The Real Right Wing Conspiracy:

Part 2


It's Happened Before

What's happened to America and its economy during the last 32 years is similar to the historical consequences of Republican dominance in the 1910s and ‘20s, when the rich got richer and corrupt and caused the financial crisis and stock market crash of 1929, followed by the Great Depression.

That is why those who believe in Jeffersonian Democracy and in Roosevelt’s New Deal believe that government must properly and sufficiently regulate and oversee big businesses, corporations and banks, and that we must legislate to make the vast majority prosperous, because widespread prosperity will benefit the whole country in many ways.

That’s been proven many times. Roosevelt’s New Deal and progressive successes in the 1930s and ‘40s enabled the Middle Class to grow very large and great by the late 1940s and ‘50s, making it very clear that widespread prosperity produces widespread well being. Moreover, it produces more prosperous taxpayers who can contribute more to make the whole country better.

The agenda of Reaganism is contrary to that, as the state of the nation clearly shows.

Therefore, Americans should know why, because t
he right-wing neo-conservative conspiracy that propelled Ronald Reagan into the White House in 1981 has been pushing the nation to the right ever since.


As the beginning of this article states, the right-wing conspiracy really began early in Ronald Reagan’s political career, and as the article on Reagan's Real Legacy reveals, when he was the Screen Actor’s Guild President and joined Republican Senators Joseph McCarthy and Richard Nixon in the "Second Red Scare," slandering and “black listing” liberal progressives, labeling them as “Socialists” and “Communists.” 

The right-wing conspiracy was furthered when Reagan became the television spokesman for the General Electric Corporation, and from 1954 to 1962 Reagan was carefully groomed and prepared as a politician by its top executives. And that conspiracy started to expand and grow when General Electric sent Ronald Reagan out on speaking tours to spread pro-corporate and anti-labor union propaganda around the country.

Now, what could be called the Third Red Scare really got underway in 1971. That was when corporate interests ironically accused the New Left Peace and Freedom movement of the 1960s of being a left-wing communist conspiracy.



For example, in 1971, two months before being sworn in as a justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, Lewis Franklin Powell, Jr. drafted a confidential memorandum for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.  It was not made available to the public until long after he was sworn into the Supreme Court, but since the public learned of the memo it has been termed the "Powell Manifesto."

The memorandum Powell wrote before becoming a Justice was a corporate “road map” to defend and further the corporate concept of free-enterprise capitalism against what he misleadingly termed “communist” cultural trends. That is why in 1971, President Nixon persuaded Powell to join the Court.


Nixon did that because Powell had written: “We are not dealing with sporadic or isolated attacks from a relatively few extremists or even from the minority socialist cadre. Rather, the assault on the enterprise system is broadly based and consistently pursued. It is gaining momentum and converts.”

Powell was talking about the New Left of the 1960s, which included the Peace and Freedom Movement, the Civil Rights Movement, the Women's Liberation Movement, and the Anti-War Movement. And, like Nixon and Reagan, Powell lumped the New Left in with Communists and “revolutionaries who would destroy the entire system, both political and economic.”

That was actually misleading fear-mongering, but that kind of rhetoric has been an ongoing tactic of right-wing activists who favor giant corporations and the religious military industrial complex over the public good. And even though it has usually worked like a charm, it is a cheap tactic.

Actually, the New Left of the 1960s consisted of an unorganized, often unrelated variety of groups, most of which were advocating peace and criticizing the Vietnam War. Some were demonstrating to promote the civil rights movement and reject racism and apartheid. Some were demonstrating to promote the Free Speech movement. Some were demonstrating to promote worker’s rights, while some were demonstrating to promote women’s rights. And all of them were demonstrating against greed, injustice, and unfairness.

In spite of that, Powell, Nixon, Reagan and those of like mind chose to see dissent and protest as bad and unpatriotic, even though in fact it has usually been good and very patriotic.

After all, the Founders of the U.S.A. felt they had to resort to dissent, protest and even go to war against a government that did not serve the interests of the people as a whole. And those Founders said it is our right and duty to alter and reform our government when it does not.

Anyway, the right-wing conspiracy grew significantly when Ronald Reagan became the Governor of California (which was when he came down really hard on the New Left in a bloody police riot in Berkeley), but it really got influential and dominant nationwide in 1981 and 1982, as soon as Reagan became president.

