Have you ever felt like you’ve been duped or played for a fool? What about that old adage, fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me? Well, conservatives have been played for fools, there is no other way to put it, by extreme environmentalists and anti-capitalist liberals determined to limit the population of the United States in order to save the planet.

The very real problem is conservatives have done such a good job of damning ALL liberal organizations that the “good” ones are thrown out with the scurrilous ones. And, there are some very good, honorable liberal organizations such as the ADL and the SPLC. Yes, they are liberal and have a liberal agenda, but they are honorable. As such, they deserve our respect. The more fascinating aspect of all of this is the “conservative? organizations doing the most damning of both the ADL and the SPLC are the ones who have been targeted by both organizations as extremists. If you are aren’t familiar with the workings of both, they both target the “bad guys? regardless of political leanings, taking out liberals as well as conservatives who truly give conservatives a bad name.

If a conservative organization, leader, politician, or lobbyist cannot stand up to liberal scrutiny, then something is wrong. I’m not talking ideological scrutiny, but an examination of associations and funding. I’ve yet to find anything about the SPLC that would eliminate it as a source other than the tawdry love life of Morris Dees. (and that doesn’t’ count). No matter how conservatives try to take either organization out, they can’t. The same does not hold true for anything sponsored by Soros or anything connected with William Greene, Richard Viguerie, or funded by Sun Myung Moon.

I keep a back-up archive of material dealing with various exposes at my 2nd site, The Subway Canaries. For this article I am not linking to any of the individuals mentioned. You can track them over at The Subway Canaries, which is now on the SPLC’s resource list. (FYI – At The Subway Canaries you will find an extensive ‘expose’ into the background of the SPLC).

Thursday in Part I of my Pink Flamingo expose of the anti-immigration roots, I discussed the history of the humanity within the GOP. The Republican Party has a glorious history of abolition, and the protection of the innocent, be it the life of the unborn or insuring the safety of the escaping slave through the underground railroad. Consequently, since the co-opting of the “conservative? agenda by John Tanton and his minions, this beautiful history of protecting those who need it most has been cast aside for a more “conservative? agenda of protecting our borders. Even the established and highly respected Front Page has dealt with John Tanton and the extreme liberal environmental roots of the anti-immigration industry.

The first signs of trouble appeared nearly a decade ago when a group of population control advocates tried to take over the Audubon Society and the Sierra Club.

‘…“…When Sierra Club members recently voted down a resolution calling for greatly restricting legal immigration levels, the organization’s leadership and many of its allies were elated. Club president Adam Werbach had threatened to resign if the measure passed. “I was terrified,” he said. Its opponents often characterized the resolution as a product of outside agitators. “Zealots Target Sierra Club: Immigration Foes Working to Usurp Club Elections,” screamed a headline in the left-leaning L.A. Weekly. Sierra Club executive director Carl Pope called the measure’s supporters “nativists” and “right-wingers.” Los Angeles Times columnist Al Martinez described it as “a clumsy, right-wing effort” and its backers as “a small group of super-ethnocentrists.”

Things are not that simple, however. The resolution sprang not from right-wing outsiders, but from the vital intellectual core of the environmental movement. Its backers included long-time environmental leaders such as Worldwatch Institute head Lester Brown, Earth Day founder Gaylord Nelson, and EarthFirst! founder Dave Foreman….These views are more mainstream than they first appear. Even Sierra Club president Werbach, a self-described Valley boy,buys into a suburbanized version of Schumacher’s peasant ideal. In his 1997 book, Act Now, Apologize Later, Werbach celebrates the static peasant village, where “whatever is produced in the village must be used, first and foremost, by the members of the village.” Although he is too much the liberal to condemn immigration, he has no trouble denouncing trade: “We should demand that the Safeway in Idaho carry only native potatoes. And we should draw the line when department stores bottom out prices, muscle out local businesses, and eradicate local culture.”…?

Front Page’s highly respected Andrew Walden was onto Tanton, FAIR, and NumbersUSA several years ago. Writing in Front Page:

“…It is easy to portray the anti-immigration sentiment as coming entirely from the political Right. But the environmentalist Left is also a big part of the anti-immigration effort. Groups such as the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), a leading anti-immigration group, played a key role in two failed attempts to take over the Sierra Club in 1998 and again in 2004. FAIR and its offshoot, Numbers USA, advocate not only an end to illegal immigration and deportation of all illegals, but also reduced levels of legal immigration…?

