no matter how indiscrete they are, nobody will ever believe they exist because reality has become completely and utterly unbelievable.

        I almost feel like a raving nutjob believing this stuff myself.  Tie this to ownership of the voting process and problems in Ohio and Florida, Scott Ritter's allegations of vote rigging in Iraq, the recent revelations of just how extensively and explicitly bought out the media is (using OUR tax money), the mutually fellatiatory relationship of the White House and Saudi Arabia...  Every week more pieces of the puzzle appear and I'm starting to wonder if there is any arena left in which the progressive movement has even a chance to compete at all...

      •  Let's wedge them apart (3.83)
        If the people on this list have made various policy compromises in order to get a single vision out for the republicans, it might be useful for us to help their various constituencies understand exactly what they compromised.  

        If we can go after each individual's power base, they will have to appose each other more strongly, which will rip them apart at the seams.  

        There are obviously some serious compromises that must be made to unite big business and religion.

        No doubt, this is why they wanted to discussions and membership to be secret.  Our best tactic, then, is to draw the curtain back so everyone can see the dark, cynical games that are being played to manipulate them.

        •  I'm already picturing (none)
          using this in discussions with my Sigfig's "I voted for Bush because I'm a good Christian" family.  *shudder*  Maybe they can finally be convinced they've been used, and convinced of the oxymoronic nature of using that particular moron in conjunction with the phrase "good Christian."

          This diary is great - I had heard of this, but never with any concrete facts before.

          Is this the same group that has that daily meeting where they disseminate the talking points to the media?  I'm sure there's at least one good diary about that I should find too...

      •  Yes (4.00)
        I think this is a call to arms.  Gannon was just the warm up.  These people need to be exposed to massive scrutiny.

        I'm a member of a minority group: the reality-based community.

        by Unstable Isotope on Tue Feb 22, 2005 at 06:28:31 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  ahhhhhhhhhhhhh (none)
        Ever wonder how the right always seems so coordinated in the strategy.  How all the multitude of organizations they've created all seem to use the same playbook?  How they all manage to focus on the same talking points each day, day after day, year after year.  Well it's no accident.  But how do they do it?

        i read the diary, but i don't see the answer.
        so, how do they do it??????

        sorry my brain isn't functioning today.

        losing faith in democracy...

        by Raiyan on Tue Feb 22, 2005 at 09:02:17 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  It's because... (none)
          ...the various organizations on the right are coordinated at the highest levels by this one alliance of nasty people.

          "A time comes when silence is betrayal." MLK ...... The Green Knight

          by greenknight on Tue Feb 22, 2005 at 09:12:13 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Think about all the blog requests (4.00)
          to freep this poll
          to call Joe Lieberman's office

          it's like that but with the power and muscle of money and secrecy.

          Remember when all the book banning committees started going public.  They had been organizing for a long time and then, to us, it seemed like they sprung up spontaneously.  There was nothing spontaneous about it.

          That's how all the right wing local political offices got filled.  The politicians didn't talk to the public in general, they campaigned directly with the fundie activist churches.  And then, shock! shock!  how did this nutcase get elected?

          We've really known this stuff for a long time, we were just not able to connect the dots.

          Steven D has done it for us.  Kudos to Steven D

          My moniker is in honor of three generations of women whose soul's were seared in the cauldron of Hell's Kitchen, NYC

          by hells kitchen on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 08:23:14 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  I agree with MSOC.. (none)
      This is awesome.  I'm definitely going to keep my eyes open for these guys now, I've never even heard of them before (which is what they want, of course)

      In Afghanistan, they call them the Taliban. Here, we call them Republicans

      by ragnark on Tue Feb 22, 2005 at 01:55:22 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Knees (4.00)
        When I read this, I immediately dropped to me knees and began worshipping Jesus.  Then, a free market appeared before me and dumped one million dollars in cash right before my eyes.  Then, I was raptured and sucked up into the air and I now reside in heaven.

        The power of this right-wing fantasy is very strong.  I don't know about secret cabals, but these folks are definitely the creators and sellers of this fantasy.  How does reality strike back?

        After The Rapture, we get all of their stuff.

        by bink on Tue Feb 22, 2005 at 02:01:49 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  damn that's prophetic... (none)
          i just searched the freepers for all their information on the CNP.. ended up spending half an hour reading about their interpretation of the "Left Behind" series (written by the abovementioned Tim LaHaye).. Amazing what those crazy bastards will buy into... most of what they posted resembled your reply way too much ;)

          In Afghanistan, they call them the Taliban. Here, we call them Republicans

          by ragnark on Tue Feb 22, 2005 at 02:52:05 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  A "2" For the Title (2.66)
      This title is offensive and misleading (see my post in the thread about the title below).

      You were told this and still didn't change the title, which is why I bothered rating it like this.

      The post otherwise deserves a "4," btw.  As it is, I'm not even recommeding it.

      Start doing the things you think should be done, and start being what you think society should become. -Adam Michnik.

      by GreenSooner on Tue Feb 22, 2005 at 02:14:43 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Now It's a "4" (none)
        Thanks for the title change!  I've now recommended the diary...and given you a "4" instead!

        Start doing the things you think should be done, and start being what you think society should become. -Adam Michnik.

        by GreenSooner on Tue Feb 22, 2005 at 03:25:32 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Excellent Work n/t (none)

      "The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie"

      by Little Hamster on Tue Feb 22, 2005 at 04:23:38 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I thank you (none)
      for your hard work! Great piece!

      People vote for sunshine, not for gloom and doom!

      by missliberties on Tue Feb 22, 2005 at 05:36:24 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I Was Wondering Where Rev. Moon (none)
      fits into all of this. He strikes me as major bagman for these lunatic bastards.

      "George W. Bush is not only the worst president in American history, he is the worst man who has been President."--J. Miller

      by Yosef 52 on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 09:25:39 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Good site for monitoring right wing orgs, people (none)
      think tanks and their initiatives. It is called Right Web
  •  add one more link (4.00)
    within their homepage

    it will give you bios of all the members.  And I am putting the url in plain sight because of how it is entitled.

    http://www.seekgod.ca/topiccnp.htm

    Those that can, do. Those that can do more, TEACH!

    by teacherken on Tue Feb 22, 2005 at 12:59:49 PM PST

    •  Frightening... (4.00)
      From their homepage:

      This website is an independent Christian research and apologetics ministry focusing on Christian Articles to Encourage, and Research Articles to Warn about the Global Ecumenical Movement, (One World Religion) involving groups from the Occult and New Age, to Evangelicals, Catholics, Pentecostals, Jews, Charismatics, Messianics, Hebrew Roots and others. People have every right to believe what they wish. This site is about what we believe.

      The apostasy of specific leadership or organizations is exposed. This site is specifically for Believers in Jesus Christ and those seeking answers to today's problems. Please see the Introduction for more about this website.

      New articles are added regularly!

      You might have hit the mother lode here. The queen of the colony, safely tucking the sheeple into their appointed pods.

      Yesterday we stood at the abyss; today we are taking a step forward.

      by peeder on Tue Feb 22, 2005 at 01:46:45 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  3 Coors in the membership--drink Bud instead. n/t (none)
      •  Bud? (4.00)
        How about blue-state microbrew instead?

        Yesterday we stood at the abyss; today we are taking a step forward.

        by peeder on Tue Feb 22, 2005 at 02:07:21 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Pabst (4.00)
          Here's why:

          1.  It's inexpensive

          2.  Pabst is based in blue Wisconsin

          3.  PBR is union made.
          •  Pabst HQ in TX (none)
            Actually Pabst Headquarters is in San Antonio, TX.  I don't think they have any operations in Wisconsin any more.
            •  Thank you for the correction (none)
              Had a feeling I was misspeaking on that one, but I could have sworn Wisconsin is what I saw on the side of the can.

              Then again, I was drinking a lot of PBRs, so I suspect my memory was, shall we say, clouded.

              •  beer (none)
                When Pabst left Milwaukee, it was huge news in Wisconsin.  I grew up watching everyone drink Pabst, Hamms, and Schaefer.

                A bit of American history came to an end on October 17. The Pabst Brewing Company, citing years of red ink, announced that it will soon close its Milwaukee brewery - the oldest major brewery in the nation, dating back to 1844 - and contract out its meager remaining production to the G. Heileman plant in La Crosse. With Old Milwaukee and Schlitz ("The Beer That Made Milwaukee Famous") having abandoned the city in years past, along with hordes of smaller Milwaukee-based brands that either left or fell by the wayside (Remember Weber's? Of course you don't), Pabst's departure leaves Miller as the sole remaining major brewery in a town once considered synonymous with beer.
      •  William Coors happy to disclose all... (none)
        This gem is from a letter written by William Coors on the Sacramento Freethought  website. I came acroos when Googling 'boycott coors':

        my personal financial records are available to any inquiring reporter who shows me the courtesy of asking to see them.
        Warm regards,
        s Bill
        William K. Coors
        Chairman of the Board & President
        Adolph Coors Company

        What a nice man. My only question: how long do you get to live after you're seen them...

        The opposite of war is not peace, it's creation --Jonathan Larson

        by MaggieEh on Tue Feb 22, 2005 at 02:25:42 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Try Schlafly Beer instead of Bud (4.00)

        www.schlafly.com

        The best thing is, they are related to the aforementioned Phyllis (she's an aunt by marriage), who of course won't touch the stuff. I have heard that the brewer Schlafly is progressive, but I can't be sure.

        Apparently Schlafly beer is popular in St. Louis gay bars. Snicker.

        Hopelessly pedantic since 1963.

        by admiralh on Tue Feb 22, 2005 at 02:51:10 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Coors/Bush and Cabelas (none)
        Coors is trying to get a Cabellas super mall put in on land he has been saving for years. It will greatly diminish the quaint atmosphere of Wheatridge the town where it is to be located and sorely overtax the existing roads. The locals are furious!

        Remember Bush giving campaign rallies at Cabellas-the hunting, fishing, and outdoor mans shop? They just forget they need to save the environment so they can have a clean place to play!

        And thank God Coors was defeated for a Congressional seat.

        A secret society, to help promote freedom and democracy??? Isn't that a contradiciton in terms?

        People vote for sunshine, not for gloom and doom!

        by missliberties on Tue Feb 22, 2005 at 05:42:44 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I am not happy about Salazar so far (none)
          But yes Coors would have been so much worse.  Frankly I'm amazed that he was able to make that race as close as it was, because his company has a long history of environmental degradation and cover-ups. They are constantly releasing stuff into Clear Creek that no one knows about because they keep a lid on it.  My brother once worked for Coors as a quality control person and the stories he'd tell would make me so angry.
      •  I'll stick with non-corporate beer! n/t (none)

        "You beat on this prick enough, he'll tell ya he started the Chicago fire - that don't necessarily make it so!" -Nice Guy Eddie, Reservoir Dogs

        by Subterranean on Tue Feb 22, 2005 at 09:51:28 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Good find (none)
      Weirdly, this is a Canadian web site. What's up with that?
    •  I don't think that's their website (none)
      I think that site is about CNP, but I'm certain it's not theirs, and is actually critical of CNP.
    •  Under that site, I love this title (none)
      Lying Destroys Trust and Relationships

      Ironic, no?

      My moniker is in honor of three generations of women whose soul's were seared in the cauldron of Hell's Kitchen, NYC

      by hells kitchen on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 08:32:29 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Catch this! (none)
      Somebody with the bandwidth and power needs to get all this url saved.  I think it will disappear, too.
  •  A great compendium (none)
    of links to right wing mega-swill.

    Thanks for putting this together!

    Let the great world spin for ever down the ringing grooves of change. - Tennyson

    by bumblebums on Tue Feb 22, 2005 at 01:02:09 PM PST

  •  Re: Ahmanson (4.00)
    Howard F. Ahmanson sits on the board of directors of the Claremont Institute. All three of the Powerline bloggers are fellows at Claremont.

    In politics, sometimes the jackasses are on your side.

    by Dump Terry McAuliffe on Tue Feb 22, 2005 at 01:06:17 PM PST

    •  Who controls vote counting? (4.00)
      I believe it was 1980 that Howard Ahmanson gave  money to Todd and Bob Urosevich to form American Information Systems (AIS) which has now become Election System and Software, ES&S (Sen. Hagel--was once the CEO).  56% of the all votes in the United States are counted on ES&S machines.  Bob Urosevich now heads Diebold which counts another 20+% of votes.

      Ahmanson also helps fund the dominionist Christian Education center--The Chalcedon Institute.  http://www.chalcedon.edu/  

      It is not very comforting to know the machines that count our votes are tied in any way shape or form to a dominionist CNP member.

      Other useful info--
      http://www.ecotalk.org/VotingMachineCompanies.htm

      •  Amazing (4.00)
        that nowhere in these bios do they happen to mention this little fact of Ahmanson controling so much of our voting.

        The polls don't tell us how a candidate is doing, they tell us how the media is doing. And Diebold tells us who won.

        by Thumb on Tue Feb 22, 2005 at 04:01:07 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Thanks (none)
        for the link to an amazingly comprehensive site on voting machine companies and their owners, etc.  Important to check out!
      •  In a Nutshell (4.00)
        and linking Diebold et al to CNP and Bush (via Carlyle Group):

        "The American vote count is controlled by three major corporate players, Diebold , ESS , Sequoia , and a fourth, SAIC , Science Applications International. All four are hard-wired into the Bush power structure, the Bush crime family.

        They have been given millions of dollars by the Bush regime to complete a sweeping computerization of voting machines that were just used in the 2004 election. The technology involved had a trial run during the 2002 mid-term elections. Georgia had Diebold machines in every precinct. As a result, a popular Democratic governor and senator were both unseated in what the media called an "amazing" 16 percent swing.

        Diebold's Walden O'Dell, a top Bush fundraiser, publicly committed himself to delivering his home state Ohio's votes to Bush. At Diebold, the election division is run by Bob Urosevich. Bob's brother, Todd, is a top executive at "rival" ES&S. The brothers were originally staked by Howard Ahmanson, a member of the Council For National Policy , a right-wing steering group stacked with Bush true believers. Ahmanson is also one of the bagmen behind the extremist Christian Reconstruction Movement , which advocates the theocratic takeover of American democracy.

        The four companies are interconnected; they are not four "competitors". Ahmanson has large stakes in ES&S, whose former CEO was Republican Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska. When Hagel ran for office, his own company counted the votes, and his victory was considered "an amazing upset". Hagel still has a million dollar stake in ES&S.

        Sequoia is the corporate parent of a private equity firm, Madison Dearborn , which is partner in the Carlyle Group . (Also see here .)

        Meanwhile, SAIC is referred to a "shadowy defense contractor". They have gotten into the vote count game both directly and through spinoffs by its top brass, including Admiral Bill Owens, former military aide to Dick Cheney, and Carlyle Group honcho Frank Carlucci and ex-CIA chief Robert Gates. SAIC's history of fraud charges and security "lapses" haven't prevented it from becoming one of the largest Pentagon and CIA contractors, and will doubtless encounter few obstacles in its entrance into the vote counting business.

        The mad rush to install these unverifiable computers is driven by the Help America Vote Act, signed by Bush! The chief lobbying group pushing for the act (while we dumb asses sat out here and thought, `That sounds like a good idea!') was a consortium of arms dealers including Northrup Grumman and Lockheed Martin .

        Posted at Arianna Online by "Citizen_X"

    •  Ahmanson? (none)
      Isn't he that jerk who is trying to split my church (Episcopal Church) over gay equality?

      Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely in my name.

      by A Texan in Maryland on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 12:33:30 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Claremont and George Mason U (none)
      are two colleges that are owned by the right wing.
      •  Whoa! Let's dissect "Claremont" (none)
        Sorry, as a Pomona College alumnus (BA 1977, Government), I feel obliged to clarify.

        There are five Claremont Affiliated Colleges (Pomona, Claremont McKenna, Pitzer, Scripps, and Harvey Mudd) located in Claremont, CA.  http://www.claremont.edu/

        There is also the Claremont Graduate University http://www.cgu.edu/pages/1.asp
        and a number of other institutes, research bodies, etc., including the Claremont Institute http://www.claremont.org/

        It's not easy to sort through, but warrants the clarification.

        Since my time there, the Claremont Institute is a new thing.  The boards of directors tend to have a cross-section of CA and national (and international, for that matter)business/academic/moneyed/political leaders from across the spectrum.  No surprise there are Ahmansons, Irvines, etc.

        The Claremont Institute might well arguably be "owned by the right wing", but I'm not clear it's a college, and I ask your discretion in waving your big, broad brush around.

        That said, some of the board members are big GOP contributors; many are not.  Which entity are we talking about?

  •  Connect The Dots (4.00)
    How are all these folks related to one another?  Thanks for a great starting point.  We need to make a wingnut geneology chart showing how all these nuts are connected.  It needs to be a big chart with lots of names from United Seniors Association, USAnext, GOPUSA, and all the other right wing false organizations.

    Its time to connect the dots and expose the web of deceit.

    vern

    •  neocon links (4.00)
      someone posted this excellent link yesterday.  The lines are all connected.
      http://oddlots.digitalspace.net/ARX/downloads/neoconned.html
    •  Connecting: GOPUSA and L. Brent Bozell III (4.00)
      Since no one else in this thread has mentioned it, here's a new tidbit:

      By now, you've all heard that GOPUSA has removed all traces of Talon News from their website.  What hasn't been mentioned is that they've got a new "news" supplier:  Cybercast News Service  (www.cnsnews.com).  Cybercast News Service is much bigger, and much better organized, than Talon ever was ... and it's headed up by L. Brent Bozell III of the aforementioned Council for National Policy.  (Talon did have one thing Cybercast doesn't:  a reporter inside the White House Press Corp -- though that could soon change.)  

