Obama Advisor Says Sharia Law ‘Misunderstood’ by West

Hello All,

I could not help but wonder why BHO needs a Multicultural Muslim Advisor.  I looked up Dalia Mogahed on the web and that is what she is listed as.  What no Christian advisor?  No Jewish advisor? 

And why is a presidential advisor explaining anything about how wonderful and misunderstood this Sharia Law is?  Is this advisor trying to promote Muslim law?  Sounds like it to me. 

I am not going to follow Sharia.  And I am going to protect those I know from it the best I can.  I’m just waiting for more of the population to wake up and figure out what is set before them. 

Things are thinly veiled if you actually look close enough.  

Gill Rapoza

Veritas Vos Liberabit

http://grapoza.blogspot.com/

---

Obama Advisor Says Sharia Law ‘Misunderstood’ by West

Written by James Heiser

Monday, 19 October 2009

http://www.jbs.org/jbs-news-feed/5511-obama-advisor-says-sharia-law-misunderstood-by-west

To paraphrase Karl Marx — the alleged guiding light of at least one former Obama czar — there is a specter haunting the Obama administration — the specter of Islam.

Let’s hit a few highlights.

First, there was the manufactured outrage over use of Mr. Obama’s middle name: the allegation was that using the man’s name was a veiled accusation that he was secretly a Moslem — only to have him turn around and use his full name at his inauguration. Then, there was the bizarrely counter-factual claim by the President in June that America was one of the “largest Moslem countries in the world,” a speech in which the ‘motivational-speaker in chief’ could not even get a greeting out without screwing up; as Andrew McCarthy noted:

In fact, even President Obama’s cordial greeting of “assalaamu alaykum” to his Egyptian audience conveys (no doubt unintentionally) something of basic Islamic intolerance. Under sharia (Islamic law), as Spencer explains, “a Muslim may only extend this greeting — Peace be upon you — to a fellow Muslim. To a non-Muslim he is to say, ‘Peace be upon those who are rightly guided,’ i.e., Peace be upon the Muslims.”

And, of course, there was the bizarre claim by Mr. Obama during Ramadan that the contributions of Moslems to the United States are “too long to catalog because Muslims are so interwoven into the fabric of our communities and our country.”

The latest ‘Moslem moment’ is brought to us by Dalia Mogahed, a member of the President’s advisors. Interviewed by phone on the Islam Channel in the UK for the program, “Muslimah Dilemma,” the President’s advisor explained that the Americans really don’t understand sharia law. According to the report at Telegraph.co.uk:

The White House adviser made the remarks on a London-based TV discussion programme hosted by Ibtihal Bsis, a member of the extremist Hizb ut Tahrir party.

The group believes in the non-violent destruction of Western democracy and the creation of an Islamic state under Sharia Law across the world.

Miss Mogahed appeared alongside Hizb ut Tahrir’s national women’s officer, Nazreen Nawaz.

During the 45-minute discussion, on the Islam Channel programme Muslimah Dilemma earlier this week, the two members of the group made repeated attacks on secular “man-made law” and the West’s “lethal cocktail of liberty and capitalism.”

They called for Sharia Law to be “the source of legislation” and said that women should not be “permitted to hold a position of leadership in government.”

Miss Mogahed made no challenge to these demands and said that “promiscuity” and the “breakdown of traditional values” were what Muslims admired least about the West.

No matter how jaded to scandal we have all become under the last few administrations, the people Mr. Obama has gathered around himself continue to push the envelope. Although the Mogahed interview is almost too much to believe, a transcript of the entire program is available.

To site just a few portions, in context:

Ibtihal Bsis Ismail: I just wanted to ask you first actually. We often hear that the shari‘ah, as discussed by the media, it raises issues especially in relation to women that are, that seem to symbolise oppression, injustice, gives them sort of second class citizenship, these are the things that come to mind. Why do you then feel that so many women in your survey, specifically, support shari‘ah as the source of legislation for their countries in the Muslim world?

Dalia Mogahed (phone): I think that the reason that so many women support shari‘ah is because they have a very different understanding of shari‘ah than that of the common perception in western media that you just described. We asked Muslim women and men what they associate with shari‘ah compliance. And we found that the majority of women around the world associate gender justice, or justice for women, with shari‘ah compliance. Whereas only a small fraction associated oppression of women with compliance with the shari‘ah.