Ironically, while the original Federalist Party influenced by John Adams advocated a strong federal government, in stark contrast the Reaganites and the “new Federalists” worked in the opposite direction, striving to use the courts and the legal system to considerably weaken the federal government, further empower big businesses, banks and corporations, and erode our constitutional individual rights and freedoms.

In fact, the Reaganite ideology and views are more akin to the southern confederated states during the Civil War, who fought against the central federal government so they could rule their own states and personal domains just as they pleased, without regulations or restraints established or enforced by the federal government. 

The problem is that even though they don’t want anyone regulating their businesses or restricting their ability to conduct business however they want, that is precisely why there is such bitter partisan political conflict in America. 

Ethical people of conscience always have and always will object to abuse of power, shameless greed, and unrestrained self-indulgence driven by self-interest – especially when it is at the expense of and to the detriment of others.

That is why is is rather amazing that Ronald Reagan was so successful, because the ideology he sold was without conscience.

Because he was such a charming TV pitch man, President Reagan was able to get away with favoring corporations while waging war on labor unions and human services recipients (who Reagan called “welfare cheats”). And Reagan's ideology was instrumental in enabling the Republican controlled Congress in the 1990s to enact right-wing legislation like the so-called “Welfare Reform,” which claimed to help but was actually designed to cut human services and make it difficult for government to promote the general welfare as it is supposed to.


The Federalist Society Gets Down and Dirty

The Reaganite Federalist Society then enabled George W. Bush to consistently rule from the far right, rather than from the middle as he initially promised he would. Many of the individuals he placed in key positions in the White House, the Justice Department, and throughout his administration, were members of the Federalist Society. And Bush was either in concert with them or acquiesced to them and gave them as much power as possible. Consequently, they used the courts and other  mechanisms of government to fundamentally redefine federal powers and public policy, and rewrite constitutional and civil rights. And those mechanisms included the selection and screening of nominees to fill vacancies on the federal courts, as well as Supreme Court vacancies. 

Of course, in a report at the time, Ralph G. Neas, President of People for the American Way (PFAW), said, “We do not question the right of Federalist Society members to influence the Bush administration’s decisions and policies. However, we do believe that it is important for the American people to know as much as possible about any group that wields this much power over policies and decisions that will affect their fundamental rights. It is in that spirit that this report has been produced.” 

The Washington Times Insight magazine identified the group as the "single most influential organization in the conservative legal world." An article in Washington Monthly identified the Society as "quite simply the best-organized, best-funded, and most effective legal network operating in this country. … There is nothing like the Federalist Society on the Left.”

To better inform the public, the PFAW report explored the Federalist Society and its members and allies, examining their legal and policy objectives, their prevailing philosophy, as well as the kind of impact they could have through their influence within the Bush administration, and on the law, the courts, the Constitution, and ordinary citizens. 

But the public should also know that another Federalist Society funding source is the Koch Foundation, and as mentioned earlier, Charles Koch was co-founder of the Cato Institute, an extremely right-wing conservative think-tank that espouse all kinds of right-wing causes even though they claim to be "non-partisan." While the Federalist society's focus is on politicizing of judicial and legal issues, the Cato Institute focuses on social, education and labor issues. (For example, it has claimed that there is little or no poverty in America. It has worked against public school reform because they are in favor of taxpayer-supported school vouchers for private schools. They have also done things such as proposing that individual states should be allowed to choose “whether to accept any increase” in the minimum wage.)

The Federalist Society focuses on changing laws to fit its right-wing interpretation of the Constitution. For example, they have a “Pre-law Reading List” of recommended reading for law students and other interested parties. Supreme Court Judge Antonin Scalia’s 1997 book, Matter of Interpretation, is thereon listed and recommended. That book was reviewed in The Nation by Garrett Epps, who wrote that “Scalia finds no democratic value in guarantees against oppression of electoral minorities” and “believes elected bodies should be able to do whatever they want without a lot of whining from the losers.”  (Remember, Scalia is one of the U.S. Supreme Court justices that put George W. Bush in the White House in 2000 with a very controversial, highly partisan vote.)