      As for Bozell's "connections," he is also the president and founder of The Media Research Center (www.mrc.org) -- an integral part of the "The media has a left-wing bias!" noise machine -- as well as a member of the Conservative Victory Committee, a contributor to the Parents Television Council (www.parentstv.org), and a member of the "Founders Committee" for the Club for Growth.

      All of which raises one particularly interesting question:  if Bobby Eberle had access to all of this -- "this" being Cybercast News Service and its far more experienced team of propaganda-pushers -- why did he bother to set up Talon News in the first place?

      I'm guessing that it was Bobby Eberle's ability to get Gannon into the WHPC that made the power brokers take notice of Eberle, though I'd have to do a detailed analysis of the various timelines to see whether this hunch has any merit.  IIRC, Gannon's first appearance predates any talk of a merger with Bruce Eberle's organization by over a year.

      •  Bozell's family (none)
        I believe the Bozell is also the nephew of Wm F Buckley, the founder of National Review. This really is a small world you are showing us.
      •  Perhaps Bobby Eberle was an effort (none)
        to create another degree of separation between the muckety-mucks and those who roll in the muck.

        In any case, since Bruce W. Eberle is a trustee of the Joe Gibbs Youth for Tomorrow Fund which is having its annual Sweetheart Ball, hosted by Brit Hume, this February 26 at the Lansdowne Rsort near Leesburg, Va. perhaps that would be an opportunity to see who else shows up.

        YFT has been chosen to be one of the Redskin's 25 charities this year and has set out on an ambitious fund raising program to build a new facility (have reached about $9 mil of their $13 mil goal)  Presumably Eberle is helping with that. For some reason they got $1 mil from FreddieMac.

      •  he files 99.8% of the total indecency complaints (none)
        to the FCC ...

        from mediatransparency.org

        "In an appearance before Congress  ... Federal Communications Commission chairman Michael Powell laid some startling statistics on U.S. senators.

        "The number of indecency complaints had soared dramatically to more than 240,000 in the previous year, Powell said. The figure was up from roughly 14,000 in 2002, and from fewer than 350 in each of the two previous years. There was, Powell said, "a dramatic rise in public concern and outrage about what is being broadcast into their homes."

        "What Powell did not reveal -- apparently because he was unaware -- was the source of the complaints. According to a new FCC estimate obtained by Mediaweek, nearly all indecency complaints in 2003--99.8 percent--were filed by [Brent Bozell's] the Parents Television Council, an activist group.

    •  In trying to find a connection (none)
      between Bruce W. Eberle and other players, I ran across Young America's Foundation of which a prior associate of Eberle's, Matthew Schenk is/was the executive director.  YAF.org has a bunch of high profile people associated with it, including Thomas L. Phillips, who owns Human Events, the Conservative Book Club and Regnery Publishing, all of them clients of GOPUSA.

      Also, there's a T.Kenneth Gibbs, Jr who runs the Intercollegiate Studies Institute in Wilmington, Delaware (server not accessible) and an outfit called the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE).  Gibbs' bio on the YAF site stops suddenly.  He was with Meese in the AG's office and seems to have been on presidential transition teams.  Also, he's a member of CNP.

    •  Read this article by Andy Sornell... (4.00)
      posted to my diary here:

      http://antifascist2005.dailykos.com/story/2005/2/8/204225/7523

      We have a Yahoo group investigating these folks.

  •  Can you unrecommend a diary? (none)
    This diary title is disgusting.

    Someone needs to change it.

    •  Agreed (3.66)
      Why taint a useful diary by associating it with an old anti-Semitic hoax?  
      •  original title (none)
        I'm coming to this late. Out of curiosity, what was the original title?
      •  Gee, does that mean I have to (none)
        remove the phrase "protocols of TCP/IP networks" from my vocabulary?

        "You don't lead by pointing and telling people some place to go. You lead by going to that place and making a case." - Ken Kesey

        by Glinda on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 07:11:05 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Har har (none)
          You know perfectly well why this is not a valid analogy.  So why bother to make it long after the title has been changed, the debate over it has ended, and the participants have largely moved on to other things?  
          •  It's just as valid as your analogy was. (none)
            And the debate about censorship of language isn't over merely because you won this round.

            "You don't lead by pointing and telling people some place to go. You lead by going to that place and making a case." - Ken Kesey

            by Glinda on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 10:03:30 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  You can't seriously believe (none)
              that an explicit, intentional, admitted reference to the Protocols of the Elders of Zion is the same as merely using the word "protocol" in any context.

              Because if you do, then debate with you is pointless anyway.  I have no interest in arguing with this kind of sophism.

              •  Sophisim? Heh. You're absolutely right! (none)
                But then you never convinced anyone but the harassed diarist of the merits of your argument to change the title. Yours was the true sophistry my friend!

                "You don't lead by pointing and telling people some place to go. You lead by going to that place and making a case." - Ken Kesey

                by Glinda on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 10:40:52 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  You didn't read the thread (none)
                  By now, by my count, six people have stated an opinion that the title should be changed.  If you really want to boil this down to "how many were convinced?", then at least finish counting.
                  •  Ah! Be careful! (none)
                    Sloppy rhetoric can get you in trouble!

                    There were indeed six people who thought that the title should be changed. However, it is not a fact that you convinced them. It is much more likely that they came to the diary with their own knee-jerk PC slant. But that's just the opinion of a 40-year member of the ACLU and first amendment fanatic.

                    The best you got with your argument was an "agree to disagree".

                    To echo Maryscott: "It's Chinatown."

                    "You don't lead by pointing and telling people some place to go. You lead by going to that place and making a case." - Ken Kesey

                    by Glinda on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 11:22:35 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Oops! Correction! 30-year member! (none)
                      I'm not that old.

                      "You don't lead by pointing and telling people some place to go. You lead by going to that place and making a case." - Ken Kesey

                      by Glinda on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 11:24:30 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  what does any of this (none)
                      have to do with the First Amendment? People are always using that strawman when they are criticized for the language they use. Nobody's advocated any coercive action here.

                      "One nation under a groove, getting down just for the funk of it" - Funkadelic

                      by AaronInSanDiego on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 01:15:13 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  My what a lively little subthread here! (none)
                        Indeed this is no "strawman". This goes directly to the heart of the last 30+ years of First Amendment cases.  And there was coersion here and it succeeded: the diarist was coerced into changing his title.

                        Granted the coersion amounted to nothing more than the withholding of a recommendation from this diary and one or two '2's in his tip jar that were given (temporarily) with the stipulation that he change the title to get the ratings corrected. I'll admit he wasn't threatened with expulsion from the site, or with jail. But various people chose not to persuade but to punish the diarist until he conformed. This reminds me of the silly games that are played on college campuses.

                        The prior title was incredibly strong and crystalized the cabal. Several sensitive souls said that the title offended them and attempted to speak for an entire group. The argument is a familiar PC one. We will not utter certain phrases because it may remind people of a nasty little book?  A book whose content is despicable but whose title is objectively neutral.

                        Sometimes I think we really are headed toward Newspeak: the Right uses words to mean the opposite of what they really mean -- "War is Peace" / "Fear is Bravery" / "Volatility is Security " (could't resist the SocSec reference) -- and the Left wants to remove words and phrases wholesale from the vocabulary.  

                        From a First Amendment point of view, in today's world there are a different set of "dirty little words". To invoke a famous 30+ year old first amendment case: I'll bet Lenny Bruce is laughing from the grave at us. His language was always offensive. But like this diarist's, it was effective.

                        "You don't lead by pointing and telling people some place to go. You lead by going to that place and making a case." - Ken Kesey

                        by Glinda on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 01:59:26 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  This is exactly the problem (none)
                          Despite your solemn invocations of your ACLU membership and "30+ years of First Amendment cases", it's clear that you don't understand what the First Amendment means.  To equate withholding of recommendations and low ratings with the type of suppression that the First Amendment was intended to prevent is insulting to the intelligence.  

                          Try this on for size.  The next time a big story that helps the Democrats is about to hit the news media, I'm going to say "this story is about to explode like an Israeli Sbarros!"

                          What, you think that's over the line?  But don't you see the brilliant irony?  You see, whereas the story is not going to explode literally, the Sbarro's did!  And whereas the Sbarros explosion is a bad thing, the story's explosion is a good thing!  And it's a very evocative image.  What, you don't think it's brilliant?  How dare you try to censor me?  Don't you know anything about the First Amendment!?  If we can't make unnecessary, casual references to anti-Semitic hoaxes and suicide bombings, we might as well surrender to the Right.

                          You might object that this is "different," but it's a closer analogy than your allegation that you're not allowed to use the word "protocol" anymore.  And I think it makes clear that at some point, we all draw the line.  You wouldn't be shouting about the First Amendment now if the diarist used the "Israeli Sbarros" line.  And if you would, then I'm sure that I could come up with something vile enough for you to say, "okay, that's not cool."  

                          Your argument does not reflect your judgment about the First Amendment (which does not apply in this context anyway), but rather your judgment that the old title was a good one.  Well, I thought that it is a bad one.  I expressed myself using the the tools at my disposal (although I never negatively rated anyone), and you are doing the same.  And no one can tell us that we shouldn't.  That, as any ACLU member should know, is what the First Amendment is really about.

                          •  First of all ... (none)
                            I love ad hominem attacks. They always work so well for the arguer. ;-)

                            And frankly I don't think "This story is about to explode like an Israeli Sbarros!" is over the line. It's a funny line ... very Brucean! I suspect he'd like it too. He was into toppling the false idols of respectability. So your argument doesn't really work with me. Sorry.

                            And you state that the First Amendment does not apply in this case but do not expand on this statement to say why. May I remind you the diarist was using political speech in the diary, and certainly every legal scholar from both the left and right agree about the protections for political speech. And GreenSooner did use coersion rather than persuasion by giveing a temporary '2' even if you did not. I did not imply it was you who did that.

                            I doubt that you could come up with something vile enough for me to ever say that you should not be allowed to say it. You have no idea who you are dealing with in me! (Heh.) I deplore what the moronic and  politically-impotent socialtist dweebs that I knew in the 70s wrought with their strawman of "political correctness". It's their only legacy that lasted and it's truly a sad one.

                            Nice try!

                            "You don't lead by pointing and telling people some place to go. You lead by going to that place and making a case." - Ken Kesey

                            by Glinda on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 03:00:12 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  First Amendment and coercion? (none)
                            "May I remind you the diarist was using political speech in the diary, and certainly every legal scholar from both the left and right agree about the protections for political speech."

                            Ha. Amendment I reads
                            "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

                            See that first word? The one that says "Congress"? Political
                            speech is protected from the government doing anything
                            about it - but, near as I can tell, there's nothing in the
                            Constitution or in case law that forbids private individuals,
                            acting on their own (i.e., as opposed to acting in an
                            official capacity) from squelching "political speech". If I
                            wanted to, I could espouse white supremacy here, and there's
                            nothing to prevent the owner of this forum from banning me
                            forever from this list. He's not the Government; what I do
                            here and his reactions to it are not covered by the First
                            Amendment, because the First Amendment covers only
                            what the federal government can, and cannot do, to
                            citizens (with some extensions to the State governments,
                            thanks to extensions provided by later Amendments and
                            various decisions of the Courts).

                            (Well, with certain exceptions: yelling fire in a crowded
                            theater, and libel, and slander - but the comments
                            you refer to I don't believe come under any of the
                            exceptions.)

                            Yeah, it's political speech. Yeah, it might be considered
                            coercion. But there's nowhere that it intersects with the
                            First Amendment, because nowhere does the Government
                            come into play.

                            Alban

                          •  Yep (none)
                            You said it better than I did.  I think it's tragic that some of the loudest "defenders" of the First Amendment don't understand what it really means.  
                          •  I couldn't agree more! :-) (none)

                            "You don't lead by pointing and telling people some place to go. You lead by going to that place and making a case." - Ken Kesey

                            by Glinda on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 05:06:08 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Not serious (none)
                            I have to conclude at this point that you are not really interested in having a serious discussion here.  I should have known that from the beginning, when you reignited this debate with a comment that even you admit was basically a cheap shot.  Your misinterpretations of my statements show that you are not bothering to read what I'm saying--or that you simply don't care what I'm saying.  

                            Let's start with your statement:

                            I doubt that you could come up with something vile enough for me to ever say that you should not be allowed to say it.

                            But I did not say that I could come up with something so vile that you should not be allowed to say it--in the sense of a government ban.  I said that I could come up with something so vile that you'd say, "okay, that's not cool."  In case there was any confusion, being "not cool" does not mean that you would want to impose a government ban on it, but that you would express your disapproval of it.  Huge difference--one which you seem to be unable to grasp.  

                            I can say whatever I want, and you can tell me to shut the fuck up--it's all protected by the First Amendment.  

                            Since you don't find wisecracks about deadly suicide bombings to be offensive, maybe I should try to get more vile.  Suppose I posted a comment saying "Niggers should go kill themselves because they're inferior."  Wouldn't you tell me that this is a horrible comment?  Perhaps you might even troll rate it.  (If you wouldn't, you would certainly be outside the mainstream of this community.)

                            Or perhaps the only view that could possibly generate your disapproval is the view that I've been expressing in your comments.  By your bizarre logic, you are suppressing my speech by disagreeing with me.  If criticizing someone for a statement is the same as banning it, as you seem to be arguing, then everyone who expresses an opinion about another opinion is guilty of violating the First Amendment.  

                            Once again, if you think that giving a "2" is a First Amendment violation, you have no clue what the First Amendment means.  The First Amendment addresses government suppression of speech.  It only reaches private behavior under extremely specific circumstances, such as "company towns" that essentially function as a government.  (Quick, oh First Amendment scholar, tell me what Supreme Court case first addressed company towns.)  Either you think that GreenSooner is the U.S. government, or your 30+ years in the ACLU have been wasted on you.  

                          •  Again with the ad hominem! (none)
                            You are correct in one thing ... we are no longer interested in having a serious discussion of the matter ... it we ever were.

                            Sorry you took it so seriously. I meant to offer an alternative way of looking at the issue but we are not on the same wavelength.

                            Have a nice evening.

                            "You don't lead by pointing and telling people some place to go. You lead by going to that place and making a case." - Ken Kesey

                            by Glinda on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 05:03:24 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Translation (none)
                            You know that yours was an incorrect reading of the First Amendment, and you want to bow out.  Have a nice evening as well.
                          •  No I just got tired of the silliness of this. (none)
                            Your argument just got too ridiculous to respond to. I mean comparing the use of non-inflamatory terms with a direct attack on someone. "The Protocols of the Ultra-Right" as compared to "Niggers should go kill themselves because they're inferior." Come on! You cannot be seriously using that as an argument? You are grasping at straws.

                            And you should be able to argue this better and without personally attacking me, or anyone else here. I assume you have a decent education since you are apparently well read. Jesus! Now use that education to argue more effectively! We need good, solid debaters in this party. Not "Little Green Football" players!

                            I started out bantering with you. And you took it deadly seriously.  But I get get tired of the anger and eternal personal attacks that I've read on this site. I usually stay far, far away from them, and have privately chided Armando (who I adore) for getting involved in them. They take too much energy away from serious discussion.  

                            Perhaps you are young. This is not a life or death struggle. This too is learning. Up until the last few posts, I actually was thinking and considering your argument since there was merit there (I'm refering to all your early posts in the diary). I found your thoughts stimulating even though I disagreed. I don't engage people I think are assholes or idiots. I ignore them.  But you lost it with the last several posts.

                            I am unmoved by academic and rather Borkian "strict-constructist" views of the Constitution. And I think that there are a number of First Amendment issues that are far from settled satisfactorily. Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the old First Amendment argument about whether "shouting down a speaker" should be protected. This has nothing to do with the government shouting people down (although you might argue that JG/JG qualifies as such). You would be correct that current precedent says "shouting down" is protected. But I don't think it is a settled First Amendment question. And the current "shouting down" in the media for very trumped up, right-wing "politically correct" reasons may be a useful paradigm to to illustrate this point.

                            Although you may not construe it as "shouting", the implicit use of the "anti-Semetic" bugaboo in the calls to change the title come unsettlingly close to "shouting down". I think the "anti-Semitism" canard should become the subject of a corollary of "Godwin's Law". I mean the title of the book might make someone uncomfortable? The title!?

                            There was a very strong argument against, if not the use of the original title, but its use without a carefully thought-out explanation of the choice of title. But no one mentioned this most obvious argument was made anywhere in the diary.

                            I like having honest give and take that follows some Aristotlean rhetorical rules. That's how I made firm friends with Armando. He's very aggressive but incredibly logical and he plays by the rules. And his pisses on you when you refuse to. ("You" being the rhetorical "you" aka "one". I feel like I have to be extra careful with you. )   He and I had an argument and both learned something from it. I made a great friend in him and I wouldn't have if we hadn't had the original disagreement.

                            You obviously like to "win" your arguments, as if that is ever the point at dKos. (I wonder ... Might you be a newly-minted lawyer?)

                            But if you wish, savor your "victory", my boy! And have pleasant dreams tonight!

                            "You don't lead by pointing and telling people some place to go. You lead by going to that place and making a case." - Ken Kesey

                            by Glinda on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 06:42:57 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Last word? (none)
                            Your argument just got too ridiculous to respond to. I mean comparing the use of non-inflamatory terms with a direct attack on someone. "The Protocols of the Ultra-Right" as compared to "Niggers should go kill themselves because they're inferior." Come on! You cannot be seriously using that as an argument? You are grasping at straws.

                            Well, you completely missed the point on that one.  My argument was not that these statements were equivalent.  I made it quite clear that I was reaching for something as vile as I could, to show that that your reaction was not based on abstract First Amendment principles, but on your personal opinion of the statements being made.  But this was (and is) apparently lost on you, perhaps because you were too busy trying to argue that using the mojo system or withholding diary recommendations is a violation of the First Amendment.  