“Gender justice”? Tell that to the wife of Muzzammil Hassan, “moderate” Moslem, a prominent businessman from Buffalo, and founder of the Bridges TV channel, who was charged with beheading his wife in a honor killing after she filed divorce. Or, perhaps the millions of wives beaten by their husbands for their disobedience, in keeping with Sura 4, verse 34, can console themselves with the knowledge of the “gender justice” afforded to them by the pedophile Mohamed, who consummated his marriage to Aisha when she was nine years old. If this is their model of gender justice — the same Mohamed who had a poetest, Asma bint Marwan murdered for writing against him — then what would be gender “injustice”?

But the jaw-dropping wackiness on “Muslimah Dilemma” was just getting started:

Ibtihal Bsis Ismail: Ok, JazakAllah Kheir. Nazreen I mean it’s interesting what Dalia says because they do admire certain things although they look, they say we want shari‘ah to be the source of legislation. But if shari‘ah is the source of legislation, where does democracy come in?  Because democracy gives power to the people, whereas shari‘ah gives power to Allah subhana wa ta’Allah. So where do we go from here?

Nazreen Nawaz replied, in part:

... But like you say, this issue of wholesale adoption of the democratic way of life, where parliament legislates, we can see this is at odds with the idea of wanting the shari‘ah to legislate. We can see this idea contradicts itself. As to, in terms of what kind of values Muslim women do respect, other values, this idea of being able to vote, this idea of being able to be employed in society, have a certain amount of political rights. I think these are the things. What they see as being detrimental of adoption is I would say certain liberal values. Like the survey said that the thing that they least admired was the moral decay of society. Promiscuity, pornography and so on. I think living in the West we see some of the fruits of this idea of liberty and this idea of freedom, where people are free to have any relationship they want to. I believe that it’s caused a lot of problems in the social structure, you have adultery, you have problems of teenage pregnancies. Big problem. Forty per cent of children in the UK are born out of marriage today. You have problems in terms of STI’s in the youth, all of these things.  And also in terms of the cocktail between capitalism and freedom, I think is a lethal one, where even women’s bodies have become, have been given a price tag today. I mean utilised in order to make money. And this is degrading to women. And it has had a knock on effect I think in terms of the way they are treated in society.

Here is a very clear window into the Islamic mind: promiscuity, pornography, prostitution are viewed as the fruit of the ‘lethal cocktail’ of “capitalism and freedom,” rather than viewing them for what they are: part of the tragic consequence of man’s fall into sin, which can be found in every society throughout human history.

The specter of Islam is haunting the Obama administration, a specter summoned by the President himself. How have we come to the point when a presidential advisor can sit by, with apparent tacit agreement with unabashedly ‘anti-freedom’ Islamic ideology, and remain within the administration?

Every day that the President tolerates such an advocate of the system of sharia law to remain among his advisors further undermines whatever credibility he still retains. Mr. Obama took an oath: “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

Islamic radicals are making it pretty clear that they are opposed to such “man-made laws.”

---

Gill Rapoza

Veritas Vos Liberabit

http://grapoza.blogspot.com/

Socialism as a Perpetual Civil War

Hello all,

This is an older writing, but it was written well and certainly has applications that are quite pertinent for today.  Pay attention to what it says about what happens in Socialism.  You may recognize history as it repeats itself. 

Gill Rapoza

Veritas Vos Liberabit

http://grapoza.blogspot.com/

---

Socialism as a Perpetual Civil War

By R. J. Rushdoony

Taken from Law & Liberty 2nd Edition

http://www.chalcedon.edu/blog/2009/10/socialism-as-perpetual-civil-war.php

Socialism and communism presuppose that their system represents the true order of the ages and is the answer to man’s problems. This assumption is one that assumes man’s problems to be not spiritual but material, not sin but environment. Change man’s environment and you will then remake man, it is held. The answer to man’s problems is therefore not the spiritual regeneration of man by Jesus Christ but the reorganization of society by the scientific socialist state.

Basic to the theory of scientific socialism is its infallibility concept. Every system of thought has an infallibility concept, but few are honest enough to admit it. Ultimate, final, and inerrant authority is vested somewhere in the system as the basic and assured arbiter of truth or reality. The scientific socialistic state sees scientific socialism as the infallible truth of history; its application ensures the perfect social order. If failures occur in scientific socialist states, it is not the fault of scientific socialism, which is by definition infallible and true, but of the hostile people, remnants of the capitalistic class, or traitorous members of the party. Because the scientific socialist state cannot blame itself, it must wage civil war against some portion of the state. Thus, first of all, socialism’s answer to every problem is civil war. Someone is guilty, but never socialism itself.