The agenda of the Federalist Society does cover many other issues. For example, on the issue of assault weapons, it recommends two experts for the media to contact:  Nelson Lund of George Mason University Law School and Eugene Volokh of UCLA Law School. Both have such right-wing anti-gun control views that the National Rifle Association (NRA) also recommends them as “experts” for media interviews. In fact, an NRA press statement last year urged the media to interview Lund and Volokh, noting that both of them could be reached through the NRA’s own public affairs office. Moreover, Volokh co-wrote a 1999 article entitled “Loaded Guns Can Be Good for Kids,” in which he and co-author Dave Kopel strongly criticized a federal proposal to require guns to be sold with safety locks.

Led by such right-wing ideologues, the Federalist Society has grown substantially over the years. Amazingly, according to a January 2001 report by the Institute for Democracy Studies, the Society’s membership then included over 40,000 lawyers, policy analysts, political and business leaders and others. In addition, the Society’s membership included 5,000 law students at roughly 140 law schools. Now it boasts of having many more.

Despite the Federalist Society’s obvious ideological right-wing bent, its spokespersons claim that the organization has no desire to convert its ideology into legislative, judicial, or political action. They claim that the Society’s charter “is to create discussion, not to lobby,” and that the Society is merely “a forum for discussion of law and public policy from both sides.”

That, unfortunately, is not true. They provide some token opportunities for liberals and progressives to speak at their gatherings, but their agenda is clearly biased and divisive and it is quite evident that the Federalist Society aggressively advocates, promotes, and implements its ideological right-wing point of view.

In fact, instead of pushing change piecemeal, one lawsuit or one bill at a time, the Society seeks to produce broad sweeping change by altering the entire legal landscape. This includes promoting and developing extreme right-wing political positions, influencing federal and state governments with those positions, guiding law students and young lawyers accordingly, and influencing and determining who will become judges, top government officials, and decision and policy makers.

Operating from its own distorted, up-side-down concept of “federalism,” the Society organization seeks to limit federal authority to areas such as national defense, and cede most other powers to the states. In other words, they have been effectively waging the second Civil War, only legally, behind the scenes, and in court rooms. And even though we should respect the right of state governments to make certain appropriate decisions, the Society goes to extremes by seeking to block the ability of the federal government to enact and enforce nationwide laws protecting workers, employees, the environment, civil rights, workplace health and safety, among other things. Again, they want to conduct business as they see fit, with no federal regulations or safeguards that protect the average people, the public, the environment, etc.

The Society’s power to do that grew when President George W. Bush announced the end of the role of the American Bar Association (ABA) in reviewing the qualifications of potential judicial nominees for the federal courts. Bush did that even though the ABA had traditionally provided an important service to the nation and to presidents of both parties by reviewing potential court nominees in a fair, nonpartisan manner. More specifically, he did it because the Federalist Society members had taken actions against the ABA trying to terminate the ABA’s nearly half-century-old service.

The Society’s war against the ABA was revenge for a perceived wrong against one of the Society’s founders, Robert Bork. As a Supreme Court nominee, Bork had received a “not qualified” ratings from four of the 15 members of an ABA panel, while he received an overall rating of “well-qualified” from the other 11 Society members who were angered that they were outvoted. Because Bork was rejected by the Senate, the disgruntled Society members began an in-depth “investigation” of the ABA’s activities.

In 1997, then-Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Orin Hatch, a Federalist Society member added fuel to the fire. He announced in a letter that he would “no longer consider the ABA as enjoying an official Senate role in the confirmation process for federal judges.” Just prior to that, Hatch had given a speech to one of the Society’s law school chapters attacking the ABA’s “political” nature, specifically citing the Society’s ABA Watch publication as a source.

One year earlier, one of the key people to testify at Senate hearings questioning the ABA’s role was Edwin Meese, a Federalist Society leader who served as President Reagan’s attorney general. Despite Hatch and Meese, however, the ABA was still allowed to continue its work with the White House (under the Clinton Administration) in its pre-nomination review of court nominees. Then it was stopped in 2001 by President Bush. 

Thus Bush finished what Reagan started, because Federalist Society members had influenced judicial nomination decisions in the Reagan and the elder Bush’s administrations. Roger J. Miner, a senior federal appeals court judge appointed to the bench by Ronald Reagan, observed that “all candidates for federal judgeships are examined for ideological purity.”