Walden quotes the Christian Science Monitor:
“…Leaders of the anti-immigration faction are mainly establishment types – former Colorado Gov. Richard Lamm, the former director of the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation, and university professors from around the country. Paul Watson, co-founder of Greenpeace, president of the anti-whaling Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, and an advocate of zero population growth, gathered enough club support to get himself nominated and then elected to a board position last year. So did two other population activists….?

Logic says there is no possible way an extreme liberal idea could hijack the entire momentum of the “conservative? movement and morphed it into something that promotes their agenda. Unfortunately, it has happened. When people become complacent, and trusting nefarious things can occur. The real problem with the average conservative Republican is the fact that “we” are too trusting. Because “we” are people of honor, integrity, patriotism, and decency, “we expect everyone who calls him or her self “conservative? to be the same. Unfortunately, they are not.

How could a movement be hijacked by the far left? Other questions include the problem of the harmonic convergence of the far left and the extreme radical right. How did it happen? If you examine the roots of the far left, they are basically totalitarian in nature, and are completely contrary to Judeo-Christian values. If you examine the roots of the extreme, radical right they are also contrary to Judeo-Christian values. One of the fascinating agenda items the far left has with the far right is the fact that they are both highly anti-Semitic.

If you are not anti-Semitic, why would you, as a normal conservative, denigrate the good workings of the ADL?

Why is there a merger of the rankest of the anti-population grow individuals and the luminaries of the KKK and deeply closeted neo-Nazis and white supremacists?

Is it possible there are other agendas afoot?

What is their agenda?

Why were the liberals within the Sierra Club able to weed out Tanton and his associates and get rid of them?
From Right Web
“…John Tanton is widely recognized as the leading figure in the anti-immigration and “official English” movements in the United States. Initially, Tanton’s public policy advocacy work was driven by his commitment to zero population growth and environmental conservation. By the late 1970s, however, this concern about the environment and population growth evolved into a crusade against immigration flows into the United States, particularly from Latin American and Caribbean nations. At the time that the New Right, Christian Right, and neo-conservative political tendencies were mobilizing new constituencies against center-left politics in the United States, Tanton played a central role in mobilizing backlash sentiment against immigrants. Tapping his base in environmental and population control organizations such as the Sierra Club, National Audubon Society, and Zero Population Growth, Tanton in 1979 cofounded what has become the most influential anti-immigrant policy institute in the nation: Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR). In 1983, he also co-founded the most influential “official English” or English-only organization, U.S. English….?

Why were the Sierra Club and Audubon Society liberals bright enough to see through Tanton’s agenda, but conservatives were not?

The SPLC obtained a copy of a memo Tanton sent to his associates in 1986. Once again, why were the Sierra Club and Audubon Society liberals smart enough to see through this, but conservatives were taken in, no questions asked? Tanton wrote the following questions which are now being used against many aspects of immigration, legal and illegal:
“…1. Will Latin American migrants bring with them the tradition of the mordida (bribe), the lack of involvement in public affairs, etc.? What in fact are the characteristics of Latin American culture, versus that of the United States? See Harrison’s Washington Post article in the September 3 packet.

2. When does diversity grade over into division?

3. Will Blacks be able to improve (or even maintain) their position in the face of the Latin onslaught? (See Graph 3)

4. How will we make the transition from a dominant non-Hispanic society with a Spanish influence to a dominant Spanish society with non-Hispanic influence?

5. Do ethnic enclaves (Bouvier, p. 18) constitute re-segregation? As Whites see their power and control over their lives declining, will they simply go quietly into the night? Or will there be an explosion? Why don’t non-Hispanic Whites have a group identity, as do Blacks, Jews, Hispanics?

6. Note that Graph 2 shows virtually all the population growth will come from immigrants and their descendants.

7. Is there a difference in the rates of assimilation between Asians and Latins?

8. Should something be said about the competing metaphors of the salad bowl and the melting pot?

9. What exactly is it that holds a diverse society together? Gerda’s paper said that in our case, it was a common language.

10. Is assimilation a function of the educational and economic level of immigrants? If so, what are the consequences of having so many ill-educated people coming in to low paying jobs?

11. We’re building in a deadly disunity. All great empires disintegrate, we want stability. (Lamm)

12. Enclaves lead to rigidity. (Hardin)

13. The theory of a moratorium: the pause in immigration between 1930-1950, combined with the assimilating experience of fighting side-by-side in the trenches in World War II, gave us a needed pause so that we could assimilate the mass of people who came in the early years of the century. Do we again need such a pause?