Illustrations of this are many. The Soviet Union has faced a situation of continual purges. The purges of the 1930s stand out merely as being more dramatic than the routine ones. But every crisis in the Soviet Union demands a scapegoat, and war is therefore waged against some portion of the Party, the bureaucracy, or the masses.

In Communist China, according to a news report of Friday, March 24, 1967, pestilence broke out widely, with many contagious diseases spreading across the country. The Communist regime’s answer to an already serious crisis was to threaten the doctors of China with a purge. The doctors were responsible, the Shanghai Radio declared, because they “had ignored Mao’s health policies.”[1] The consequence of such a policy, the purge of doctors in a country with a serious shortage of medical men, only aggravated a serious situation, but anything is preferable to admitting that socialism can make mistakes and be an erroneous theory.

In the United States, inflation is a product of the federal government’s departure from a hard money standard, from gold to paper, and a product of its debt living or deficit financing. The guilt for inflation is essentially the federal government’s guilt. But the blame is instead shifted by federal officials to the private sector: labor is creating inflation by demanding higher wages, and business is inflationary because it demands higher prices for goods, and threats are made of wage and price controls. The demands of capital and labor are, of course, the results of inflation and their steps to protect themselves against it, but the policy of socialism is to ascribe all guilt to the people, and all wisdom to the state, in every crisis.

In these and other cases, the answer always remains the same: the socialist state wages war on the people. Whenever the scientific socialist state makes a mistake, the people suffer.

The second aspect of this socialist civil warfare is that it is perpetual civil war because of perpetual failure. Socialism is incapable of solving any problem it addresses itself to in the economic sphere. Because its premises are unsound and wholly in error, its conclusions are consistently failures. But, since socialism is by definition the scientific answer to problems of society, socialism cannot blame itself. As a result, it wages perpetual civil warfare as its answer to perpetual failure.

Third, the consequence of this perpetual civil warfare is an ever-deepening crisis. Propaganda works to disguise the crisis. We are always told that the Soviet Union is making economic and industrial progress and is becoming a milder dictatorship, but the reality is that it has merely gone from crisis to crisis and has faced a growing food shortage as a tribute to its incompetence. The other socialisms of the world have similar troubles. The little Fabian Socialist State of Great Britain is sinking steadily into the economic consequences of its own policies, and other Fabian states face a growing monetary and economic crisis. Socialism is never the way out for socialism, but simply the guarantee of an economic dead end.

Fourth, this perpetual civil warfare can and will terminate in the death of the state, and possibly of the civilization as well. It is destructive of the public and private resources of the state; the socialist state can sometimes build stone monuments and edifices, but it cannot perpetuate a living social order; it can only kill the order it seizes or inherits. It has often been observed that it is only when a civilization is dying that it begins monumental building constructions. Prior to that time, its concern is more with life than show. We cannot therefore misread socialism’s predisposition for monumental construction as a sign of life; it is tombstone construction.

Fifth, perpetual civil warfare means in some form perpetual violence or repressive force, and as a result, the use of terror is not only accepted but is often justified and exalted. Terror is defended and upheld as necessary to suppress the enemies of the people and to protect the state from destruction. Jean-Paul Sartre, in his Critique of Dialectical Reason, spoke of terror as “the very bond of fraternity.” Terror is made a moral principle and an inevitable requirement of history. As a result, “total terror” is practiced as a necessary and moral requirement of scientific socialism. Incredible brutality, barbarism, savagery, and degeneracy become the products of scientific socialism.[2] Thus, the perpetual civil warfare that the scientific socialist state wages against its people is also a form of total warfare. It is more radical than total warfare, in that normal total warfare is for a stated period of hostilities, whereas the socialistic civil war and its terroristic total warfare have no end. It is a perpetual threat to the people, and, in varying degrees, continuously practiced. The more the state approaches total socialism, to that same degree it also approaches total terror and total civil war. It is this aspect of perpetual and total warfare that has made socialists like George Orwell, author of 1984, turn from socialism in horror, without believing really in anything else. Theirs is not a conversion but simply revulsion from terror.