                            And you should be able to argue this better and without personally attacking me, or anyone else here. I assume you have a decent education since you are apparently well read. Jesus! Now use that education to argue more effectively! We need good, solid debaters in this party. Not "Little Green Football" players!

                            My personal attacks on you did not go much further than a bit of snark and some sarcastic references to your alleged expertise in the First Amendment.  Since you were the one who raised your ACLU membership to bolster your own argument, I don't think it was unjustified for me to comment on it.  The classic "ad hominem" argument is "don't listen to what Phil has to say; he's a lawyer."  Nothing I said was an "ad hominem" argument in this sense.

                            I started out bantering with you. And you took it deadly seriously.  But I get get tired of the anger and eternal personal attacks that I've read on this site. I usually stay far, far away from them, and have privately chided Armando (who I adore) for getting involved in them. They take too much energy away from serious discussion.

                            I wouldn't classify what you were doing as "banter."  I didn't detect any signs of good nature or fun in your early comments.  Since I have been kicked around quite a bit (and troll-rated) for expressing my opinion on this thread, I hope you'll forgive me if I didn't take your cheap shot after the debate was over in the best of spirits.  

                            Perhaps you are young. This is not a life or death struggle. This too is learning. Up until the last few posts, I actually was thinking and considering your argument since there was merit there (I'm refering to all your early posts in the diary). I found your thoughts stimulating even though I disagreed. I don't engage people I think are assholes or idiots. I ignore them.  But you lost it with the last several posts.

                            Once again, I didn't see any evidence that you were really considering my arguments upthread.  Perhaps I misread you.  But you certainly seemed to be interested primarily in distorting, misunderstanding, and mocking my statements.  

                            I am unmoved by academic and rather Borkian "strict-constructist" views of the Constitution. And I think that there are a number of First Amendment issues that are far from settled satisfactorily. Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the old First Amendment argument about whether "shouting down a speaker" should be protected. This has nothing to do with the government shouting people down (although you might argue that JG/JG qualifies as such). You would be correct that current precedent says "shouting down" is protected. But I don't think it is a settled First Amendment question. And the current "shouting down" in the media for very trumped up, right-wing "politically correct" reasons may be a useful paradigm to to illustrate this point.

                            First of all, my argument was not a Borkean strict constructionist position by any stretch of the imagination.  You don't need to be a strict constructionist to believe that asking a diarist to change his title, and using the dKos mojo system, is not a violation of the First Amendment.  

                            As for adding protections against "shouting down" by private entities to the First Amendment, I would like to see some evidence that this is taken seriously by anyone.  And some evidence that denying someone a diary recommendation, etc., qualifies as "shouting down."

                            Although you may not construe it as "shouting", the implicit use of the "anti-Semetic" bugaboo in the calls to change the title come unsettlingly close to "shouting down". I think the "anti-Semitism" canard should become the subject of a corollary of "Godwin's Law". I mean the title of the book might make someone uncomfortable? The title!?

                            Perhaps you missed how I repeatedly and explicitly said that I do not consider the title of the diary to be anti-Semitic.  However, I do see how the casual reference to an anti-Semitic canard could distort the message of the diary, and perhaps offend some people.  I was uncomfortable sending this diary to some of my friends, who might not understand the intent behind the title.  Apparently, this was considered to be a ridiculous position, worthy of nothing but mockery.

                            I don't think that even the statement that something is anti-Semitic should be considered "shouting down" and thus banned by the First Amendment.  This would have a chilling effect on speech far beyond giving somebody a "2" on an internet forum.  

                            There was a very strong argument against, if not the use of the original title, but its use without a carefully thought-out explanation of the choice of title. But no one mentioned this most obvious argument was made anywhere in the diary.

                            A carefully thought-out definition could have done the trick.  Too bad you were too busy chortling about how "I guess I can't say 'protocols' now" to make this suggestion.

                            I like having honest give and take that follows some Aristotlean rhetorical rules. That's how I made firm friends with Armando. He's very aggressive but incredibly logical and he plays by the rules. And his pisses on you when you refuse to. ("You" being the rhetorical "you" aka "one". I feel like I have to be extra careful with you. )   He and I had an argument and both learned something from it. I made a great friend in him and I wouldn't have if we hadn't had the original disagreement.

                            You obviously like to "win" your arguments, as if that is ever the point at dKos. (I wonder ... Might you be a newly-minted lawyer?)

                            But if you wish, savor your "victory", my boy! And have pleasant dreams tonight!

                            I wouldn't have had a problem with you if you were "incredibly logical."  But almost every statement you made seemed to be an intentional distortion of something that I had said.  

                            The reason I have gone this far is not because I want to "win" my argument (remember that I was willing to let this drop last night), but because you made a number of silly and unnecessary attacks, and bolstered them with a deeply flawed description of the First Amendment that I feel is disturbingly common.  I don't see what right you have to mock me for carrying the argument this far.  You were the one who took a shot at me after the debate was over, and you have been responding to all of my comments in this subthread.  You've sunk just as deeply into this argument as I have.  If you want to criticize me for trying to "win," I'll throw the same criticism back at you.  

                          •  Okay ... (none)
                            We were definitely on different wavelenghs! You took what was definitely good-natured banter and, apparently, because you felt beaten up, misread me. And I misread your frame of mind. I apologize!

                            My original comment was meant as a joke ... what's it called? ... good-natured "chiding" ... a way to open the discussion to be a discussion of "language" in its purest sense. The comments about "sophism" were meant in the same rather light vein.

                            The problem with this medium is that there is no "tone of voice": you and I had completely different "tones of voice" and I, for one, am at fault for completley missing yours. Sorry.

                            Yours is a very long rebuttal that deserves more attention than I can give it at the moment. (The "hubs" just arrived home at midnight after a tortuous workday and I'd ordered a rather exquisite Italian meal.)  Perhaps we can continue this in a diary. I've promised some people one long ago. I'll try to do it soon.

                            "You don't lead by pointing and telling people some place to go. You lead by going to that place and making a case." - Ken Kesey

                            by Glinda on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 09:08:07 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  The only recognizably good-natured comment (none)
                            I've seen from you so far is the one you just posted.  There were many comments from you that I found hard to interpret as either a good-natured joke or a serious attempt to debate.  If I misread anything, I apologize.  I'd be happy to continue the First Amendment debate in another diary, provided that we define the terms of debate to prevent any misunderstandings.
                    •  I'm willing to bet (none)
                      that none of the "How dare you censor!" crowd was "convinced" by anyone either.  The only person who was "convinced" in any direction was the diarist.  And he changed the title.  
    •  empath, (4.00)
      I understand the concern, but I think you may be interpreting it the wrong way. The way I read it, it's supposed to be ironic; raving loonies think a secret cadre of banker Jews are controlling the world, when in reality, it's a secret cadre of influential ultra-conservatives. It's using a classic hardcore-wingnut concept against them.

      That's just how I took it, anyway.

      "I told them on Inauguration Day. I said look into my eyes: no new enhancements." - President Johnny Gentle (Famous Crooner)

      by Johnny Gentle Famous Crooner on Tue Feb 22, 2005 at 01:41:23 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I'm sorry you're offended (4.00)
      I think the title makes a valid point, but I'm open to hearing the opinion of the community.  Does everyone agree with empath?  

      My reason for the title was to call attention to this as a conspiracy, except in thsi case an all too real conspiracy of the most extreme elements in our political landscape and how they've managed with large sums of money, deceit, intimidation and perseverence to assume authority over our Republic.

      But, if enough people find the title offensive I'll change it.

      Please let me know.

      Steven D

      •  No fucking way. (none)
        See my defense below.

        Though, now it's on the Recommended List, you might consider toning down the ALL CAPS theme. Easier to read and understand the allusion when it's not screamed.

        Rage, rage, against the lying of the Right.

        by Maryscott OConnor on Tue Feb 22, 2005 at 01:47:57 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  I don't think (none)
        that the best way to call attention to a real conspiracy is to name it after a fake conspiracy.  I'm sure that there are more tasteful titles that could be used.  
        •  God forbid... (3.50)
          we be accused of not being TASTEFUL.

          Sorry, I disagree. Grab the attention. SHOCK works. Contrast WORKS.

          Fake Conspiracy... REAL conspiracy. Get it? Thought so. Guess what? So will people with less of a keen insight than we. Because it's obvious, because it's shocking, because it's an eyecatching, HEY, Over Here, Read THIS!

          Feel free to post a disagreement, but I won't be swayed. This is a GREAT title.

          Rage, rage, against the lying of the Right.

          by Maryscott OConnor on Tue Feb 22, 2005 at 02:13:15 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  How about we create a diary (3.66)
            called "The Holocaust is a Lie!!"  Then, the first line of the diary can be, "Actually, no it isn't.  But now that I've got your attention..."

            Believe me, everybody would read that diary.  If your goal is just to grab attention, it's an excellent idea.  But the flaws of this approach are obvious, I hope.  This diary's title is not as bad as my hypothetical, but it is still not in very good taste.  And yes, you're saying that you don't want to be considered tasteful, or don't care about it, and under some circumstances I would agree.  I have recommended many profanity-laden diaries that are anything but tasteful.  But in this case, I don't think that the tastelessness adds anything except confusion.

            As I've said, I really don't think the real conspiracy vs. fake conspiracy thing is so cleverly ironic that it can't be sacrificed.  I mean, isn't there any other way you could get someone to read this?

            Once again, I am not saying that the author is anti-Semitic.  I'm saying that the title reflects what I consider to be poor judgment.  Whatever.  You all know my opinion by now.

          •  Agree, Maryscott. And God forbid..... (none)
            that we EVER be accused of being PERSNICKETY.
      •  No Offense Here (4.00)
        I immediately recognized the irony in the title before I even read the diary. The content was much more than I expected and I commend you for unearthing this nest of vipers.
      •  Last word (3.50)
        I'm not going to carry on this argument anymore, because I think I've said everything I have to say, and I'm not in the mood to get even further into a screaming match with Maryscott (whose comments I usually like) and others over this.  

        All I'm going to say is that by my count, five people have posted that they were confused, turned off, distracted, or otherwise dissatisfied by the title of this diary.  This group might not be the majority here, and it is not making our points as emphatically as others.  But I think that when five people, out of the relatively small sample that has viewed this diary, found the title to be a bad choice, you might want to consider changing it, especially if you want this to reach the widest audience possible.

        I think that you have done an excellent job with this diary otherwise.  I appreciate your willingness to at least consider changing the title, and will restate one last time that I think the diary would be improved with a better title.

        •  More ratings abuse (none)
          From "coerce", who apparently feels it necessary to hand out 1's for disagreement.  None of the people who were actually involved in this debate troll-rated each other, despite how heated the argument got at times.  But now apparently someone feels the need to hand out 1's after the whole argument is over.  Classy.
          •  'ratings abuse' (none)
            maybe i was handing out 1s because it is clear you get far too worked up over nothing.

            perhaps there should be some sort of ratings faq that instructs all users on what ratings are permissable for what kind of comment.  OR we could leave it to each user to decide that for themselves, using their own criteria.

            there are many reasons i may have given you a one.  maybe i didnt know how the rating system worked.  maybe i meant a two but my my mouse hit then one as the dropdown was collapsing.  maybe i thought you were an ass.  judging from the post in question it was one of the first two.  either way my intent was not 'ratings abuse'.

            i'm not new to this site.  i've spent alot of time here on a daily basis since far before the election.  what i AM new to here is participating.  the way i began to get my feet wet was trying out the comment ratings systemt to get a feel for the community and the process.

            i think this kind of reaction can really discourage people from participating.  you see my rating, you know you havent seen me posting or commenting before and the first thing you do is assault me.

            Classy.

            [btw sorry i didnt get to this sooner.  i just ran across it during an unrelated google search.]

            •  Advice for the new guy (none)
              When you use the ratings system in an improper way, you are in no position to get self-righteous when people get mad at you.  The burden is on you to get the rating correct.  And if you screw up the rating for whatever reason, it is your obligation to 1.) apologize, and 2.) change the rating.  You haven't done either of these things.  

              Yes, perhaps there should be some kind of ratings FAQ.  In fact, there is one, linked from the main page.  (See the section "DKOS community norms" or "Is there a community guide?")

              The ratings system should be used with caution, or not at all.  Calling someone a "troll" via a rating, as you did, is a very strong statement on this site.  The meaning of these ratings is not left "to each user to decide . . . using their own criteria", nor is it a way to play around to get your "feet wet."  If you have been visiting this site on a regular basis, odds are that you'd know what "troll" means, and you'd know that giving someone a troll rating is not taken lightly.  

              If you want to participate, maybe you should consider actually posting things (instead of throwing around troll ratings and getting huffy when people don't take this in good humor).  If you can't be bothered to learn basic community norms before dumping ratings on people, I don't see why I should worry that I'm discouraging your participation on the site.  

              •  Advice for the snarky jackass (none)
                upon reviewing the 'ratings faq' you pointed to i found this:

                * A 1 is a "troll-rated" comment.  These are comments that are basically devoid of content, add nothing to the conversation, and/or are offensive.

                since your contribution to this discussion mainly consisted of travelling upthread and down posting various rehashings of your same vacuous opinion ['I'm not going to carry on this argument anymore, because I think I've said everything I have to say, and...', 'You all know my opinion by now...', all basically devoid of content, adding nothing to the conversation] i think you fit the category of a 1 rating [Troll] rather perfectly.

                add to that the fact that you clearly get far too worked up over nothing and you get zero sympathy from me.  you deserve these 1s if for nothing else than how much of a dick you are to 'the new guy'.

                thanks for the warm welcome, 'dtj'.

                •  Looks like I was right (none)
                  that I shouldn't worry about discouraging your participation on this site.  Judging from your posts on this thread, it seems that we'd be better off without you.  

                  Your interpretation of the "basically devoid of content" and "add nothing to the conversation" requirements is ludicrous.  This rule is intended to punish comments that literally contribute nothing--"First/Frist" posts, advertising, pornographic images, and so on.  It is not intended to police an ongoing debate according to your subjective interpretation of the strict necessity of the comments.  By your logic, anything that doesn't push the conversation forward--including "Nice post," "I agree," and even "Tip Jar"--is forbidden.  If you've spent any time at all on this site, you couldn't possibly think that my comments were "troll" comments, under the ratings system we have.

                  But don't just take my word for it.  Observe that nobody except you troll-rated my comments.  In fact, people who disagreed with me on the substance of the argument gave me 4's just to combat your abusive ratings.  Even though the debate got very heated, and some people strongly disagreed with my comments, nobody said that my comments were troll comments.  Nobody except you.  Since you've admitted that you are unfamiliar with the ratings system, maybe you should take a lesson from this.  

                  It's amusing to watch you contradict yourself.  Earlier, you posted this:

                  maybe i didnt know how the rating system worked.  maybe i meant a two but my my mouse hit then one as the dropdown was collapsing.  maybe i thought you were an ass.  judging from the post in question it was one of the first two.

                  Of course, now you're saying explicitly that I deserve the rating because you deem my comments to be "vacuous" and "devoid of content."  This is quite a different story from your earlier statement--i.e. that you must have given me the rating because of your ignorance of the rating system, or because your mouse slipped.  

                  It is absurd for you to believe that I should get down on my knees and welcome you to the site, when your first action on Daily Kos was an unjustified troll-rating.  Try this--go onto some other threads, dump troll-ratings on people, and get indignant when they get mad at you.  You will find that most people will be even less welcoming toward this behavior than me.  

                  •  boundless condescension (none)
                    okay, buddy.  i'll explain you a couple of things.

                    firstly, i didnt contradict myself.  as anybody capable of parsing english can clearly see my intial list of possible reasons for my rating was a list of items beginning with 'MAYBE'.  what that means is that i was not asserting any of those things as the absolute answer.  you were meant to infer from that that i couldnt [indeed, still cant] remember my exact reason for that rating.  i was also trying to be nice and not start off by insulting your asinine, repetetive commentary.  clearly wasted effort.

                    when it comes down to it, your comments contributed nothing beyond the repetition that everybody already knew how you felt.  that's just the plain fact of it.  

                    other people didnt troll rate you?  guess what.  i dont give two shits.  if i were interested in parroting the ratings of others i'd set up a script and just let it run all day 'taking lessons' from how other people rated.

                    oh, and one more thing:

                    it's amusing to watch you create straw men and then expertly destroy them.  what a talent.

                    It is absurd for you to believe that I should get down on my knees and welcome you to the site, when your first action on Daily Kos was an unjustified troll-rating.

                    wow.  seems to me those talents are wasted here.  you a closet freeper?

                    •  Yep (none)
                      Responding to you further is a waste of time.  You are going to great lengths to defend your ratings abuse, because you refuse to admit that you were violating community standards.  As amusing as it is to watch you tie yourself in self-righteous knots trying to justify your behavior, I think I'm going to let your own self-contradictory response speak for itself.  

                      Enjoy your stay at Daily Kos, which will probably be very short, if this is how you plan to behave.

        •  Have a 4 (none)
          I don't agree re the title, I wouldn't have called the diary that if I'd written it, but I picked up on the irony even before I read the diary. But your comments aren't worth 1s by any stretch of the imagination, so have some balance mojo.
        •  yeah, hooray for the shrieking minority. n/t (none)

          "I told them on Inauguration Day. I said look into my eyes: no new enhancements." - President Johnny Gentle (Famous Crooner)

          by Johnny Gentle Famous Crooner on Tue Feb 22, 2005 at 03:56:43 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  I ususally dig YOUR comments, too (none)
          Personally, I'm not holding an emotionally charged disagreement against you or anyone else here.

          I do apologize if my admittedly obnoxious style offended you. I just get, um, passionate about this stuff.

          Pax, baby.