14. Concerning the moratorium, here are some phrases that could be used: “The pause that refreshes.” “A seventh inning stretch.” “Take a break, catch-up, eliminate a backlog, take a breather.”

15. Perhaps mention should be made of Pacific Bell’s move to install completely separate Spanish and Chinese language phone systems in California (see May 27 packet).

16. Novak’s term “unmeltable ethnics” is probably better than some of the others that have been suggested. Similarly, ethnicity is a more acceptable term than race. It should also be noted that 50% of all Hispanic surname people on the census forms designate themselves as White. So perhaps we should speak of Hispanic Whites and non-Hispanic Whites, to further diffuse the issue. Is Anglo a better term that White? LANGUAGE IS VERY important here….”

From the SPLC
“…In 1982, Tanton created U.S. Inc. to raise and channel funds to his anti-immigration network. The following year, he created his second major vehicle, U.S. English, which made a cultural argument — that the English language was in mortal danger of being made irrelevant.

And later, in 1985, FAIR would spin off yet another major Tanton organization — the Center for Immigration Studies, which presented itself as an impartial think tank and later even sought to distance itself from the organization that had birthed it.

Today, the Center regularly dispatches experts to testify on Capitol Hill, and last year it was awarded a six-figure research contract by the U.S. Census Bureau.

“…Along with a few other FAIR board members, in the early 1980s Tanton founded a nationalist organization called WITAN-short for the Old English term “witenagemot,” meaning “council of wise men.” In 1986, Tanton signed a memo that went to WITAN members that highlighted the supremacist bent of Tanton and FAIR. The memo charged that Latin American immigrants brought a culture of political corruption with them to the United States and that they were unlikely to involve themselves in civil life. He raised the alarm that they could become the majority group in U.S. society. What’s more, he asked: “Can homo contraceptivus compete with homo progenitiva?” Answering his own rhetorical question, Tanton wrote that “perhaps this is the first instance in which those with their pants up are going to get caught by those with their pants down!” According to Tanton, “In California 2030, the non-Hispanic Whites and Asians will own the property, have the good jobs and education, speak one language and be mostly Protestant and ‘other.’ The Blacks and Hispanics will have the poor jobs, will lack education, own little property, speak another language and will be mainly Catholic.” Furthermore, Tanton raised concerns about the “educability” of Hispanics. In 1988 the media published the Tanton memo, causing a number of former supporters of U.S. English to cut ties with Tanton, including Walter Cronkite. …”

Unable to promote his agenda Tanton made connected with individuals like Barbara Coe and Glenn Spencer, both of whom have ties to to the KKK. Why is the racist connection with these individuals being ignored? Why are people such as your humble blogger, who try to warn conservatives that they are being manipulated by liberals and an agenda of racism made the object of derision?

On Thursday at The Pink Flamingo I discussed the founding of the US, the Age of Enlightenment, and the fact that the Republican Party was founded due to an opposition of slavery. Early Republicans were abolitionists who were willing to risk everything for the protection of the individual. It wasn’t “the group? as a whole, but was often about the individual and the fact that early Republicans were willing to defy the law and risk imprisonment helping slaves escape to either the free areas of the North or to Canada. Early Republicans were active participants in the Underground Railroad. It was all about freedom. It was all about eliminating the oppression of a group of people who needed assistance. It was based on Judeo-Christian ethics.

Judeo-Christians ethics are what powered the growth of Western Civilization. These same ethics gave us the Constitution of the United States and the Bill of Rights. The agenda the LIBERALS who are the backbone of the anti-immigration movement are promoting is anything but conservative. It is one of the most manipulative property confiscations in this nation’s history. Yet, conservatives are willingly lead down the prime-rose path of Environmental Marxism and Abortion on Demand Eugenics in the name of Border Security.

We have begun to experience the damage this abject hatred is causing in the Republican Party. We are watching an entire group of people be ostracized, their Constitutional Rights violated, all in the name of the canard of “Border Security? when the real agenda is population control. The real agenda is the removal of anyone with black or brown skin. The real agenda is an America that is lily white and racially pure.

I’m sorry, but that has nothing to do with the Republican Party. If you are a Reagan Conservative and think this is something Reagan would embrace, you are a fool. Ronald Reagan would be the very first person denouncing this agenda. I don’t know about you, but this is not what I call “Conservative”. It is what I call “Liberal”.

For more information on John Tanton’s extremist connections, see The Pink Flamingo.