Such a situation, of course, breaks down the will to work and the will to live of the subject peoples. Hope of escape, or hope that the socialist regime will end, begins to grow weaker, and the result is all the greater slow-down in agricultural and industrial production. This decline in productivity creates a major crisis, and the socialist leaders must give the people some reason to believe that there is hope of a change, a “thaw,” in the socialist terror and oppression. A cow, after all, will finally give no milk if it is not fed, and so the masses, like human cattle, are given enough fodder to make them productive again. Their previous sufferings are blamed on bad underlings, poor managers. Stalin, for example, placed the blame on minor officials who were supposedly too eager to attain perfect socialism overnight. In dealing with enforced collectivization of farms, in a Pravda statement of April 3, 1930, Stalin declared that the policy was a “voluntary one,” but unfortunately some officials were using threats and pressure.[3] It was after this statement that millions were starved to death for resisting collectivization, but Stalin in advance had cleared himself publicly of responsibility and also encouraged those who were hostile to feel freer to make a stand. Khrushchev also gave promises of a thaw, and then launched into the vicious terror in Hungary, and the still-continuing and greatest terror against Christians.

The purposes of these brief thaws and breathers are strategic: they serve to give a despairing populace hope for a change. This, then, is simply a sixth, aspect of socialism’s civil warfare against its people. The thaw creates a deviation from socialist policy only for the purpose of reinforcing that policy.

This points clearly to a seventh aspect of socialism’s perpetual civil war: truth is at all times a central casualty. Since there is no truth apart from the scientific socialist state, any device, any lie, any strategy which will further the socialist experiment is valid. The lie is spoken to delude the masses and the enemy; speech has as its purpose not the communication of truth but utility to the dictatorship of the proletariat as a weapon of warfare. Semantics therefore becomes a major concern of socialism. Language must be used; it is a superb weapon. Certain words have powerful meanings to many men, and one way of using men’s minds against themselves is to misuse the words that have a particular meaning to them. To expect language to have the same content to a socialist as it does to a Christian is a delusion. For the socialist, language is instrumental; it is a tool of revolution. Instead of representing a means of communicating an objective order of truth, language is basically an instrument of power. For the socialist state to neglect to use language as an instrument of power is for it to be guilty of bourgeois sentiments and illusions.

This, then, is the course of action, perpetual civil warfare, required by the scientific socialist state to maintain its delusion of infallibility. This perpetual civil warfare is a consequence of its departure from God and its socialism. It is a suicidal course, one well described by our Lord of old, when He declared, “He that sinneth against me wrongeth his own soul: all they that hate me love death” (Prov. 8:36). 

---

1. Oakland Tribune, “China Hit by Outbreak of Pestilence,” Friday, March 24, 1967, 1.

2. Albert Kalme, Total Terror (New York, NY: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1951), and Harold H. Martinson, Red Dragon Over China (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg, 1956).

3. W. R. Werner, ed., Stalin Kampf (New York, NY: Howell, Soskin, 1940), 252-257.

---

Gill Rapoza

Veritas Vos Liberabit

http://grapoza.blogspot.com/

---

Homeland Security and the Transformation of America (Updated)

Hello All,

Here is another long, but very well written article by Berit Kjos.  This is an updated version of her earlier article on the same topic.  It is well worth the time it takes to read it. 

Gill Rapoza

Veritas Vos Liberabit

http://grapoza.blogspot.com/

---

Homeland Security and the Transformation of America (Updated)

by Berit Kjos

February 2003 (Updated October 2009)

http://www.crossroad.to/articles2/2003/homeland.htm

“SEC. 605. (a) There is hereby created and established a permanent police force, to be known as the ‘United States Secret Service Uniformed Division’. Subject to the supervision of the Secretary of Homeland Security, the United States Secret Service Uniformed Division shall perform such duties as the Director, United States Secret Service, may prescribe.... Under the direction of the Director of the Secret Service, members of the United States Secret Service Uniformed Division are authorized to--...make arrests without warrant for any offense against the United States committed in their presence...” USA Patriot Improvement and Reauthorizaton Act of 2005

“The President has proposed the most significant transformation of the U.S. government in over a half-century by consolidating the current confusing patchwork of government activities into a single entity—the Department of Homeland Security....” FEMA Region VI

“The President calls on each governor to establish a single Homeland Security Task Force for the state, to serve as his or her primary coordinating body with the federal government.” Organizing for a Secure Homeland, White House[1]

“Every few hundred years in Western history there occurs a sharp transformation. . . . We are currently living through just such a transformation. It is creating the post-capitalist society.” Peter F. Drucker, Post-Capitalist Society.[2]

---

Few would deny that America faces a major crisis. But the greatest threat to freedom may be a veiled government “solution” rather than the obvious threat of terror.  Yes, international terrorism and weapons of mass destruction call for a wise and strong response, but our new Department of Homeland Security brings radical changes that threaten the very foundations of our nation.