          Rage, rage, against the lying of the Right.

          by Maryscott OConnor on Tue Feb 22, 2005 at 05:48:16 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  i am confused/ new/ didn't see original title... (none)
          couldn't figure out the new title and since i'm sci-fi impaired i didn't check it out even given deservably high interest.
          this is a very important diary.
          neglected, imho.
          i thought kossites were afraid of CNP.

          When i found out that Charlie Jarvis of USANext was a member (and exec vp of Focus on the Family)... my blood boiled!!
          How can a 501c3 group be so 'secret'??  
          Rumsfeld thinks they're great.
          W addressed them.
          MY taxes are subsidizing their tax-free status and

          I RESENT IT.

           

      •  Good new one: Sith Lords n/t (none)

        Yesterday we stood at the abyss; today we are taking a step forward.

        by peeder on Tue Feb 22, 2005 at 03:02:15 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  What are "sith lords"? (none)
          n/t

          Heartsick about the war? Join the Women in Black

          by rhubarb on Tue Feb 22, 2005 at 06:05:07 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  The sith lords (none)
            are evil masterminds from the Dark Side of the Force in Star Wars, specifically the new Star Wars series. I am certain there are people better than me at explaining what they are, what they do, etc. But basically, they seem to be the evil counterpart of the Jedi Knights that are the heroes of the series.

            Yesterday we stood at the abyss; today we are taking a step forward.

            by peeder on Tue Feb 22, 2005 at 06:20:33 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  I had to look it up... (none)
            and found an answer here:
            What's the difference between a Sith Lord and a Dark Jedi? A Sith Lord is a follower of the dark arts of the Sith Order. A Dark Jedi is any evil Force user who does NOT follow the ways of the Sith Order. Dark Jedi are NOT Sith Lords
            Now that answer may lead to more questions, which is kind of like the effect of this diary....

            You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one...

            by imagine on Tue Feb 22, 2005 at 06:26:15 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

    •  Kneejerk much? (4.00)
      Do you not know irony when you see it?

      A huge, powerful cabal of right wing christianists conspires to RULE THE WORLD and DESTROY ALL ITS ENEMIES.

      How long before the Jews get back on the hit list? How long before the old lies about the Jews make their way to the surface?

      Drop the self-righteous anti-semitic radar for a second and take a look at the REASON this title was chosen.

      Christ on a fucking crutch.

      Rage, rage, against the lying of the Right.

      by Maryscott OConnor on Tue Feb 22, 2005 at 01:46:47 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I'm with you - keep the title (4.00)
        Come on people it's called creative writing.
        And I speak here as one of the members of the great Hassidic rap group Black Shabbos.

        Republicans - talking the Christ talk but walking the Enron walk

    •  Yes, please change the title (3.50)
      You're leaving a big fat target on DKOS by referring to an antisemitic hoax in the title.
      •  Yep (none)
        Imagine going to a right-wing site ranting about a liberal conspiracy, with a title modeled after an anti-Semitic hoax.  Don't you think that most of us would make a comment about how tasteless and unnecessary that is?  I am not saying that this diary is anti-Semitic at all; I'm just saying that this is way too easily misinterpreted.  And please, spare me the comments about what a coward I am for "worrying about the conservatives/moderates will think."  We shouldn't equate good judgment with surrender to the Right.
        •  well, (none)
          I'm usually extremely concerned with what visiting trolls may think and report back to their masters. But at some point, we have to be free to express ourselves and make our points. This really is a powerful and fitting title. And as Maryscott and I have both mentioned, the irony is too good to pass up.

          "I told them on Inauguration Day. I said look into my eyes: no new enhancements." - President Johnny Gentle (Famous Crooner)

          by Johnny Gentle Famous Crooner on Tue Feb 22, 2005 at 02:01:14 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Okay (none)
            Maybe I'm just a moron here, but I don't see what is so brilliantly ironic about this.  The only "irony" that anyone has presented seems to go like this: "Although this diary title refers to an old conspiracy hoax, what it actually discusses is a real conspiracy!"  I mean, is that it?  Is that really so clever that it's too good to pass up?  Or is there some deeper cleverness that I'm missing?

            I'm apparently outnumbered here, so the diary will rocket to the top of the recommended list with a title that, in my opinion, limits its usefulness as a persuasive tool for no good reason.  I can often send links to Daily Kos diaries to my moderate friends in an attempt to sway their opinion.  I won't be sending them this link.

            •  Not sending the link because of title (4.00)
              I'd say you're cutting off your nose to spite your face, but I'm afraid I'd get called an anti-semite for referring to the word NOSE.

              How ridiculous.

              YES< it's too clever to pass up.

              An ancient and baseless hatred-inspired conspiracy against the Jews provided cover for endless lies and hoaxes, culminating in the Protocols hoax... and all along, the REAL conspiracy, the REAL evildoers, the REAL anti-Christian cabal... is a group of people POSING AS CHRISTIANS.

              Yeah. I'd say the irony in this is too priceless to pass up.

              Rage, rage, against the lying of the Right.

              by Maryscott OConnor on Tue Feb 22, 2005 at 02:21:02 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Second Order of Importance (4.00)
                It is awful to see such a good diary hijacked by people who are obsessed with things of a second order of importance.  The title is brilliant and effective.

                After The Rapture, we get all of their stuff.

                by bink on Tue Feb 22, 2005 at 02:32:35 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Goodness me, yes... (none)
                  ...and it certainly shows how silly anyone was who thought the serious message would be undermined by the crass use of a cutesy title.  This has definitely proved that that wouldn't happen!  

                  Yes.  Yes, I am being sarcastic.  Well spotted.

            •  the irony (4.00)
              has been explained at least a couple times above. You're paying too much attention to the "what's real/what's fake" angle. It's not the literal work of fiction that's in play here, it's the concept. (Fear of a zionist cabal survives today, independent of the hoax's debunkment.) The idea is that it's a wingnut concept turned back at them--the very definition of irony. ("While you were imagining evil Jews manipulate the world, it's your own people who are doing it.")

              The actual notion of the "elders" is so ridiculous that it's become satire--it's inherently as much a joke as the "faked" moon landing: just mentioning it means you're in on the joke, all at the expense of drooling idiots in backwoods shacks.

              Besides, any residual offense still attached to it, if there is any, can only wither further the more people co-opt it this way.

              Unfortunately, the great work done on this thread has taken a frustrating detour into English Composition Land, so at this point, I won't respond further so we can let the substantive discussion proceed.

              "I told them on Inauguration Day. I said look into my eyes: no new enhancements." - President Johnny Gentle (Famous Crooner)

              by Johnny Gentle Famous Crooner on Tue Feb 22, 2005 at 02:37:30 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  I hadn't a clue (none)
              what the diary was about, so left it to almost last (if at all) to read.  I was thinking along the line of Amish or Hutterite elders - or maybe Mennonite.

              Different things to different people...

              BTW - I had some of those above links and references because of my Morton Blackwell research.  Somehow his name cropped up in this also, but it was a gaping maw to look into.  Scared the bejeebers out of me.

              My mother's menu consisted of two choices: Take it or leave it. - Buddy Hackett

              by kfred on Tue Feb 22, 2005 at 02:48:55 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  Hope you sent it out now (none)
              that there's a new title.
          •  a 4 (4.00)
            for the image conjured by the "visiting trolls reporting back to their masters"

            email: tlawkos@yahoo.com

            by tlaw on Tue Feb 22, 2005 at 06:04:05 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

    •  I have no problem with the title (none)
      I don't think most of the tribe will either.

      Yesterday we stood at the abyss; today we are taking a step forward.

      by peeder on Tue Feb 22, 2005 at 01:51:43 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  This MOT is Confused and Offended (3.50)
        This would be an OK title for a post about a phoney conspiracy.

        As a title for a post about a real conspiracy it is both confusing (since the reference is to a famous fake), and, once it's clear that the author thinks the conspiracy is real, VERY offensive.

        I'm not recommending this otherwise useful diary and urge others not to do so until the title is changed.

        Start doing the things you think should be done, and start being what you think society should become. -Adam Michnik.

        by GreenSooner on Tue Feb 22, 2005 at 02:12:51 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Oh my GOD (4.00)
          I guess this is what the real Achilles's heel of the liberal left wing is: We can't even agree on what's truly offensive and what's not.

          I have nothing new to say in addition to what I've already said in defense of this title and the rationale for using it.

          Rage, rage, against the lying of the Right.

          by Maryscott OConnor on Tue Feb 22, 2005 at 02:16:14 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  How the hell did we get this far (4.00)
            off the subject?

            Holy Moly kids.  It's not like the title is "It's NOT the Jews that Run the World Afterall!!

            Let's move on.

            •  Forget it, Jetfan (4.00)
              It's Chinatown.

              Rage, rage, against the lying of the Right.

              by Maryscott OConnor on Tue Feb 22, 2005 at 02:21:37 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  I wish I could give that one two 4s (none)
              •  I don't know that reference... (none)
                I would like to understand "It's Chinatown", I probably missed a good movie or something.

                In any case, I think controversy has a silver lining, in bringing attention to something. The substance of this diary stands.

                Yesterday we stood at the abyss; today we are taking a step forward.

                by peeder on Tue Feb 22, 2005 at 02:37:18 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  A very good movie (4.00)
                  It's the ending line to Chinatown, a most excellent neo-noir movie starring Jack Nicholson and Faye Dunaway.

                  See it.

                •  Translation (4.00)
                  There are some things beyond our control.

                  In the movie, the line means, this is the place where evil wins, and all we can do is clean up the mess.

                  In my context, it means that there are certain third rails on this blog, which will always lead to the same derailment (so to speak) of the conversation. A whiff of the possibility of a hint of anti-semitism is one of them.

                  I see the diarist has been browbeaten by the conversational derailment and the ultra-PC Lords of Discipline into changing his title.

                  So, what I said: "Forget it, Jake. It's Chinatown."

                  Rage, rage, against the lying of the Right.

                  by Maryscott OConnor on Tue Feb 22, 2005 at 03:54:34 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Thanks MSOC n/t (none)

                    Yesterday we stood at the abyss; today we are taking a step forward.

                    by peeder on Tue Feb 22, 2005 at 03:57:00 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  What you said MSOC (none)
                    Let's all nitpick over the title.

                    It fits in with the right wing description:
                    "I see the leftie bloggers are all in a twitter over this."

                    Twitter Bird

                    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

                    This diary's title's been changed but I don't know what "Sith" means.

                    I know it isn't from "Chinatown" because I've seen the movie at least 4 times. ;-)

                    "Chinatown" is a great analogy for the for the terrain opened up by SusanG and AMERICAblog.

                    To thine own self be true - W.S.

                    by Agathena on Tue Feb 22, 2005 at 05:40:29 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  Goddammit! This is nonsense! (4.00)
                    It took me like FUCKIN' twenty three posts before I could figure out what the original title of this diary was.

                    That my friends is not on.

                    All you people who use 0's or 1's to express your oh-so-valuable offense, just FUCKIN' stoppit already!

                    You make it very goddamn difficult for others to get a handle on whats been goin' down while we were looking the other way (at House or some such rubbish no doubt).

                    Would it kill you all to stick to using the number two unless it's a real troll?

                    Cheers! Bitches.

                    "We need to get back to basics and start listening to people from outside Washington." - Howard Dean

                    by deafmetal on Tue Feb 22, 2005 at 08:24:45 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  While we're on the topic of bitches (none)
                      and I'm still trying to become pop-culture literate,

                      what's up with Atrios' saying "Mars, BITCHES!"*

                      The only thing I can think of is it being a reference to Bush's plans to send men to Mars. As if it was an admonition to his "posse". Close?

                      * also seen as "Mars, my sweet little bitches" and similar.

                      Yesterday we stood at the abyss; today we are taking a step forward.

                      by peeder on Tue Feb 22, 2005 at 10:26:58 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                  •  If stupid titles are the third rail... (none)
                    ...why are you arguing passionately for giving the third rail a wet sloppy kiss?  
                  •  I wouldn't say browbeaten (none)
                    because quite few defended the title, but I didn't want the discussion to keep going along the lines of whether the title was too this or too that.  The information is more important.

                    Frankly I was surprised by the reaction to both the title and the diary's subject because I thought CNP's role might already be common knowledge, but even though CNP was known about by a few folks, obviously the majority of people (including myself) were unaware.  So in that regard they've been very good at covering their tracks.

                  •  incest (none)
                    In the movie, the line means, this is the place where evil wins, and all we can do is clean up the mess.

                    I think the real theme of the film is a father trying to control his daughter's sexuality, and most everything in the film is a reference to this, including that line (as well as the whole water thing.) It's Chinatown/incest. It's not our business. There's nothing we can do. Don't think about it.

                •  Yes, you need to see it (4.00)
                  or you'll not understand another oft-used line from the film:

                  "My sister, my daughter, my sister, my daughter...."

                  Speaking the truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act. - Orwell

                  by TracieLynn on Tue Feb 22, 2005 at 05:12:39 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                •  you've never seen Chinatown??!!! n/t (none)

                  Politics is like driving. To go backward, put it in R. To go forward, put it in D.

                  by TrueBlueMajority on Tue Feb 22, 2005 at 10:05:03 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Dude, I like never even watch TeeVee (4.00)
                    Is Puffy, Puff Daddy or P. Diddy? Or both?

                    Did J. Lo break up with Brad Pitt?

                    I am pop culture illiterate. I don't even remember the last movie I saw.

                    But I have a DVD player and I can go rent this. Is it filmed here in SF?

                    It's OK to pin a sign on my back. But if I pinned one, it would say:

                    "Read not the Times; Read the Eternities."

                    Yesterday we stood at the abyss; today we are taking a step forward.

                    by peeder on Tue Feb 22, 2005 at 10:22:08 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  not pop culture--Chinatown is a masterpiece (4.00)
                      It was released in 1974.  Nominated for a ton of Oscars, lost Best Picture to Godfather II (which is forgiveable) but lost in other major categories to people whose performances have long since been forgotten.

                      Since you are the type that ignores pop culture and doesn't watch TV, it may be right up your alley.  This is a serious film in the way that few American pictures ever try to be.  It is an intelligent and complex murder mystery--the standard of modern film noir against which all others are measured.

                      The performances by Jack Nicholson and Faye Dunaway are superb and the supporting cast is uniformly excellent too.  Directed by Roman Polanski, it is shot in color but has the same "feel" as a classic B&W film.  The haunting score helps create the dark atmosphere.  The screenplay rewards those who pay attention to detail.  If you are the kind that notices camerawork and editing, you will be amazed.  In addition to the closing line, it contains a few other frequently referenced movie moments that I won't ruin for you.

                      I assume it is being referenced on this thread because of its theme of the hopelessness that occurs as people are caught up in and overwhelmed by pervasive forces of corruption beyond their comprehension or control.

                      If you liked LA Confidential, Chinatown is definitely its inspirational parent.  If you haven't seen LA Confidential either, rent them both.  You won't be sorry.

                      Politics is like driving. To go backward, put it in R. To go forward, put it in D.

                      by TrueBlueMajority on Tue Feb 22, 2005 at 11:30:58 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

          •  We Don't Have to Agree (4.00)
            My guess is that a lot of folks don't know much about the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.  The fact is that this is an incredibly damaging document that is still believed to be true by many around the world. This greatly limits the possibility for using the title "ironically." And ignorance of these circumstances is, IMO, no excuse. Whether or not it's offensive should not be a matter for a vote of Kossacks, nor should it require consensus.

            Frankly, this title makes about as much sense as calling a diary about the admirable campaign autobiography of a candidate you admire "So-and-so's Mein Kampf."  Only Hitler's campaign autobiography arguably has done less damage than the Protocols which influenced the Nazis (among others) and which are still wreaking havoc today.

            Start doing the things you think should be done, and start being what you think society should become. -Adam Michnik.

            by GreenSooner on Tue Feb 22, 2005 at 02:59:44 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  A "4" to the girlfriend here! (none)
            Yup, it's true - we can't agree on what's offensive or not, so we discuss it while America is being attacked by a coalition of Christian Taliban for whom "The Handmaid's Tale" is a wet dream.
        •  Yes, I agree (3.66)
          The title made me wince.  I don't see it as "ironic."  I see it as using "The Protocols of ..." as a generic term meaning, in the case of this diary, "big-time conspiracy!"
          •  But... that's the fucking POINT (4.00)
            "I see it as using "The Protocols of ..." as a generic term meaning, in the case of this diary, "big-time conspiracy!""

            Me, I'd be perfectly happy if that came to be the meaning of that phrase. There will always be morons who buy into the Zionist Conspiracy theory -- fuck 'em. I'd rather co-opt the phrase and rub their faces in it.

            Rage, rage, against the lying of the Right.

            by Maryscott OConnor on Tue Feb 22, 2005 at 04:01:24 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  I'm tired of certain terms being off-limits (4.00)
              In a couple of decades the "Dictionary of Politically Correct Speech" will look like the Eleventh Dictionary of Newspeak.

              Yes, co-opt the terminology. That's the only way to erase original meaning from it. The right figured that out a long time ago!