Additionally, as a former Supreme Court law clerk has observed, membership in the Society “became a prerequisite” for law students seeking clerkships with many Reagan judicial appointees, as well as for top positions in the Justice Department and the White House.

All this is extremely important because the Society has been zealous in ensuring that vacancies on the federal courts and the U.S. Courts of Appeals are filled by right-wing conservatives. The Republican-controlled Senate during the Clinton Administration simply refused to vote or even to conduct hearings on President Clinton’s judicial nominees. Right-wing Senators Trent Lott, Jon Kyl, Jeff Sessions, Hatch, and Ashcroft blocked almost all Clinton nominees. Only one of Clinton’s judicial nominees even made it to the Senate floor, and was defeated. In all other cases, Senate Republicans effectively ended Clinton’s nominations by preventing any vote at all.

That changed radically with George W. Bush in the White House. Right-wing Republicans aggressively worked for congressional approval of Bush’s conservative judicial appointees. In fact, they tried and often succeeded to ram them through without proper or sufficient hearings, and threatened holding up critical legislation unless they got their way.

In March 2001 the Federalist Society sponsored a conference called “Rolling Back the New Deal,” furthering the Reaganite agenda. That's because Republican conservatives don’t like the New Deal because its programs incorporated liberal ideas that were implemented by Democratic President Franklin D. Roosevelt during the 1930s to restrain the forces of greed and self-interest, regulate business and commerce, provide safeguards and a safety net for those who need it, and pull the U.S. out of a very deep depression caused by Republican corruption.

The basic idea of Roosevelt’s New Deal was that the powers of government should be used to achieve a redistribution of political and economic power in society to protect and benefit the vast majority of people. In other words, it put government in the business of promoting the general welfare (as it is supposed to) and protecting the people from the abuse of the power of wealth. And, of course, that is why right-wing conservatives have been steadily hammering away at such liberal programs for the last thirty years, and they have had a lot of success weakening, damaging, and dismantling many of them.


More On How and Why George W. Bush Made Things Even Worse.

The extreme right-wing conservative ideology of McCarthyism and Reaganism “justified” Republican George W. Bush’s words, actions, policies and appointments. But Bush and his regime made things worse.

Bush tried to mislead people with his contrived view of the world, which was based not on facts but on a hidden agenda to rule and control the world by military force in the name of Christian "divine right," just like many emperors, popes, and kings have done during the last sixteen centuries.

That agenda was actually revealed in September 2000 in a document entitled Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategies, Forces And Resources For A New Century, written by an extreme right-wing conservative think-tank called Project for the New American Century (PNAC).

According to the PNAC web site in 2002, it was the brain child of Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Lewis Libby, William Kristol, and Jeb Bush. Others who are associated with the PNAC and probably had a hand in developing the ideas expressed in the document were Richard Perle, Elliot Abrams, Gary Bauer, William J. Bennet, Dan Quayle, Ellen Bork, and other lesser-known, like-minded right-wing conservative ideologues - and George W. Bush was likely a player even though his name was left off the list for some reason.

The "Rebuilding America's Defenses" document reveals their shameless and blatant plan for world domination and imperialism. It reveals that even before they gained the power of the presidency, the leaders of the Bush Administration apparently planned to invade and occupy Iraq regardless of whether Saddam Hussein was still in power, so they could gain a better and more permanent foothold in that oil-rich region.

It discusses "American global leadership" that will "shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests," and it calls for a "dominant American role in the Mid-East." It describes American armed forces abroad as "the cavalry on the new American frontier." And, as incredible and amazing as this is, the imperialistic PNAC blueprint supports and expands an earlier document written by Wolfowitz and Libby that says the U.S. must "discourage advanced industrial nations from challenging our leadership or even aspiring to a larger regional or global role."

Bush actually believed he was "doing God's will" and fulfilling prophecies by waging war on Iraq because his "religious" advisers had convinced him that his war in Iraq was "God's Will" and would fulfill the prophecy of the warring "sixth angel" who "poured out his vial upon the great river Euphrates..." (Revelation 16:12) (Unfortunately, they didn't and do not understand the symbolism in John's revelation, or the true meaning of prophecies.)