Some of the changes are structural; they deal with the transformation of the republic itself. Others are designed to draw all Americans—young and old from coast to coast—into community consensus groups that would manipulate minds, change values, build a collective world view, and promote a form of solidarity that clashes with all the wise warnings of our founding fathers.

Looming over those revolutionary changes stands an inter-governmental surveillance network symbolized by the all-seeing eye in the pyramid.  This Masonic symbol, whose roving eye covers the planet with its probing and penetrating rays, first appeared on a defense department website featuring TIA (Total Information Awareness). It must have raised some concern, since the image disappeared a few months later. See Surveillance

Some of these changes were planned decades long ago. [See Chronology of the NEA] More recently, former president Clinton tried to persuade Congress to pass similar anti-terrorism measures after the bombing of the Oklahoma federal building. But he failed. Americans were not yet ready to relinquish their rights to freedom and privacy. Now, thanks to a greater crisis, the planned laws, intrusive policies, high tech surveillance and vast networks have been put in place. What does it all mean to ordinary citizens like you and me?

Three Problems with Homeland Security

On November 19, 2002, President Bush celebrated the passage of the Homeland Security Act with these words,

“The United States Congress has taken an historic and bold step forward to protect the American people by passing legislation to create the Department of Homeland Security. This landmark legislation, the most extensive reorganization of the Federal Government since the 1940s, will help our Nation meet the emerging threats of terrorism in the 21st Century.”[3]

Do you wonder what this “most extensive reorganization” entails?  I did. And after a week of perusing the White House and Homeland Security websites, I see that Al Gore’s promise to “reinvent government” is nearing fulfillment. Fueled by today’s anxious atmosphere, the former administration’s plan to weaken the old “checks and balances” has been speeding ahead with relatively little public opposition. This massive project bears three distinct marks. It includes -

Ø      An interconnected government management system: a global framework of networks and partnerships that supposedly operate by consensus.

Ø      A mind-changing process: the facilitated group dialogue first used in the USSR to establish a new public consciousness that reflects collective ideals.

Ø      Standards and Assessments that hold all sectors of society accountable to top-down polices and an ultimate goal: what human resources must be, do and believe in order to build a world free from conflict and terror. The promise of “local control” means little when the end results (“outcomes”) are measured and rewarded at the top.

1. The interconnected systems

Remember the words of the 10th Amendment: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively....” 

A White House document titled, “The National Strategy for Homeland Security,” admits that “American democracy is rooted in the precepts of federalism—a system of government in which our state governments share power with federal institutions.”[1]  But this “strategy” ignores the wise restrictions placed on the federal government. Ponder this statement:

“The Administration’s approach to homeland security is based on the principles of shared responsibility and partnership with the Congress, state and local governments, the private sector, and the American people.... The federal government will employ performance measures—and encourage the same for state and local governments—to evaluate the effectiveness of each homeland security program.”[4]

Guess who would be the controlling partner? It would not be the state! In a government partnership between unequal members, the one who sets the standards, defines the terms, and pulls the purse-strings will always rule. Through its calculated distribution of much-needed government grants, the federal government holds all its partners accountable to its top-down[5] agenda.

Those partners include a vast network of local, state and national government systems, organizations, agencies and offices. This interlocking web also includes all kinds of private entities and churches. In fact, every part of society has been assigned a place in this massive web. And—as our government joins hands with corporations, private agencies, “civil society” and faith-based organizations around the world—we may soon be trapped within the politically correct boundaries of the “common values” and “community oneness” so often touted by former President Clinton and Mikhail Gorbachev.

Clinton’s second executive order on Federalism set the stage. It redesigned and redefined the relationship between states and the White House. Neither Congress nor the Bush administration chose to challenge it.