              "You don't lead by pointing and telling people some place to go. You lead by going to that place and making a case." - Ken Kesey

              by Glinda on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 06:44:39 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

  •  Board of directors (4.00)
    I am looking at their tax returns on guidestar.org

    here is their board of directors

    Board of Directors
    The Honorable T Kenneth Cribb, Jr, Vice President
    Mr Robert Fischer, DIRECTOR
         Dr Dal Shealy, DIRECTOR

    Mr John Seribante, Secretary/Treasurer    
    David Fenner, Director of MIS & Programs
    Mr Stuart W Epperson, DIRECTOR    
    Mrs Ann Drexel, DIRECTOR
    STEVE BALDWIN, EXEC. DIRECTOR    
    The Honorable Jams C Miller, III, Chairman
    Mr Howard Phillips, DIRECTOR    
    Mr Ken Raasch, DIRECTOR
    Mrs Mary Reilly Hunt, DIRECTOR    
    Jennifer Rutledge, Director of Finance & Administration
    The Honorable Becky Norton Dunlop, DIRECTOR
         Mr Jerome Ledzinski, DIRECTOR
    The Honorable Donald Paul Hodel, President    
    Mr Grover Norquist, DIRECTOR
    Mr E Peb Jackson, DIRECTOR      

    •  adress (none)
      COUNCIL FOR NATIONAL POLICY
      10329-A DEMOCRACY LANE
      FAIRFAX , VA 22030
      703 890 0113
      •  what I can tell from their tax return... (4.00)
        *They have a partner group called CNP Action- which they share space and employees with
        *They get by on $1 million per year in contributions and $300,000 per year in conference fees
        *most of their activties revolve around "education" and conferences
        *they have a weekly newsletter
        *They employ 6 people
        -ED is Steve Baldwin of Fairfax VA. He makes $170,000 per year
        -Finance person is Jennifer A. Rutledge of Chantilly VA. She makes $100,000 per year
        -David Fenner is program director and he makes $54,000
        *they probably rent their building and don't have much cash on-hand for a rainy day
  •  We are documenting everything (4.00)
    What we need is someone to come in and put all the pieces together.   Someone with experienc ein Media etc.  

    Or maybe this should start being a course of study for studies.  I can see the PHd thesis now

    "The developement of a neo-con movement during the 80's and 90's that shapes the policy of today."

    "The politics of influence: right-wing efforts to control the media and gain influence.
     

  •  Source watch has this to say (none)
    about CNP

    http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Council_for_National_Policy

    A few links and info from that site.

  •  You have described the American Taliban (4.00)
    Recommended
    (an anti-depressant helps while reading it. For me a shot of Bailey's Irish Cream works)

    To thine own self be true - W.S.

    by Agathena on Tue Feb 22, 2005 at 01:42:31 PM PST

  •  Is it all overblown? (none)
    I dunno. It's all creepy stuff, but I kind of get the feeling it's just a powerful collective of influential conservative leaders. Sure, everyone may kiss their ring--even moderates like Rudy and Ahnold--but that doesn't necessarily mean they're feverishly carrying out every CNP directive.

    Furthermore, I'm not all that sure that an organization that secretive can really vest so much power over GOP strategy, campaign tactics, etc., the same way the very public Rove does.  

    On top of that, I'm still not sold on the idea of the marriage of right-wing theocrats and wacko anti-tax capitalists producing such harmonious results. Then there's the fact that nothing can be pinned on them, good or bad. If something goes well for the rethugs, we'll end up blaming that dastardly CNP. If something backfires, the CNP had nothing to do with it.

    It's a self-sustaining boogeyman, and we seem to buy into those too readily. (We already spend enough time fearing Rove, a tremendously dirty yet successful campaign strategist who's taken on freakishly mythic proportions.)

    So while we should never pass up the opportunity to investigate and expose (not in a Guckert way, you pervs!), I'm not going to spend much time worrying about this group. From what I've read here, it just seems another rich-boy circle-jerk.

    "I told them on Inauguration Day. I said look into my eyes: no new enhancements." - President Johnny Gentle (Famous Crooner)

    by Johnny Gentle Famous Crooner on Tue Feb 22, 2005 at 01:56:59 PM PST

    •  see my earlier post (none)
      One of the directors of this group gets a Rep from Cheney's and Bush's office to come to a meeting every week.

      That is influence.

      •  of course (none)
        I didn't say they aren't powerful and that no one prostrates themselves accordingly. But I'm just not sure how it translates to the real and complete control of the party.

        Neoconservatism developed in think tanks and publications in the '60s-70s. Social security piratization has long been the Cato Institute's raison d'etre. The religious right certainly wasn't born of D.C. boardroom.

        So do we really know what the CNP has done, beside emphasize the party's already-existing beliefs? Are they saying anything different about the party that a moderately educated republican in Idaho doesn't already know?

        In the end, I just feel like their secretive nature is just the typical old-boy-network goofiness that spawns things like Skull and Bones. "Shhhh! We're secret! We control allllll!"

        As for Bush's and Cheney's offices sending reps, it's not like their sending the two honchos themselves. A rep could be any low-paid staffer for all we know. And considering how much money and media these people control, I'm not surprised that the White House would kowtow. They do the same for any group of rich assholes.

        "I told them on Inauguration Day. I said look into my eyes: no new enhancements." - President Johnny Gentle (Famous Crooner)

        by Johnny Gentle Famous Crooner on Tue Feb 22, 2005 at 02:16:07 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  homophone attack (none)
          ugh...the most vile of all mistakes, aside from its/it's. It should read "it's not like they're sending..."

          "I told them on Inauguration Day. I said look into my eyes: no new enhancements." - President Johnny Gentle (Famous Crooner)

          by Johnny Gentle Famous Crooner on Tue Feb 22, 2005 at 02:17:20 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  If you take all this in the context of what (none)
          is going on in the 109 Congress.
          Louis H. Lapham writes in the recent "Harper's Magazine" about covering the 109 Congress for a few days,

          He got his press pass to cover the Senate and the House of Representatives after what he describes as the gruelling and scary security and check points around Washington DC. (makes one wonder how JG got into...oh never mind) Then after his contact with 4 of his favorite Democrats:

          None of the four respondents quarreled with the observation that what was now at risk in the 109th Congress was nothing more nor less that the princliple of democratic government.

          I've been reading Louis Lapham for years and never observed him being this downcast and disheartened.

          To thine own self be true - W.S.

          by Agathena on Tue Feb 22, 2005 at 06:16:06 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Read Lapham (none)
            In a Harper's issue, circa August 2004 (this is the issue that convinced me to subscribe to Harper's).  Lapham was finessed by this group of various ideologues, pushing him to join their little games.  Lapham's article discusses the ideologic beginnings of all this (Americans for Tax Reform, this meta-group that started the thread, Heritage, Cato, etc).  

            Then read John Podesta at the Phoenix foundation, as he discusses the financial beginnings of it.  

            •  Thanks for the reference (none)
              I saw Lapham on the Daily Show and he wasn't selling anything except his ideas.

              I agree with him on almost everything except when he rants about 'no smoking' signs.

              To thine own self be true - W.S.

              by Agathena on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 09:57:53 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

    •  The Unholy Alliance (none)
      I call this:

      the marriage of right-wing theocrats and wacko anti-tax capitalists

      The Unholy Alliance.

      Yesterday we stood at the abyss; today we are taking a step forward.

      by peeder on Tue Feb 22, 2005 at 02:05:00 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Overblown? (4.00)
      I guess my response to that was what would you think about a secretive group of welathy and influential people who wanted to replace the Constitution with a marxist dictatorship?  Who demonized a certain segment of the population (let's say white heterosexual males for example) and blamed them for all that was wrong in our country?

      I think you might be a tad concerned, yes?

      •  again.... (none)
        I'm not denying they're powerful. But so is every interest-group full of rich and powerful people, or every think tank funded by rich and powerful people.

        Just because it's secretive doesn't mean they're the Masters of the Universe. Hell, every campus has its shitty fraternities--they're just as secretive as the others, and protect their rituals just as carefully, but they still suck as a group. Secrecy does not equal all-encompassing power. (It's just an analogy. Please don't base an entire response pointing out how the CNP is not a fraternity.)

        To answer the other part of your question, what I would think about people who "demonized a certain segment of the population ... and blamed them for all that was wrong in our country" is simply that they are the Republican Party.

        My whole point in writing that post was not to definitively dismiss the entire notion. But I really do fear us developing a disproportionate fear of an all-too-human enemy, much the same way we have with Rove. The more of these insurmountable juggernauts we create in our collective mind, the more cowed we become--not unlike a sports team already having defeated itself by the time it steps onto its supremely confident opponent's home turf.

        "I told them on Inauguration Day. I said look into my eyes: no new enhancements." - President Johnny Gentle (Famous Crooner)

        by Johnny Gentle Famous Crooner on Tue Feb 22, 2005 at 02:51:23 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Difference of opinions (4.00)
          We're sidling up to the perimeter of a group of people who have managed through influence to:

          -- launch a war costing tens of thousands of lives, both military and civilian;
          -- spite international treaties and agreements as well as established relationships;
          -- encourage mass voter disenfranchisment and manipulate elections here and abroad;
          -- extract billions of dollars from taxpayers to promote their agenda;
          -- threaten the global economy in doing so;
          -- launch vicious smear campaigns to take down at least two different presidential candidates;
          -- violate and/or contravene governmental ethics rules and citizens' civil rights;
          -- buy journalists illegally for propaganda;

          and park an inadequately credentialed male prostitute in the White House press gaggle.

          There's plenty more where that came from.  And nobody has been held accountable, inside the government or the cabal that influences it.

          There is a point at which taking on a group with power of this magnitude requires different tactics and greater reach.  Sunlight may be the best disinfectant -- but only in certain cases.  We've already seen that "sunlight" didn't do as much with the MSM on GannonGate; we don't know whether the reach of this network has anything to do with this.

          It's time to build a better, bigger, bad ass mousetrap that will take on a beast of this size and malignancy.  It's not the secrecy, it's the utter contempt with which the cabal views other humans, its pernicious malevolence.

          •  argh (none)
            that's exactly my point! Be rational about this...we've turned this group into the frickin' Illuminati!!

            Hey, maybe they really ARE that powerful. But without more proof of what they've actually gotten the party to do that it wouldn't otherwise have done willingly, I'm not going to ascribe to them all the awful happenings of the last two decades.

            Like I said, so far it sounds like they're just richer versions of every other republican. That is, we're now taking all the ridiculous things the GOP has always stood for (oil! money! power at all costs!) and acting like it's all the work of these heretofore secret puppetmasters.

            "I told them on Inauguration Day. I said look into my eyes: no new enhancements." - President Johnny Gentle (Famous Crooner)

            by Johnny Gentle Famous Crooner on Tue Feb 22, 2005 at 04:11:20 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

    •  Dunno about that (none)
      You make a good argument, but then why the secrecy? And any organization which brings that many people with criminal records (cough, Oliver North, cough) should be investigated.

      We've seen that The Usual Suspects were calling us all tin-foil hatters when we started asking questions about Guckert. What happens when we start asking questions about these guys? I'm curious. And maybe a little Propagannon-style public investigation might turn up something interesting underneath this particular rock.

      Also: don't know about anybody else but I'd love to stand outside the address that pbsloop posted with a sign and a few hundred of my closest friends....hell, somebody should send an email to Michael Moore....

  •  Love the title (4.00)
    Being Jewish, I think the title is totally appropriate. As the guys at "Seeing the Forest" are always saying, righties always accuse us of doing exactly what they are doing. The Protocols of the Elders of Zion has long-since been proven a forgery, concocted by a Russian secret serviceman to fan the flames of anti-Semitism and justify pogroms, the periodic mass-murders of Jews in that country.
         The thing about this is that while none of the claims about Jews throughout the ages have ever had A) a basis in fact or B) a verifiable paper trail, Steve's (can I call you Steve?) research shows that there is both a basis in fact and a verifiable paper trail.
  •  Another Excellent Source (4.00)
    This is an excellent article posted at Media Transparency.  The author is Jerry M. Landay.  He writes about what he calls "George W. Bush's Back Door Political Machine.
  •  The people behind (none)
    all the voting machines are strict Christian Reconstructionists as well.

    It does explain Bush's hysterical choices for cabinet, judgeships, and committees (Remember Kissinger to head the 9/11 commission, anyone?).  Anyone paying the slightest bit of attention knows that every cabinet post is filled by someone hellbent on destroying that very department.  These people are full tilt loony - ANDtheir insane ideology is propped up by powerful pharmaceuticals.  I would not be suprised in the least if these CNP cowboy Christian soldiers are the people calling the shots.  "You WILL appoint Gonzalez, y'all capiche?"  

    "Conservatism makes no poetry, breathes no prayer, has no invention; it is all memory." - Ralph Waldo Emerson

    by reef the dog on Tue Feb 22, 2005 at 02:12:53 PM PST

  •  Gone from the internet now, except for (none)
    Archive.org, the Institute for First Amendment Studies pages on CNP look like they're another good place to find information.
  •  How the right stole Christianity.... (4.00)
    Have been researching this for some time - How the Christian Right is a Trojan Horse - a hollowed out shell of a religious faith that is now simply a vehicle for advancing a crypto-facist ideology.

    This article was very helpful - thanks so much!

  •  Meanwhile... (4.00)
    ...while y'all were harping over the title, the bastards got away.

    Seriously, can we discuss the revelation of possibly finding the communications headquarter central of the queen bee mother lode of evil neoconservative thought?

    Or are we gonna argue about the freakin' title?

    "Conservatism makes no poetry, breathes no prayer, has no invention; it is all memory." - Ralph Waldo Emerson

    by reef the dog on Tue Feb 22, 2005 at 02:25:00 PM PST

  •  Christians, Nazis, and Plutocrats (4.00)
    C.N.P. really stands for:

    Christ Nixing Progress
    Control Newscasts and Papers
    Crush Nettlesome Progressives
    Confuse News with Propaganda
    Consolidate National Power

    although I understand it was originally

    Cheney Needs a Penis

    Yesterday we stood at the abyss; today we are taking a step forward.

    by peeder on Tue Feb 22, 2005 at 02:33:07 PM PST

  •  DeVos (none)
    Is rumored to be the GOP candidate to take on Jennifer Granholm in MI next year.
  •  Did they bring down Gray Davis? (4.00)
    Looking around archive.org's cached version of the Institute for First Amendment Studies, I came across the following, which they cited as originally from Freedom Writer:
    CNP in California

    Over sixty Californians are members of the Council for National Policy (CNP) and nowhere in the country have CNP members been more politically active and spent more money than in California. Since 1988, many of these members have assumed a very active leadership and generous financial role in a variety of ideological causes moving the California Republican Party into the ranks of the Radical Religious Right.

    One of the most influential CNP members no longer lives in California, but his long shadow reaches from the Rocky Mountains to the Sierras. James Dobson, formerly of Pomona, now presides over his Focus on the Family (FOF) empire from Colorado Springs.

    According to a November 26, 1995 article in The Los Angeles Times, California state Senator Rob Hurtt Jr. came under the influence of Dobson in the early 80s. Hurtt, in turn, helped bring together a group of men who have built a formidable political machine by spending over $8,000,000 from their own pockets to change the face of California politics. All are members of the CNP. This group of men now consists of:

    • Howard Ahmanson Jr., the heir to the Home Savings fortune, chair of the California Independent Business PAC, successor to the Allied Business PAC, 20+-year trustee of R. J. Rushdoony's Chalcedon, board member of the Claremont Institute, and deep-pocket political campaign contributor. In a 1985 Orange County Register interview, Ahmanson stated he wanted to dedicate his fortune to see that we had Biblical law integrated into our everyday lives.

    • Roland Hinz, owner of Daisy/HiTorque Publications, publishers of Dirt Bike and Motocross magazines. His wife, Lila, has served on the board of directors of Paul Weyrich's National Empowerment TV.

    • Edward G. Atsinger III, owner of 29 commercial Christian radio stations, graduate of Bob Jones University, and board member of the National Religious Broadcasters Association.

    • Richard A. Riddle, owner of I. W. Walker, a box manufacturing company and a partner in Richray Industries, an import-export company which does a lot of business with South Korea, and a graduate of Bob Jones University.

    The group has gone through several name changes. It started out as the Capitol Commonwealth Group which became the Allied Business PAC which in turn has been reborn as the California Independent Business PAC. It has helped to elect over one-fourth of the 120 members of the California legislature.

    Because of California political campaign laws, Sen. Hurtt has been forced to drop out of the California Independent Business PAC. However, that did not keep him from spending almost $2,000,000 on political campaigns in 1994.

    In 1987, Hurtt, Ahmanson, and CNP member Preston Hawkins, a developer, founded the Capitol Resource Institute (CRI) in Sacramento as a public-policy organization affiliated with Focus on the Family (FOF). Since CRI's founding, Hurt and Ahmanson have provided over 75% of the annual budget.

    With a small staff, CRI conducts a multitude of activities such as lobbying the legislature on behalf of Hurtt and FOF, publishing at least two monthly newsletters, conducting daily and weekly radio programs (mostly on Atsinger's radio stations), providin g voters' guides, and presenting Community Impact Committee seminars.

    Ahmanson's megabucks also provide support for such organizations as the Western Center for Law and Religious Freedom, the Reason Foundation, the Claremont Institute, the Heritage Foundation, the California Prolife Council, and Chalcedon, Inc.

    In 1994, the men supported a failed school-voucher initiative by providing over $450,000. According to a Common Cause report, in 1994 they were responsible for almost 10% of all the money donated to the California Republican Party.

    Another CNP member is assemblywoman Barbara Alby, an ally of former state senator H. L. (Bill) Richardson, a long-time Christian Reconstructionist activist. Assemblyman Howard Kaloogian of San Diego County is a new member. Former assemblyman Patrick Nolan is still listed in the 1995 CNP phone directory as a member, although he is presently a resident of a federal correctional facility. Nolan pleaded no contest to political corruption charges. Christian Reconstructionist guru R.J. Rushdoony has been listed as a member for many years, although he claims he hasn't been to a meeting in years and doesn't know who pays his annual membership fees. . . . To define most CNP members as radical is charitable. As one looks at the activities in which CNP members are engaged, it would appear their goal is the total destruction of society as we know it. They are leading the charge to deny minorities equality, destroy public education, and the institution of government. California is their testing ground.