That’s one of the reason’s Bush publicly claimed he was "doing God’ will," and it was confirmed later that in early 2003 in a secret phone call to the president of France, Bush asked for French troops to join American soldiers in attacking Iraq as a "mission from God." Bush even had the nerve to say that Iraq must be invaded to thwart "Gog and Magog," the symbolic evil forces also mentioned in the book of Revelation.

Ironically, Bush was not doing God's will. On the contrary, since his attack and occupation of Iraq was to ensure that Dick Cheney’s old company, Haliburton and its subsidiaries, would be able to take control of Iraqi oil and the U.S. Military would be able to gain a foothold in the oil rich region, Bush was one of the modern leaders who fulfilled the symbolic prophecies as a "beast-king of Babylon" who followed King Ronald by living by the "sword" (gun and bomb) trying to rule the world in the name of God and Country.

Unfortunately, hypocritical, inappropriate and improper imposition of "religion" into official governmental affairs was and is in violation of the intent of the Founding Fathers, and in violation of the U.S. Constitution. And that was not the only thing Bush did that was and is damaging to democracy. Bush's “Christian” Dominionist right-wing conservative political ideology required a hidden agenda and a false front. That is why the reality and the actual purpose behind Bush's deceptive words and actions needed to be exposed, because Bush was wrong and deceptive in both his foreign policy and his domestic policy (as is more thoroughly explained in the article on George W. Bush’s Real Record).

For example, in  addition to filling all the vacancies in the U.S. Courts of Appeals, President Bush was able to appoint two more Supreme Court justices in the mold of Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia. He appointed Samuel Alito and John Roberts, which has proven disastrous in further empowering corporations in their ability to influence elections.

That has fundamentally altered the entire federal judiciary and endangered bedrock constitutional rights and civil rights throughout the country, and it could for decades to come -- unless we establish needed reforms, new amendments to the Constitution, and needed legislation to straighten things out and right the wrongs that have been done.

As The People For the American Way Foundation warned in its 2000 report, Courting Disaster, a right-wing Supreme Court majority that were members of the Federalist Society would put at grave risk many of the most fundamental rights and liberties that Americans have come to take for granted. They could overturn many key precedents protecting a wide range of civil and constitutional rights, the right to privacy, reproductive freedom, civil rights, religious liberties, environmental protection, worker and consumer rights, and many other fundamental rights and safeguards. And they indeed have.

For example, watch this video of the Sixty Minutes interview of lobbyist Jack Abramoff. And consider that just in the first three months of 2009 the corporations and industries spent at least $500 Million on lobbying to influence politicians in Washington, D.C. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce spent $47 Million last year on political issue ads on TV, mostly against health care reform, and they spent another $144 Million on lobbying Congress to fight regulation of corporations. 

In fact, the Chamber is the most powerful influence on the public and on Congress, serving the interest of profit-making corporations to the detriment of the environment and the public. And now, the court’s ruling has enabled new right-wing groups like the American Action Network (ANN), which paid for slanderous, misleading and often false attack ads against Democrats in the 2010 mid-term election season and during the fight over health care reform. It’s funded by the ultra wealthy and their corporations, and its board consists of right-wing Republican politicians and millionaire and billionaire businessmen, industrialists and financiers.

Unfortunately, most Americans are not aware of the extreme nature of the positions that have been advocated by the Federalist Society and its leaders, which put them far from the mainstream of beliefs shared by most Americans and enshrined in decades of constitutional jurisprudence and national policy. The leading voices of the Federalist Society share an ideology that is hostile to true federalism, and hostile to civil rights, reproductive rights, religious liberties, environmental protection, privacy rights, and health and safety standards, and would totally strip our federal government of the power to enforce these rights and protections. In other words, the Federalist Society is hostile to the American Way.


More On The American Way vs The Federalist Society

The People for the American Way Foundation is to be applauded for its work, especially since it is one of the very few organizations willing to keep watch on the powerful ruling Right.  Most so-called “moral watch-dog” groups are actually right-wing organizations going under blatantly deceptive names (like Federalist Society, Moral Majority, Christian Coalition, Citizens for Excellence in Education, Concerned Women for America, Eagle Forum, Family Research Council, American Family Association, Heritage Foundation, Center for Individual Rights, etc.). The People for the American Way, on the other hand, actually is a moral watch-dog group, whose name says what it actually is.

