The Neo-cons (who are against environmental protection as we are growing more
aware of the consequences of fossil fuels, who are against updating
corporate crime penalties when now billions can be stolen by the Andrew Fastows
and the Michael Milkens, who are against election reforms to allow enormous financing
of the duopoly and to allow corporations to control the elections not only with their
massive contributions but also by way of restricting the national debates)......they needed
to find a moral high-ground......and they did. With the right-to-life issue, they know that
they have an issue that makes them seem humanitarian. And it's an issue that doesn't
cost them a dime! Just some simple-minded rhetoric. Anything that costs money or
hurts the "bottom line" they tend to be against.

They use it to take the focus off of their unincumbered greed, and sound "humane"....
as the air that they want to be allowed to pollute becomes more dangerous to health,
the lakes, rivers and oceans that they want to be allowed to
pollute grows more contaminated, as the electoral process becomes super corrupted by corporations making electronic voting machines that are easily manipulated by fraudulent
election commissioners. They can seem to be on the moral high ground, when they are actually scratching around for something to make themselves look "good".

One might conclude that their motivation is to have easily oppressed bastards around
to work the bad shifts of the bad jobs.....but that is clearly not the reason. America has
an enormous amount of workers - illegals, blacks, poor whites - available for those menial
jobs. The sole reason for these greed mongers to glom on to the
abortion issue is to make themselves look good on SOMETHING......because they know that
without something like this.....well....... they don't have much of a leg to stand on in the eyes
of the average American. There are substantially more have-nots than them, and they excrutiatingly need to get the middle class behind them on SOMETHING!

The Republican Party is an alliance between rich corporations and socially conservative people. There are not enough rich people in America to elect any candidate to the Presidency, or any office, if the candidate campaigns for "greed, property, and keeping labor costs down."

So, to get votes, the rich in the Party pander to the socially conservatives, who are usually Christians. Rich people don't care about funding abortion (they can afford them), prayer in schools (they send their own to private academies), evolution vs. the Bible (they side with Darwinists), or the moral condition of the country (they can move elsewhere, and already own a house there).

So, they let the social conservatives have free reign on those issue. In exchange, they get votes.

Republicans in California really split along those lines. The Governator is a good example. He married the Kennedy family, smoked dope, shot steroids, had plastic surgery, had group sex, is a "groper" and woman-molester, seems to have admiration for fascism, and does not believe in the idea of equality or, it seems, charity. This guy is offensive. But, he supports the rich. And he panders to social conservatives.

This alliance causes a lot of cognitive dissonace for Christians, because greed, gluttony, vanity, etc. are all sins.

To resolve this, there are sects that prop up the values of greed and selfishness. You can find them on the web, if you search around. You can tell who's into this when they quote about "give a hungry man a fish, blah blah, teach a man to fish... etc." (If you want to mess with them, tell them that the rivers here are all fished out, and the government stocks them so that sport fishers can play.)

For example, there are a lot of sects that preach "self reliance" not only as a virtue, but a justification for withholding charity from those in need. Repeat this enough... and you can justify cuts in welfare.

Welfare cuts are just another way to make the unemployed even poorer, so they will be willing to work for less money.

They lobby to fund homeschooling and parochial schools, via "vouchers" to destroy public education. Again, this is another way to make the poor even poorer. (What was that about teaching a man to fish?)

This kind of propaganda serves to undermine the impulse to provide charity to people in need. It undermines the feeling of unease some people have when they have a lot of money, replacing it with self-satisfaction. It replaces natural communal instincts with a militant selfishness.

The insidiousness of this propaganda is that it constructs an apparantly ethical explanation for what is really unfair and unwise public policy.

I was noticing something interesting about Hinduism when I was perusing a Huston Smith book on religions: Hinduism doesn't guilt trip you if you're rich. You're allowed to be wealthy. That sounded pretty cool to me.

Then, I had to think again. In India, there are castes. The poorest are the Untouchables, the Dalits. They are the poorest of the poor, in a country full of poor people.

This makes me wonder if theology is justifying the status quo, where an entire group is born into a life of poverty, relegated to doing the dirtiest work, and for little money. If so, then, one aspect of their God is money, and the worship of it.

Likewise, look at someone like Pat Robertson, an extremely wealthy man, with questionable holdings. A charlatan. A mystic. Study that guy, and you'll see where we're really going: more greed, more selfishness, more anger, and more invasions.