    Last month, I recieved a magazine copy of The Sacramento Union, which used to publish as a daily here. I said, "Eww, ick," and threw it away. But now I wonder. . . is this blue state drinking the red koolaid?
  •  RE: Howard Phillips (none)
    Phillips started out as Nixon's hit man to destroy the War on Poverty.  Nixon appointed him as administrator of the Office of Economic Opportunity.

    He canned creativity, drove away or fired some of the most talented people in government, and froze OEO programs into a bureaucratic structure.  Seven years later, Ronald Reagan wrote it out of the budget.

    The revolution starts now--in your own back yard, in your own home town

    by TarheelDem on Tue Feb 22, 2005 at 02:42:49 PM PST

  •  Tasteless?! (4.00)
    What, do y'all think the people who came up with "The AARP hates soldiers and exists to promote gay marriage" are gonna use this title against us somehow?

    O where do we run in hide?

    "Conservatism makes no poetry, breathes no prayer, has no invention; it is all memory." - Ralph Waldo Emerson

    by reef the dog on Tue Feb 22, 2005 at 02:45:08 PM PST

  •  I've changed the title (4.00)
    I'd like us to focus on the information presented, and not about whether its appropriate to use a satirical take on "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" as a title to call attention to this post.

    I appreciate all those who defended my original title, but there are more important issues here than what this gets written in the Subject line.

    Thanks.

  •  Norquist (none)
    Doesn't Grover Norquist hold some weekly Wednesday meeting of conservative groups?  Would be interesting to see the connection there.

    Personally, I'd love to see a left equivalent, but there are a lot of challenges to be overcome.

    •  Yes. (none)
      Yes. Here is an article from USA Today about Norquist:

      Norquist's power high, profile low
      These days, with Bush in the White House, Norquist just may be the most influential Washingtonian most people have never heard of.
      [...]
      Norquist launched the Wednesday Meeting eight years ago to wage guerrilla warfare against the Clinton administration.
      [...]
      Bush has been sending a representative to the Wednesday Meeting for two years, since before he formally announced his presidential candidacy. Now a White House aide attends each week. Vice President Cheney sends his own representative. So do GOP congressional leaders, right-leaning think tanks, conservative advocacy groups and some like-minded K Street lobbyists.
    •  Norquist heads (none)
      the Americans for Tax Reform, the group making up the tax-battling barrel of the shotgun.  This is common knowledge, and easy to find info on.  I have a nice long article from the NYTimes on them, and Norquist is out front with his goals:  Eliminate taxation.  If there's interest, I'll post it, or parts (it's a month or two old, so you can't access it online without paying).
  •  Thinking About this Wrong (none)
    Rather than crying about the fact that this group exists, the real question is why don't we have a similar group? We have to start fighting fire with fire. The fact that we see such a group exists and whine about it and call them evil incarnate is not good...not at all.

    We need to stop whinning about this and make our own similar group.

    •  my two cents (4.00)
      That's like complaining that there's no liberal Rush Limbaugh. Fuck him, I don't want a liberal version of a propagandist and I don't want a liberal version of the Nazgul CNP. There is a burgeoning grassroots movement on the left, which is a bottom-up model, as opposed to CNP, which is an archetypical top-down model.

      I agree it'd be great to get all of our people on the same page all the time but frankly I don't think it's very healthy. Look at what these ratfuckers have done to the Republican Party; since 1964 they've been plotting and scheming to do exactly what they've done, and now the Republican Party machinery is designed to destroy the government. There are zero legitimate policy ideas emanating from the right at the moment, and that is not good for the country, period.

      We do not need a central talking points agency. It might be useful for immediate PR/electoral gain but it is not going to help the long-term health of the Democratic Party.

      •  Understood (none)
        But some degree of coordination and dialogue would, I think, be effective.
        •  Yes (none)
          but a CNP-level degree is not IMHO possible. (I'd love to be proven wrong.) Furthermore, I think it's harmful to have the debate in a party be so...incestuous. It's literally an echo chamber, and the echo-chamber-ization of the Republican Party over the last few decades is partly to blame for the various disasters that have befallen us in the last few years.
        •  We do have this (none)
          Sort of.  But it tends to be much more ad hoc and focused on a specific battle - taxes, judicial nominees, etc. For example, during the last tax fight (2003 I believe) People For and AFSCME spearheaded a massive effort known as the Fair Taxes for All Coalition.  They brought together almost every major left-of-center interest group in D.C.  After the 2000 election, the Democratic  Policy Committee also tried to hold regular coalition meetings with the major interest groups.  

          One difference, though, is that the people doing the coordination tend to be the lobbyists, rather than principals.  And that makes it less effective on some level.  

          The biggest problem we face is that most liberal interest groups are pretty focused on one (or a few) issues - education, environment, employment, health care, etc., and have a membership that is primarily interested in that issue. Like NEA, AFL-CIO, SEIU, AFT, Sierra Club, CDF, CWLA, etc. Only a few groups like Campaign for America's Future and People For the American Way are focused on the progressive movement at large.

          Whereas on the conservative side of the aisle, I think many of the groups seem to be dedicated more towards pushing conservative issues in general, or at least are focused on conservative economic issues or conservative social issues at large.  The NRA is one of the few large groups that are single-issue focused, whereas the other major groups are organizations like the Chamber of Commerce, Christian Coalition, Family Research Council, American Conservative Union, Norquist's group, etc.

          That makes it a lot easier for them to coordinate - they have the same goal in mind.  About the only thing the left side of the aisle has really been able to come together on is taxes.  But once the budget fight starts, the coalition disintegrates as each group fights for its own piece of the pie.  Meanwhile, the conservative groups can just sit back and attack all social spending.

          lib-er-al: Open to new ideas for progress; tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; not limited to or by established, orthodox or authoritarian attitudes.

          by DCescapee on Tue Feb 22, 2005 at 07:49:23 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  Still Stuck in Wrong Mindset (none)
        You're still going on about how they are evil. Just because the CNP does nothing good doesn't mean that a similar left-wing group would do nothing good.

        And we already have a left wing version of Limbaugh, we have hundreds of them, they just don't agree on things so we don't have a 'star'. We need to co-operate now more than ever. If you think that a ground-up operation will work with no sense of unity you're not thinking straight.

        Just take a look at what happens whenever we discuss a candidate for '08. People hate Obama for this reason, hate Clinton for that reason, hate Bayh for another reason. It's chaos. And that's even with a nominal controlling body in Kos.

        To think we can achieve the cohesion needed to defeat the Republicans in the manner you describe is dangerously naive.

        •  It's not so much "evil" (3.80)
          as "top-down" that I was commenting on. Yes, we need a sense of unity. No, we do not need paid shills. Limbaugh et al are not serious commentators, they are shills. We cannot possibly emulate the right-wing network because we have actual positions on issues, rather than a set of predetermined talking points to break out on every topic that have very little to do with the actual effect policy has on peoples' lives. Republicans are very good at dressing things up in nice pretty packages, but they're not so good at governance. This kind of hubris really does bite people in the end and two or four years of Republican government at just about every level is going to piss a lot of people off that voted red in 04.

          We had a pretty good flamewar that ran for several months here between several different candidates' fans, and guess what? We all got together behind Kerry (or most of us did, anyway). Frankly, I like the chaos. It's good. It's healthy. It's called debate. People just need to not get caught up in silly litmus tests about [insert pet issue here].

          There are a lot of factions in the Democratic caucus. The unity that exists on the Republican side is nearly military; they have an increasingly fascist/statist/totalitarian ideology, and it shows in their top-downness. It's driving Republicans away; I know of at least two who voted for a Democrat for the first time in their lives in 04. We do not need an organization to tell everybody what to think, what to say, what side of an issue to be on. I like the fact that we don't all agree on every issue.

          A better media/PR operation is a requisite for success in 06 and 08. A leftist analogue to this Council, IMO, is not even possible, let alone desirable.

  •  I'd like to see this question asked (4.00)
    constantly of Bush, Cheney, Frist et al.:

    "Can you explain your connection to the Council for National Policy, an organization that intends to impose Biblical law on the citizens of the United States, and is linked to a foundation  promoting the idea that blacks are inferior to whites?"

    •  Especially (none)
      if, upon further research, we determine there's any connection to groups with illegal, unethical or morally reprehensible behavior (e.g. the KKK, Aryan nations, etc.). If it's determined, upon further research, that they have successfully screened out those types of groups that could "drag them down," then it's more a matter of how can we counteract their power (e.g. can we establish some kind of coordinating group to help develop and disseminate messages in a persuasive way). If, on the other hand, there are any "untoward" elements in this group, they should be exposed and the connections of any elected officials should be exploited.
    •  Maybe we can get Gannon to ask the question (none)
      as punishment. Ha ha.
      You'd have to find a registered Republican who has since "turned" to get a pass to one of Bush's staged Townhall Meetings.  Then you'd have to get the question out before the Secret Service guys beat the questioner's ass all the way to Gitmo.

      Many possibilities are open to you - work a little harder.

      by Rainman on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 01:37:56 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  'Scuse my French (4.00)
    but what a group of fucking lunatics.  It's officially no longer hyperbole to assert that our country is being run by a secret society of nutjobs.  Shame on the GOP for being weak enough to be vulnerable to a takeover via these extremists; we've got tons of work to do in resisting this attempted soft coup.

    Recommended.

  •  It's like (4.00)
    Fight Club style Project Mayhem for republicans.
    •  heh (4.00)
      ...was the first thing I thought.

      The first rule of the Council for National Policy is, you do not talk about the Council for National Policy.

      The second rule of the Council for National Policy is, you DO NOT talk about the Council for National Policy.

  •  the quick, and the dirty (none)
    Seekgod really means it, apparently.  Just google the name.

    Domain seekgod.ca
    Registrant Name
    Victoria Dillen

    Registrar
    CA-Registrar Inc.

    Renewal Date
    2007/01/05
    Date approved
    2001/01/05
    Last changed
    2004/09/28

    Description
    personal web page
    Registrar Number
    293
    Registrant Number
    206642
    Domain Number
    206642

    DNS1

    fulcrum.sasknet.sk.ca
    142.165.21.10

    DNS2

    stuka.sasknet.sk.ca
    142.165.200.10

    Administrative Contact
    Name
    Victoria Dillen
    Job Title
    Postal Address
    PO Box 11547, Main Post Office Edmonton AB T5J 3K7 Canada

    Phone
    780-732-1282
    Email
    domreg@ca-registrar.net

    •  Shit, too loooonnnggg, sorry 'bout that. (none)
    •  the seekgod.ca people (none)
      are NOT the CNP!
    •  The SeekGod People are ANTI-CNP!!! (none)
      read the aricles. There is a wealth of information there. These people are AFRAID of the CNP agenda (from a religious perspective). The amount of research on this site is extensive and they profile hundreds of the members of the CNP, their organizations and affiliations.

      Know thy enemy, as they say.

      •  Ah. Wrong batch of crazies. (none)
        The site reference was to the list of cmp'ers, so when I checked the owner, and googled, I thought I'd stumbled into another wing of the same asylum.  (You know, the one with cages and straightjackets).  Couldn't help but make the association.  Oops.  Thanks for the headsup.  

        Why do I feel the need for a "directory of diminished capacity individuals with ties to the RWCM and the WhiteHouse"?  So many crazies, so little time.

        •  The Trouble is (none)
          these people aren't "diminished capacity"...they are movers and shakers and they control large corporations with deep pockets. They slide around in the shadows and pull many, many strings. And those strings lead directly to the White House.

          My question is: is it even possible to fight against that kind of vast, shadowy organization? How do you do it..simply by constantly exposing them? Who in the media would take on such a story and how long could it survive against the political and monetary power of this group. They OWN the media for heaven's sakes!

          And it smacks too much of the X-files for it to be taken seriously by the mainstream or joe sixpack. It makes my head hurt trying to figure it out and I have a university education. How is the "common man" supposed to follow and understand this story?

          •  When all else fails (none)
            joke 'em if they can't take a fuck.  Expose them?  Absolutely.  But with facts - not speculation.  How do you make a case that will stick that these people control anything?  Plausible denial for them - they're just a group of people making recommendations.  

            Personally I think we fight them by being stronger than they are.  The organization necessary to accomplish that goal is only now being formed, so it'll take awhile.  But I agree that these people are a clear and present danger - today.  Tomorrow is ours.  One story, one corrupt individual, one lawsuit, one bill at a time.

            As far as following the story, I've just about given up 'cause my brain hurts too.

  •  Recommended. (none)
    And, I think it was good that you changed the title.
  •  Yes! (none)
    Now for some "lighter" commentary on the same theme (Sith and Dominionist Theologies)

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/2/20/151819/070

  •  I don't know what the original diary was... (none)
    titled, but "Sith Lords of the Ultra-Right" certainly got my attention. Considering how many sci-fi geeks seem to be here on dKos, I imagine I'm not the only one.

    And it's darn appropriate. Good job!

    You can make anything look good if you can write billions of dollars of hot checks. --Ross Perot

    by lanshark on Tue Feb 22, 2005 at 04:50:51 PM PST

  •  this is an important find... (4.00)
    This isn't the only secret cabal though, but it is obviously an incredibly important one regarding the immediate destiny of the U.S. We need to cover every aspect of their activities that we can find out about, and expose their members and leaders.

    The talk of building an army: In a 2003 Constitution Party gathering in Clackamas, Oregon, Phillips told party members and guests, "We've got to be ready when God chooses to let us restore our once-great Republic." A report by the Southern Poverty Law Center said that Phillips proclaimed that his party was "raising up an army" to "take back this nation!"

    Shouldn't this be taken as threats of terrorism?   

  •  This is an important find, but... (4.00)
    remember- there's a lot of Red Staters that would cheer a "religious rule", and wouldn't see this as a bad thing.
    The important thing to do is to show them that the CNP is using religion as a cover- they do not practice what they preach. They are not "Christans", except in name. Would Jesus have invaded Iraq? Taken away rights and kept people manipulated with fear? Would Jesus have done any of the things this current administration does?

    "A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine." - Thomas Jefferson

    by EsnRedshirt on Tue Feb 22, 2005 at 05:20:55 PM PST

  •  Adding this late to the party (4.00)
    but you should check out this interesting/scary article from Harper's Magazine a few years ago about The Family:

    Jesus Plus Nothing:

    Ivanwald, which sits at the end of Twenty-fourth Street North in Arlington, Virginia, is known only to its residents and to the members and friends of the organization that sponsors it, a group of believers who refer to themselves as “the Family.” The Family is, in its own words, an “invisible” association, though its membership has always consisted mostly of public men. Senators Don Nickles (R., Okla.), Charles Grassley (R., Iowa), Pete Domenici (R., N.Mex.), John Ensign (R., Nev.), James Inhofe (R., Okla.), Bill Nelson (D., Fla.), and Conrad Burns (R., Mont.) are referred to as “members,” as are Representatives Jim DeMint (R., S.C.), Frank Wolf (R., Va.), Joseph Pitts (R., Pa.), Zach Wamp (R., Tenn.), and Bart Stupak (D., Mich.). Regular prayer groups have met in the Pentagon and at the Department of Defense, and the Family has traditionally fostered strong ties with businessmen in the oil and aerospace industries. The Family maintains a closely guarded database of its associates, but it issues no cards, collects no official dues. Members are asked not to speak about the group or its activities.

    The organization has operated under many guises, some active, some defunct: National Committee for Christian Leadership, International Christian Leadership, the National Leadership Council, Fellowship House, the Fellowship Foundation, the National Fellowship Council, the International Foundation. These groups are intended to draw attention away from the Family, and to prevent it from becoming, in the words of one of the Family's leaders, “a target for misunderstanding.” [1] The Family's only publicized gathering is the National Prayer Breakfast, which it established in 1953 and which, with congressional sponsorship, it continues to organize every February in Washington, D.C. Each year 3,000 dignitaries, representing scores of nations, pay $425 each to attend. Steadfastly ecumenical, too bland most years to merit much press, the breakfast is regarded by the Family as merely a tool in a larger purpose: to recruit the powerful attendees into smaller, more frequent prayer meetings, where they can “meet Jesus man to man.”

    In the process of introducing powerful men to Jesus, the Family has managed to effect a number of behind-the-scenes acts of diplomacy. In 1978 it secretly helped the Carter Administration organize a worldwide call to prayer with Menachem Begin and Anwar Sadat, and more recently, in 2001, it brought together the warring leaders of Congo and Rwanda for a clandestine meeting, leading to the two sides' eventual peace accord last July. Such benign acts appear to be the exception to the rule. During the 1960s the Family forged relationships between the U.S. government and some of the most anti-Communist (and dictatorial) elements within Africa's postcolonial leadership. The Brazilian dictator General Costa e Silva, with Family support, was overseeing regular fellowship groups for Latin American leaders, while, in Indonesia, General Suharto (whose tally of several hundred thousand “Communists” killed marks him as one of the century's most murderous dictators) was presiding over a group of fifty Indonesian legislators. During the Reagan Administration the Family helped build friendships between the U.S. government and men such as Salvadoran general Carlos Eugenios Vides Casanova, convicted by a Florida jury of the torture of thousands, and Honduran general Gustavo Alvarez Martinez, himself an evangelical minister, who was linked to both the CIA and death squads before his own demise. “We work with power where we can,” the Family's leader, Doug Coe, says, “build new power where we can't.”

    ""All things entail rising and falling timing. You must be able to discern this." - Miyamoto Musashi

    by Madman in the marketplace on Tue Feb 22, 2005 at 05:52:41 PM PST

  •  GOP Politicos (none)
    Tom Riner, Jr. (Ky State Rep) is listed as a GOP Politico, but he's a Democrat.  What gives?  As far as I know he's always been a Dem...
    •  I assumed they all were GOP (none)
      •  Riner (none)
        I spoke with Mr. Riner.  Obviously, he's just a state rep, so he's not a major player, but it's nice to weed out the important ones.  Here's the email I recieved back, it was CC'd to Steve Baldwin at CNP.