Even so, the People for the American Way Foundation doesn’t go far enough. In the first place, our judges should not be nominated by a partisan chief executive who seeks to further a partisan political agenda. That is the least fair method of selecting judges. Nominations for judgeships should be made by a collective body representing the vast majority of judges and law professors. Potential judicial nominees should be screened by an unbiased, non-partisan group that strives to ensure, to the greatest extent possible, that potential judges be non-partisan, unbiased, impartial, neutral, and fair. That is absolutely crucial. It is the only way to have a fair and just judiciary.

As it is and has been, judges are nominated by partisan presidents precisely because of their partisan ideology, and the record shows that Republicans have been the most underhanded and partisan about it. That has created the disgraceful situation that we have now, with judges sitting on courts, and even on the U.S. Supreme Court, who claim to be fair when they obviously follow a right-wing partisan political agenda. This is an abhorrent situation that must be corrected as soon as possible.

Furthermore, we should ensure not only that judges are selected fairly and properly. We should also ensure that we can replace any judge any time we want. Lifetime judgeships give a judge ultimate and absolute power to determine the course of people’s lives, but leave the people little recourse when a judge does not serve their interests. We must have the power to make sure that sitting judges serve the interests of the people.

It is time that we, the people, utterly reject and denounce the right-wing conservative agenda. Their arrogance, hypocrisy, bigotry and deception must be repudiated and rebuked, and they must be reminded of true Christian values, true moral principles, and the actual intent of the Founders of the U.S.A.



Libertarianism is part of the original ideology that began the right-wing conspiracy pitting the wealthy against the majority, in the name of "doing what's right" and "best for the country."

The proponents of Libertarianism will all tell you they are for individualism, personal liberty, and political freedom. After all, we are all for that, so it’s a good way to make Libertarianism sound good to us. However, as you will see, the agenda of Libertarians is not good for the vast majority of us. It is good for the wealthiest few, and detrimental to the majority.

Libertarianism, however, is a blanket term covering a variety of political philosophies and ideologies, and when it comes to what liberty and freedom means, and how to achieve it, different schools of Libertarianism disagree. In fact, some of them even argue over whether the government should even exist or not, and, if it does, to what extent.

Ronald Reagan was of the school of Libertarianism that serves the interests of banks, corporations and financial institutions. That is why Reagan believed in very limited, Laissez Faire government with little or no regulation of banks, corporations and industry, which he clearly demonstrated when he said in 1989 in his farewell address: "There's a clear cause and effect here that is as neat and predictable as a law of physics: As government expands, liberty contracts."

That is blatantly untrue. But Reagan, like all following Reaganites and Libertarians, believed that private institutions, like big businesses, corporations, industries, banks, religious groups and other private interest groups, were the real providers of our freedom and liberty, not government.

That is not true because only government can provide freedom and liberty. In fact, without proper, efficient, well funded central government there has usually been and is chaos and anarchy, with rule by corrupt local martial law, crooked local government, and even rule by local criminal “warlords,” gangs, cartels, mafias, etc., which often operate by paying off the "legal" authorities.

However, as the Founders of America and the Framers of the Constitution said, government can and should secure the blessings of freedom and liberty for the people.

In fact, only good government can do that, by properly regulating business and commerce, establishing and enforcing laws, providing for the common defense and safety of the people, promoting the general welfare, and ensuring justice and domestic tranquility.

But, Ronald Reagan was led to believe differently and he led many Americans to believe differently. And because they have been grossly misguided, many Reaganite Libertarians, Republicans and Tea Party politicians think government, by its nature, is bad. That is why Reagan also said as much in that speech, saying: "Through more and more rules and regulations and confiscatory taxes, the government was taking more of our money, more of our options, and more of our freedom."

That was sheer right-wing corporate propaganda, albeit very successful, because Ronald Reagan was a very charming television pitch man who was well trained by very cunning men. (See Ronald Reagan’s Real Legacy and Record.)

Unfortunately, Reaganism was hugely successful because it was sold as being “patriotic and religious,” and many Republicans, Libertarians and “Tea Party” members still use the same corporate-inspired mantras that Ronald Reagan did.

The majority of Americans still do not see that. They do not see that Reaganism infected and still infects America like a giant plague of deception and deceit, which is why greed and corruption are so rampant, and why America is so deeply divided and in conflict.


(Continued at Part 3.)