        Dear Mr. Baldwin,

             I received an email from a constituent who reported seeing my name on a 1998 CNP membership list; that disturbs me because I have never inquired about, sought to become or paid for a membership in your organization.  Many years ago, I attended one of your workshops on state government policy. If someone from your office placed my name on a Council For National Policy membership list at that time, I would respectfully request that you remove it immediately.   Thank you for your cooperation in resolving this issue.                            

                                                                                                                                                                                            Sincerely,
        Tom Riner

        SteveD, it might be nice to remove him from your list to prevent any future problems with people harassing him, etc.

  •  While researching Eberle (3.66)
    I came upon this interesting story about State Policy Councils, from 1999 because it mentioned a Hal Eberle. Thought you might want to peruse it and see if it fits in somewhere:

    http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:Z2k5HFhUJ1kJ:www.publiceye.org/magazine/v13n2-3/PE_V13_N2-3.pdf +hal+eberle+south+carolina+policy+council&hl=en

    •  GREAT Link- 'taking it to the States' (none)
      Shows a lot of interconnecting organizations and webs.

      It's interesting how these organizations seek to influence local school boards. (It ties in also with an article posted by the diarist at the top, mentioning California boards, etc., and 'stealth' candidates.) This is an ever-expanding universe, with no boundaries.

  •  Norquist ridiculed by Daily Show (3.83)
    My favorite Norquist moment was via the Daily Show, with Jack Black making fun of Norquist's proposal to replace Hamilton's face on the 10 dollar bill with Reagan's.

    BLACK: There's a movement headed up by the Ronald Reagan Legacy Project to get Ronald Reagan's face on the ten dollar bill. Project head Grover Norquist explained why we needed to dump that slacker Alexander Hamilton.

    [cut to Norquist on CNN]

    NORQUIST: Alexander Hamilton has been on the ten since 1928. He's been well honored by the country. He was a great Secratary of The Treasury. But of all the people on the currency, the only one who isn't a president ...

    [cut back to Lewis Black]

    BLACK: He's the only non-president on the currency? Really? The only one? I'll bet you a hundred bucks you're wrong!

    Recovered the actual dialogue via this link:

    http://angrybear.blogspot.com/2004/06/grover-norquist-after-10-or-so-years.html

    I'd be interested in hearing anyone's theories here:

    1. Is Norquist so out to lunch that he is not aware that Franklin is on the $100?

    2. Is Norquist so uninformed that he thinks Franklin was a President?

    3. Is Norquist so arrogant that he simply assumes most Americans are uniformed and would not notice? (Gotta say, it looks like CNN did not challenge him on this...)
  •  Fun things to do... (3.75)
    with the CNP:

    1. Send them a small donation and a note expressing your love for conservative values and ask to join.

    2. E-mail Senate Democratic Leadership and request that they ask Bill Frist about the CNP. Encourage them to ask Frist if they can "tag along" to the next CNP meeting.

    3. Go to Free Republic and tell everyone you "know the big secret about the CNP", then look out your window and wait for the strange black car to park across the street.

    4. Hire Private Investigator to look into the CNP. If he happens to die under mysterious circumstances in a Puerto Rican alley, hire a better private investigator and get to the bottom of things.

    5. Hire male prostitute in metropolitian D.C. Ask him to attend two-day journalism seminar and see if he can get into a CNP meeting. Oh, and feel free to explore your sexuality, if the need arises.
  •  whose paying for it (4.00)
    I have a theory..rich people don't like to spend their own money. Only when we  are under a Bush regime do the taxpayers get to pay for propaganda.I did private duty a long time ago for a high up politico in N.C. politics. He had a state building named for him. Can't remember his name but he worked for Jim Hunt and was a very decent guy. At that time the Coors brothers were paying for Jesse Helms to spew every day on T.V. Then he went on to become our illustrious senator.I am going to quote what he told me to the best of my memory."Jesse Helms was sitting in the lobby of a hotel feet up on a coffee table beer in each hand , if we need any money we can get all we need from the widows and orphans at the PTL club." That was a very popular charismatic TV program. When Jim Baker went under, Jerry Falwell took over to try and save it. I used to go to charismatic churches as well as independent baptists. They are like oil and water. The baptists think the charismatics are of the devil because they speak in tongues..the charismatics think the baptists just don't gey it. Don't have drums with the choir and other stuff. Looking back the charismatics were more fun. Pat Robertson is charismatic..right graduate of Yale. I have since gone to college and guit going to church. I've been thinking about this a lot . In the Franklin coverup Religious leaders were part of that sick shit. Repubs use the christians for the donations..The christians promote their agenda. Let's get an Email list to bring back Jeff to the press corpse. With pictures. Not just to the organizations but to big churches. My son has been doing this to the RNC and N.C.Repub comm.
  •  Interesting (4.00)
    CNP's 1984 Jefferson award winner is this John F. Lehman of 911 Commission fame.
  •  Irony? (none)
    Surely the name of their award is intenionally ironic (Jefferson being a liberal and the main guy behind the separation of church and state...)
  •  This is no conspiracy theory - this is reality! (4.00)
    Former Conservative author David Brock has provided some idea of the Council for National Policy in his book Blinded by the Right - The Conscience of an Ex-Conservative

    I flew to St. Louis to receive the Winston Churchill Award presented for "Courageous and Committed Service to the Conservative Cause," from the Council for National Policy, a kind of right-wing Trilateral Commission, founded in 1981 to coordinate the efforts of various religious right organizations. The identities of the four hundred or so people who comprise the organization's board of governors - conservative activists, elected officials, and retired military men - were kept a tight secret.

    Some prominent members as already listed above include Paul Weyrich, Joe Coors, Jerry Falwell, Trent Lott, John Ashcroft, Dick Armey, Tom DeLay, Bob Dorman.

    Brock goes on to say:

    The Council still meets clandestinely four or five times a year. [...] I knew nothing of the CNP's origins when I accepted their invitation, and in typical fashion, I did nothing to educate myself about it.

    Now this is mind-boggling: Brock had by then been a Conservative for many years and still he did not know about the Council! No wonder the general public did not know either.

    Brock also mentions the Council in The Republican Noise Machine and most importantly how it fits in the neo-con regressive and reactionary scheme. Describing think tanks, the most important one being The Heritage Foundation (Paul Weyrich's outfit) which has been called "the shock troops of the conservative revolution", Brock writes:

    Run by neocon ideologues, these foundations provide the crucial seed money, and sustained general operating funds, that are critical to successful institution building. Their multimillions are then matched by donations from top corporate foundations, including the Amoco and Alcoa foundations, the JM Foundation, the Rockwell International Corporation Trust, and the Ford Motor Company Fund. The funding strategies of the donors are coordinated by a directorate of top conservative leaders who sit on the Philanthropy Roundtable, while the overall agenda of the movement is loosely set by shadowy organizations of top conservative activists and Far Right politicians, such as the Council for National Policy (a secretive organization of leaders with a religious Right bent) and the Library Court group (named after a small street in the nation's capital and convened biweekly by Paul Weyrich).

    Another important coordinating function is performed by conservative activist and Newt Gingrich protégé Grover Norquist, president of an anti-tax group, Americans for Tax Reform. Like some neo-cons, Norquist took his inspirations on strategy and tactics from communist thinkers, including Antonio Gramsci, one of the founders of the Italian Communist Party, who wrote that Marxists would come to power by "capturing the culture."

    Regarding the rise of the conservative movement, Norquist is quoted as having said:
    "Our goal is to inflict pain. It is not good enough to win; it has to be a painful and devastating defeat. We're sending a message here. It is like when the king would take his opponent's head and spike it on a pole for everyone to see."

    I apologize to author David Brock for these extensive quotes. I'm hopeful he will not mind considering the situation. He was an INSIDER and his writings vouch for much of what is being written in this diary. This is no conspiracy theory - this is reality!

  •  This is so much more important than Gannon... (none)
    This should be on the front page. That being said, if we can all agree to continue to post on this group, that would be most important.
  •  Link(s) to CNP, with large membership list: (none)
    Do you have this one, with very large list:

    [It seems to include  Scott McClellan as well.]   —>  [  L I N K  ]

    Second, here is an article, with commentary and historical perspective, called "Behind Closed Doors."

  •  Not a Party (none)
    The Republicans are not a party. Like the Bolsheviks, they are a conspiracy.
  •  This is why (4.00)
    progressives and leftists need to engage with Christians and Christian thought.  "Why the Right is wrong and the Left doesn't get it" needs to be on every liberal's coffee table.  The Christian majority is the group putting these people in power.

    Even if you don't believe this post, reading about Norquist's "Americans for Tax Reform" is easy; this group is the 2nd prong, and the real money-pusher, to the movement on the Right.  But a group of people pushing for 0 taxation a corporate whoredom can't win elections.  They need the Christians backing them.

    We need to take the battle to them, call out the religious movement with their own arguments.  There are 3000 verses in the Bible addressing poverty, including a lot of quotes from Christ.  No verses on lowering taxes for corporations, and, what, 1 or 2 that are stretched to address abortion?  Create some cognitive dissonance in the Christians voting to empower a bunch of people (Americans for Tax Reform, or this Council for National Policy) who have declared a War on the Poor.  

    Use their (biblical) language, their arguments.  Break them away from the scarier of the two groups, the one that will truly ruin this country.

  •  More connections: CEO of USA Next (4.00)
    Chrles Jarvis is a CNP member.

    Go to this diary:  http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/2/23/10935/2379#1

    for the details.

  •  Hillary was right!! (none)
    There really is a vast conspiracy.  If one drills down enough I expect there are some really nasty connections to be made.

    BTW, I think the title controversy is silly. It is the author's prerogative, and in its context could hardly be mistaken as anything but ironic.

  •  There is a ton of material (none)
    here, including biographies of many of the members of the CNP. The conspiracy (if it is real) is frightening in its scope and influence. It is not hard to believe that these are the people who are steering the United States of America with Bush as their willing tool.

    The website is a religious one and peppers its analysis with quotes from the bible, but the intent is to expose the CNP as an insidious and fraudulent pseudo-Christian movement.

  •  Steven D - did you create a database (4.00)
    If not, I'll be happy to work on an Access database with all the information from your diary and the comments section.

    My moniker is in honor of three generations of women whose soul's were seared in the cauldron of Hell's Kitchen, NYC

    by hells kitchen on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 08:41:01 AM PST

  •  There's also a fair bit of info (none)
    available via the Wayback Machine (Internet archive)...love that resource!.

    Here is a site (IFAS) dedicated to exposing the CNP's membership: link

  •  Google this guy (none)
    John Podesta.  Or The Phoenix Project.

    He's trying to set up right now, for progressives, what the Republicans set up at the end of the 70s.  The CATO Institute, Heritage Foundation, Americans for Tax Reform, etc for them; now John Podesta, with the Phoenix Project, is starting the same for us.  Look it up, and if you have money send it.  This is long term though; the same way that the Right is now reaping the benefits of setting gears in motion 30 years ago, this is what we want for the future of liberals.

  •  link to article on CNP (4.00)
    NYT did a piece.  This posted on another blog site.

    I'm a blue drop in a red bucket.

    by blue drop on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 10:39:12 AM PST

  •  Right Web (none)
    A good cross-referencing web-site of people, organizations, corporations, think tanks and the power links interconnecting them.

    IMO, it is incorrect/superficial  to emphasize the religious aspects of the right wing "dark side". Certainly they use religion(s)(or lack of religion) as a totem or banner to rally their constituents, and to identify/demonize their "enemies",  but the underlying motivation is control and power over those not part of their group, plain and simple.

    Like-thinking (oversimplified as: do unto the other guy before he can do to you)  right groups, whether they be historically derived from the Southern elite Dixiecrats, Northern elite Republicans, banking, insurance, food  healthcare, energy/raw materials/manufacturing, war materials sectors, european colonialists, european zionists, texas oil patch tycoons and their proxies and puppets, legitimate and illegitimate mafiosi,  long ago decided to sit down together, put aside lesser issues, and formed a coalition with some hard and fast ground rules and discipline mecahnisms, and came up with a vision and a clear hardball game plan to advance their common nonconflicting interests, at the expense of the then dominant group, namely the liberal democratic (Basic underlying philosophy: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you) forces of the post WW2 world.

    Focusing on religion is a distraction and a trap of the the Dark Side, IMO.

    If the now inferior (in this country) forces of liberal democracy are ever to fight back successfully  against the "Dark Side", they will also need to unite and agree on a set of ground rules and discipline mechanisms, and come up with a vision and a clear hardball game plan for winning.

    If this what the Democratic party is doing, they are keeping it very well hidden secret.
     

  •  i'm really glad someone was able to break thru (none)
    with this - i've felt like the guy shouting in the old movies "Vampires! Vampires are everywhere!" or the gal who decodes the cookbook, ever since I started realizing this and - with the help of my loyal team of OL/ARX readers - trying to collate this and raise the alarm.

    Bravo!

    (FWIW, one of the reasons my mother became disillusioned and didn't end up moving to Israel and joining a kibbutz as she'd dreamed of for years, was discovering that a lot of the leaders were just cynically using religion and the Orthodox and didn't believe in the historical Torah or the ethics of the Torah except in so far as piety was useful to get people to go along. I'm torn between being grateful she isn't alive to see the fact that the people she used to respect for their "conservative moral values" are just as bad, and wishing I could ask her about names and connections from our old days in Dallas - I only remember some of them, and from a kid's perspective, if admittedly a way-too-well-read and precocious kid. Still, it only makes sense I suppose that it would end up with me noticing that someone in the WH today was a guest speaker at a school we were at in 1978, that a colleague in the 80s worked both for Bay Buchanan in her brother's campaign, and in a DC think tank for educatino "reform" dedicated to vouchers, or that a student of Viguerie's was a friend of a friend's...)

    "Don't be a janitor on the Death Star!" - Grey Lady Bast (change @ for AT to email)

    by bellatrys on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 12:13:01 PM PST

  •  Question? (none)
    any idea where karl rove fits in to all of this...?
  •  ummm (none)
    I'll be hiding under my bed for a while. Don't tell anybody
  •  Did a double take on your new title (none)
    Somehow I read "Sith" like it's less flattering annagram. And my private nickname for the reich wing leaders... That produce a sith load of bad ideas on their think thanks.

    In the future people will wonder why most didn't challenge Bush's excesses
    The truth? Complacency was easier

    by lawnorder on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 02:20:00 PM PST

  •  Morton Blackwell, Bruce Eberle ... (none)
    Leadership Institute ... those are 3 names probably not even noticeable, say, 4-5 years ago when people delved into CNP research ... now, they jump off the page a la 'Gannongate' ...

    Blackwell links to Falwell and the other Moral Majority founders, and then the e-voting machine funder/Christian Reconstructionist Howard Ahmanson join up at CNP

    How can a radical group aiming to overthrow the Republic and meeting secretly to organize that is able to be classified by our government as
    501(c)(3), non-profit, tax-exempt?

    ~snip~ "In a 2000 filing with the Internal Revenue Service, the CNP says it holds 'educational conferences and seminars for national leaders in the field of business, government, religion and academia.' It says it produces a weekly newsletter keeping members abreast of developments, and a biyearly collection of speeches. Executive Director Morton Blackwell, was paid a little more than $70,000. The organization took in more than $732,000." ~snip~

    The CNP also has a related 501(c)(4) organisation CNP Action Inc.

    According to Media Transparency, between 1995 and 2002 the CNP received $125,000 ($142,000?)... from the Richard and Helen DeVos (Amway) Foundation and the Castle (Coors) Rock Foundation. In 2000 the Castle Rock Foundation paid a membership fee of $10,000.

    Found this chart at DU

    •  Began as a rag-tag group (none)
      From an interview with Gary North -
      "It is time for me to fess up. I was present at the creation of the CNP. That was in 1981. Reagan had just been elected. It was euphoria time on the Right. The honeymoon had barely begun."
      "Rev. Tim LaHaye was the visible organizer. This was in the middle phase of LaHaye's career: after his televangelism-pastoral career had ended, but before his $45 million author's career writing dispensationalist science fiction novels (Left Behind) 3. This was the "Mr. Beverly LaHaye" phase of his career. His wife was building what became a mailing list of over 400,000 conservative Christian women. I am happy to report that he played his role well; he never complained."
      According to Mr. North, the initial meeting was an incompetent mess with no one knowing what to do. He reveals that he was there after having worked for Howard Ruff , saying that Ruff never attended the meetings. Why would people pay thousands of dollars to not attend meetings?
      "That first meeting was a mess. Nobody had a clue as to what was going on, who was in charge, what the CNP was supposed to become."
      "That first meeting was saved by a man nobody knew anything about, except for me. His name was Terry Jeffers. He worked for Howard Ruff, who never did attend a CNP meeting, as far as I recall, but who had been invited to join. Ruff wrote a newsletter with 200,000 subscribers, which then shrank. I was probably the only person in the room who knew Jeffers. He had been my boss at Ruff's organization, 1977-79. He was an affable fellow who hadn't a political or economic idea in his head, as far as I ever knew. He was a business manager. He once wrote a school song for Brigham Young University."
      "After an hour of floundering, the group was in big trouble. Nobody knew what it should be or do. Then Terry persuaded someone to bring in a flip chart. He took over the meeting. He got everyone who had an idea to contribute to say what was on his mind. He himself made no suggestions, except this one, over and over: "Let's keep on track." It was the best advice the organization ever had. He kept flipping the pages. After about an hour, an outline of CNP's goals took shape. Jeffers and his flip chart brought together the American conservative movement in a Washington hotel room in early 1981. I am not exaggerating. He never attended again. Of such are "revolutions" made!"
      Howard Ruff is a Mormon and Terry Jeffers, an executive in his companies, is likely Mormon as well, important issues that North merely omits. According to North, Terry Dolan, a closet homosexual who apparently died of AIDS, suggested that the CNP should be like a conservative Council of Foreign Relations and that members would have to pay $5000 per year. All new members that is, except those initiating the organization.
      "Nobody quite knew what CNP should be. Finally, someone said it said it should be like a conservative Council of Foreign Relations. Then J. Terry Dolan, head of NICPAC (National Conservative Political Action Committee), said that if it was to have the influence of the CFR, it would have to charge a lot of money to join. He suggested $5,000 a year. The motion passed."
      "That was Dolan's last major contribution to the American Right. He turned out to be a closet homosexual, dying of AIDS. The family-values members remained discretely silent about this embarrassing development."
      For an understanding on the Council of Foreign Relations, please see the Seek God article, Skeletons in the Closet ~ Rockefeller History. Then Mr. North related that most in attendance of the planning meeting didn't have $500 so they exempted themselves from having to pay the membership fee---just new members would be required to fork out the money.
      "Let me assure you that 75% of the people in that room didn't have even $500 a year to pay, unless it was with their 501(c)(3) organizations' money. So, we exempted ourselves from the rule. It was only Johnny-Come-Latelies who would be asked to pay $5,000 a year."

      According to http://www.seekgod.ca/topiccnp.htm the following are members of CNP. Each name is fully bio'd and cross linked to organizations.
      Jun 1, 2001 A --Ambassador S. L. Abbott , Larry Abraham, Jack Abramoff , M. Douglas Adkins, Howard Ahmanson, Jr., Dr. Frank Aker, Honorable Barbara Alby , John Alderson, Gary Aldrich, Richard V. Allen, Daniel B. Allison II, Thomas R. Anderson, Senator John K. Andrews, Jr., Dr. John F. Ankerberg, Philip F. Anschutz, , Hon. Richard K. Armey, Ben Armstrong, Thomas K. Armstrong, Sen. William L. Armstrong, Dr. Larry P. Arnn, John M. Ashbrook, Edward G. Atsinger III Jun 1, 2001 B -- Dr. Theodore Baehr, Cy Bahakel, Sr, Carole Baker , Dick Baker, Terry C. Balderson, Howard A. Ball, William H. Ball Jr., Dr. David Balsiger, A. Clifford Barker, Herbert Barness, Tommy Barnett, David H. Barron, Rep. William G. Batchelder III, Hon. Gary Bauer Jun 1, 2001 Be --Patricia Beck, John D. Beckett, Melvin Behnke, Jeffrey Bell, Carlos Benitez, Mark A. Benson, Ray Berryman, Paul Bigham, Dr. Robert J Billings, William Billings, Morton Blackwell, Neal B. Blair, James K. Blinn, Thomas A. Bolan, John R. Bolton, Pat Boone, T. J. Bosgra , Richard Bott, Rich Bott, Dr. James C. Bowers, Lynn Francis Bouchey, L. Brent Bozell, III Br Dr. David W. Breese, Dr. William "Bill" R. Bright, Floyd Brown, Robert K. Brown, Samuel A. Brunelli, Charles H. Brunie, Anita Bryant, Allen Burkett , Larry Burkett, Honorable Dan Burton, Sandra Butler C -- Hon. Howard "Bo" Callaway, Jameson Campaigne, Jr., Ken Campbell, Jim Carden, Charles S. Carriker, Margo Carlisle, Alan Carlson, John W. Chalfant, ,Margaret "Peggy" Cies Michael S. Coffman, Ph.D John Commuta Guy M. Condon Robert L. Cone Peter C. Cook Holland (Holly) Coors Jeffrey Coors Joseph Coors Mrs. Judy M. Cresanta T. Kenneth Cribb Jr. Mary C. Crowley Les Csorba James C. Czirr Jun 1, 2001 D -- Beverly Danielson Sen. William Dannemeyer Rt. Rev. Dr. C. Truman Davis Cullen Davis Karen Davis Arnaud de Borchgrave Don DeFore Rich DeVos Richard M. DeVos Jr. James E. DeYoung, Jr. Richard B. Dingham Dr. James Dobson John Dodd John Doggett John T. (Terry) Dolan Elaine Donnelly Ann Drexel Arthur M. Dula Robert P. Dugan Pierre S. du Pont Richard Dunham W. Clark Durant III Alan P. Dye Jun 1, 2001 E -- John P. East Jack Eckerd Thomas F. Ellis Stuart Epperson Michael Etchison M. Stanton Evans F -- Dr. Jerry Falwell, Joseph F. Farah Michael P. Farris Dr. Edwin J. Feulner, Jr William A. Fields Father Charles Fiore Robert Fischer Peter T. Flaherty Donald Lambert Folkers Richard A. Ford Clarke D. Forsythe Peter C. Foy Ann Frazier Tracy Freeny Foster S. Friess Corinne S. Fuller Jun 1, 2001 G -- Willard Garvey Peter B. Gemma Jr. Kevin Gentry George F. Gilder Dr. Duane Gish Thomas Glessner Ronald P. Godwin Stephen Goodrick Alan Gottlieb Robbie Gowdey Jun 1, 2001 Gr -- J. Peter Grace Lt. General Daniel O. Graham Anthony Grampsas Robert Grant Jim Groen Dr. Haldeman 'Hal" W. Guffey Darryl E. Gustafson H -- Rev. Ben Haden Billy Hale Colin A. Hanna Samuel A. Hardage Sara Divito Hardman Benjamin Hart Anthony Harrigan Kevin J. "Seamus" Hasson H. Preston Hawkins Richard Headrick Donna Hearne Charles C. Heath Randall Hekman Jesse Helms Harry V. Helton Carl Herbster Thomas D. Hess Rev. E.V. Hill James "Jimmy" Martin Hill Jr. Joseph K. Hilyard Roland Hinz Jun 1, 2001 Ho -- Hon. Donald Paul Hodel Rev. Melvin Hodges William J. "Bill" Hofer Douglas F. Hofmeister Gary Hofmeister Neal Hogan Lou Holbrook Robert P. Holding III George Holland John Holt Donald R. Howard Dr. John A. Howard Ernest B. Hueter Joan Hueter Max Hugel Robbie Hughes Herbert William Hunt Mary Reilly Hunt Nelson Bunker Hunt I-J-K -- Reed Irvine Hon. Ernest J. Istook, Jr. Lorena Jaeb E. Peb Jackson Kay Cole James Gary Jarmin Terry J. Jeffers Dr. Mildred Faye Jefferson James M. Jenkins Rep. Louis (Woody) Jenkins Margaret Jenkins Willa A. Johnson Bob Jones III Rep. Hal Jones W. Daniel Jordan Michael Joyce James F. Justiss Howard Kaloogian William Kanaga Dr. C. L. "Casey" Kay Barbara Keating -Edh David Keene Rep. Jack Kemp Jun 1, 2001 Ken -- Dr. D. James Kennedy William R. Kennedy Alan Keyes William A. Keyes Paul A. Kienel Cliff Kincaid Jerry Kirk Larry Klayman Brig. General Albion W. Knight Dr. Robert H. Krieble L -- Beverly LaHaye Lee LaHaye Dr. Timothy LaHaye Reed Larson Jerome M. Ledzinski Dr. Ernest W. Lefever Lewis E. "Lew" Lehrman John Lenczowski Andrew W. Lester Mark R. Levin Dr. Earl Little John Lofton Hon. Trent Lott Edward Lozick Jun 1, 2001 M~Mca -- Mark R. Maddoux Marlin Maddoux Marion (Mac) Magruder Carolyn Malenick Peter Marshall, Jr. Connaught (Connie) Marshner James L. Martin Christopher "Kit" Mason Richard Mason James Mather Pat Matrisciana Paul Maurer Donald S. McAlvany Ed McAteer Jun 1, 2001 Mc -- Thomas E. McCabe Bryan McCanless Richard F. McCarthy, Jr Norman P. McClelland James A. McClure Timothy McConville James D. McCotter Tidal W. McCoy Larry P. McDonald Roy McKasson Emanuel McLittle Hon. Edwin Meese III Major F. Andy Messing, Jr. Eugene Meyer Rev. Austin Miles James C. Miller III Tom Minnery Charles W. Missler Mo -- Terry E. Moffitt Barbara Monteith Dr. Stanley Monteith Charles Moore Dr. Raymond Moore Sam Moore Thomas Slick Moorman Dr. Henry M. Morris Rev. Duane R. Motley William D. Mounger N~Pa -- Senator Don Nickles David A. Noebel Grover Norquist Dr. Gary North Lt. Col. Oliver North George D. O'Neill, Jr. J. Stanley Oakes Jr. Phillip Olsen William J. Olson Ted Pantaleo J. A. "Jay" Parker Thomas G. Parker Colleen G. Parro G.N. Parrot Carmen Pate Dr. Paige Patterson Maj. General George S. Patton III Jun 1, 2001 Pe~Q -- Tony Perkins Robert J. Perry Howard Phillips Thomas L. Phillips Burton Yale Pines Robert M. Pittenger Theda Oates Plimpton Larry W. Poland William M. Polk Robert Poole Jim Powers Lawrence D. "Larry" Pratt Judge Paul Pressler Paul Pressler IV James S. Price Edgar Prince Elsa Prince Coy C. Privette Penny Pullen R -- Raymond V. Raehn Ralph E. Reed, Jr. Gerald P. Regier Thomas L. Rhodes Dr. Charles E. Rice H.L. "Bill" Richardson Richard A. Riddle Elizabeth Ridenour Lawson Ridgeway Stephen D. Ridley Isom J. Rigell Dr. Paul Craig Roberts Dr. "M.G." Pat Robertson Ronald E. Robinson James Robison George C. Roche III Thomas A. Roe Kathleen Teague [Rothschild] Howard J. Ruff Rev. R. J. Rushdoony William A. Rusher Jun 1, 2001 S -- Guy Sanders, Jr. William E. Saracino Richard M. Scaife Terence Scanlon Rich Scarborough Frederic (Rich) Schatz Blaine Scheideman Phyllis Schlafly Otto Scott John Scribante Lynda H. Scribante Alan Sears Ronald L. Seeley Harry G. A. Seggerman Jay A. Sekulow Duncan Sellars Hans F. Sennholz Beurt SerVaas Jun 1, 2001Sh -- Frank Shakespeare Dal Shealy Richard Shoff Terry Siemans William E. Simon Major General John K. Singlaub "Father" Rev. Robert Sirico Dr. W. Cleon Skousen Mark Skousen Baker Armstrong Smith E. Roy Smith Henry J. "Bud" Smith Jim R. Smith Dr. Lowell Smith Malcolm E. Smith Jr. Victor P. Smith Sn -- Geraldine (Gerry) Snyder Thomas R. Spencer, Jr. LaNeil Wright Spivy Ted Squires Scott Stanley, Jr. Darla St. Martin Mathew D. Staver, Esq. Allen Stevens Donald R. Stewart Steve Stockman Robert Stoddard John Stoos John A. Stormer W. Robert Stover Jay Strack George W. Strake, Jr Kathleen Sullivan Lt. General Gordon Sumner Jr. John H. Sununu Gaylord K. Swim T~V -- John G. Talcott Jr. Dr. Lewis Tambs Hon. Helen Marie Taylor James "Jim" B. Taylor Stacy Taylor Dr. Edward Teller Robert L. Thoburn Bill Tierney Robert G. Tilton Herbert W. Titus Steven A.F. Trevino Patrick A. Trueman Timothy E. Twardowski Sherman E. Unkefer III Rev. Nathaniel A. Urshan Jon Basil Utley Harry Valentine Mike Valerio Guy Vander Jagt Balint Vazsonyi Richard Viguerie Christine Vollmer Barbara Vucanovich Jun 1, 2001 W -- Gray Wakefield Peter E. Waldron Robert Walker Henry L. Walther James G. Watt Anthony Wauteriek Winston O. Weaver Robert T. Weiner P. Craig Welch Jr. Judi Westberg -Warren Diana Weyrich Paul Weyrich Dr. Jack Wheeler James Whelan Somers H. White John W. Whitehead Faith Ryan Whittlesey Jun 1, 2001 Wi-Z -- Rev. Donald Wildmon Tim Wildmon Alvin Williams Dr. John Wilke James M. Wilson Thomas S. Winter Richard B. Wirthlin George Witwer Robert Wolgemuth Robert Wood Rev. Jim Woodall Carter Wrenn Carl Young Charles B. Young David Zanotti Billy Zeoli

  •  Jackal this is a great find (none)
    Thank-you.
  •  i've deleted my diary (none)
    i am link/star wars impaired/fairly new. neglected your highly recommended diary because of that.
    now going to read your diary in total and all the comments.
    i have wondered why dKos didn't talk openly about CNP.
       
  •  Yep, That's About Right! Now, What about the (none)
    MAYBERRY MAFIA and the MIAMI MACHINE and how it's sooooo strung together by religious cover organizations...you ain't seen nuthin yet! ;-)
  •  Re The original title (none)
    See the book Dope, Inc., pages 26-33

    It's not about Jews (or Semites -- good grief), rather some Hofjuden ("Court Jew") families founded masonic-style Order of Zion (Fr. "Alliance Universelle Israelite") c.1843 - simply the "Jewish division" of a gaggle of operations - Russian intel intercepted the Protocols and published them and they got twisted to include Jews in general.

    CNP is up to the same old shit, along with a gaggle of other groups.

Felix Deutsch, jcbhan, Epimetheus, David Nir, pontificator, Leslie in CA, Chris Bowers, thirdparty, sdf, Marshall, pixie, Mirele, wozzle, bink, Thumb, Passing Shot, selise, shari, myriad, MichaelPH, Joe Bob, Madman in the marketplace, Dissento, nota bene, stevelu, DeminNewJ, Stirling Newberry, daunte, enchanter, Sean Robertson, freelixir, SB in GR, Irfo, hannah, centurysux, randompost, Savage, jotter, chrischross, ultrageek, Izixs, JoelK in AZ, Kelk, Ben P, Rayne, V, slinkerwink, Bryan in CT, kate mckinnon, Trendar, glitterscale, Volvo Liberal, moon in the house of moe, timber, Schmendrick54, GreenSooner, Dump Terry McAuliffe, ubikkibu, bradnickel, Raybin, jimpol, Gooserock, Unstable Isotope, Damek, existenz, MikeCapone, dtj, rafadex, kathyp, rovdjur, Maryscott OConnor, jjc4jre, ArkansasJoseph, bribri, R Dub, DjW, BooMan23, sjct, walter mitty, TechBob, doug r, lebowski, Coldblue Steele, Shockwave, Del C, Titian, LynChi, ARingMD2B, Andrew C White, Astral, Planet B, kelvinchapman, JamesC, bramish, Hrothgar, Ralfast, LtScheisskopf, eSolutions, pacified, John Campanelli, FredFred, tryptamine, the awful truth, moira977, YankInUK, shetquaker, bubbles, HootieMcBoob, DemDachshund, kdub, figdish, sersan, pbsloop, WussGawd, SleepyG, voltayre, Muboshgu, Carnacki, object16, Joe B, Sandia Blanca, jedc, mysteve, up2date, musicsleuth, bumblebums, Thelesis, hubcap, zeitshabba, jetfan, Soy Lechithin, fabooj, eyeswideopen, mrsdbrown1, maskling11, joyous, tyler93023, rwsab, kwinz, Hose B, bronte17, KB, jhewett, TracieLynn, justme, silas216, ProfessorX, dlcampbe, SamSinister, jeremiah bullfrog, AikidoPilgrim, Johnny Gentle Famous Crooner, saint, Lab Rat, sissy, thought, shaft, beeg, maxschell, raisin, lilithvf1998, Agathena, SusanHu, jmanyeah, biscobosco, demokath, sprog, wanderindiana, exhausted by the spin, pixelthief, buckhorn okie, mrblifil, biggb23, rabel, chechecule, MisterOwl, sgilman, peeder, vmckimmey, nargel, larryrant, CodeTalker, sngmama, ethans mom, dcvote, jalbert, Kenyan, Boxers, mapKY, thingamabob, erquirk, LesforKE, Glinda, marysz, ClearHead, kemkem, Chrisfs, Georgia Logothetis, dksbook, TNdem, sonandar, revsue, Tomtech, firedoglake, Janet Strange, ExPatUK, CapnCanuck, Denver, turtle, lacava, entiel, Eric Blair, Nag, annan, padraig pearse, mwk, mrradon, ems mom, Miss Alabama, greatmario, NYC Sophia, Kamakhya, jlynne, businessdem, missliberties, pat bunny, milton333, chasmrich, coldwynn, automovil, MKS, Little Hamster, Kaya, alivingston, roseeriter, TXsharon, pilotweed, BlueMomInRedState, CaliBlogger, hoolia, epcraig, Clever, wont get fooled again, unleded, baxxor, BemusedBrit, wdrath, MaggieEh, Jill Lehnert, kathika, arb, GN1927, joan reports, bitterguy, khowell, A Ball of Lint, mrsnart, tombstone, PaulinSF, sommervr, lcrp, joewlarson, EngProf, 4jkb4ia, waztec, Democratic Hawk, jrm78, Covin, SonofFunk, greenknight, alexb, stringer bell, Noisy Democrat, Anne Hawley, kdickinson21, Sembtex, glattonfolly, mattes, kfred, Sopiane, NeoconSemanticist, ScienceMom, buttermyself, secret asian man, negropontedeathsquads, notcho, magnet, jung at heart, Drawn4Quarters, Jonman, jerbear57, snowbird42, Irish Patti, faithfull, dtp0601, Dave Brown, coerce, Tirge Caps, Symbiotic, Older and Wiser Now, FlushFools

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site