But, as you will see, the federal power grab goes far beyond the 10^th Amendment and the original “separation of powers.” In the end, we may well see Clinton’s vision of government controlled community oneness fulfilled. But by the time the manipulated masses have tuned their minds to the collective heart beat of the new “greater whole”, the personal freedom we have treasured may be history. [See Capacity Building]

2. The mind-changing consensus process

Since the dialectic process has been explained repeatedly on our website, I will simply refer you to the best expose we have: “An analysis of Community Oriented Policing (COPs)” by San Diego Detective Phil Worts. He quotes from a Justice Department brochure which defines the department’s federally funded COPS program—now linked to Homeland Security:[6]

COMMUNITY POLICING - WHAT IS IT? 

Shift in philosophy about police duties vs. community responsibilities to a team concept of Total Quality Management [TQM] of the community.  Re-identifying the police role as a facilitator in the community.

Leaders of the community (law enforcement, government, business, education, health, civic, non-profit, medical, religious, etc.) collaborating to identify problems in the community, what the significant impact on people will be, and suggesting solutions to those problems.

Identifying common ground, where all factions of a community can work together for the COMMON GOOD of the community in a broader problem-solving approach.  Forming a partnership between police and the rest of the community where each is accountable to each other and the community as whole.  (Emphasis added)

In other words, explains Mr. Worts, we are seeing a “transformation from a constitutionally empowered local police force performing their duty to keep the peace to that of a change agent working within the community to affect a Marxist paradigm shift.”  He continues,

“Pay close attention to what the influential German Marxist Georg Lukacs had to say about who the facilitators are in the community: ‘The institutions in socialist society which act as the facilitators between the public and private realms are the Soviets. They [facilitators] are the congresses [diverse groups], which facilitate the debate [dialoguing to consensus] of universal problems [social issues] in the context of the everyday.”[7]

In other words, this system was being tested in the last century, and its persuasive suggestions for change were effectively linked to relevant events, felt needs and the current crisis.

If this complex and transformational process sounds confusing, please read Mr. Worts’ article. And remember that a driving force behind the global shift to TQM has been Peter Drucker, a management guru to governments as well as churches and corporations. Business Week online calls Drucker a “social communitarian” who “brings a communitarian philosophy to his consulting.”[8]

Next, consider a 1998 training manual titled “Basic Facilitation Skills for Law Enforcement” used by the San Diego and Chula Vista COPS programs. It explains the function of the facilitator who must guide the group toward a pre-planned consensus, then warns potential community facilitators that some of their group members may try to block the process or hinder group consensus. These resisters might refuse to compromise their convictions or ignore the standard ground rules for group consensus (respect all members and their views; don’t argue or debate; share feelings, not contrary facts or beliefs; be willing to compromise for the sake of unity....) The brochure’s labels for such unacceptable behavior includes -

Aggressing: “deflating the ego or status of others; attacking the motives of others.

Blocking: “arguing too much on a point; rejecting ideas without consideration; resisting; disagreeing and opposing beyond reason; bring up dead issues after they have been rejected or bypassed by the group.” [Those “dead issues” may not have been dead. Facilitators often ignore contrary voices in order to successfully declare consensus at the end of a meeting]

Isolating: “Acting indifferent or passive; resorting to excessive formality... will not voice concerns in the meeting but sabotages agreement afterwards.”

Special Pleading: “Introducing or supporting suggestions related to one’s own pet concerns, philosophies or biases....”[9] [Though all participants are required to share their feelings and concerns, people who bring concerns that are politically incorrect are often ridiculed, shamed or reprimanded]  

The last two pages in the COPS manual deal with a strategy called “Force Field Analysis.” This transformational tool helps change agents or facilitators measure and use the social and mental forces that work for or against his goal. This is important to our topic, not because of what such analysis accomplishes, but because the specific “force field” chart used by the COPS program to illustrate this process came from a 1951 manual on brainwashing titled Human Relations in Curriculum Change. Its chapters are written by leading behavioral psychologists of the times, such as Kurt Lewin. See the history of this century-old plan in Brainwashing in America and Chronology of the NEA.

Our government has provided countless opportunities for group training in this dialectic process, and hundreds of thousands of eager volunteers have responded to our president’s continual invitations. In communities across the country, the “AmeriCorps,” Citizen Corps, Neighborhood Watch and other participatory community programs beckon the masses to join their groups. The goal is full participation; all Americans are called to serve their country at this time of need. For example,

“The mission of Citizen Corps is to harness the power of every individual through education, training, and volunteer service to make communities safer, stronger, and better prepared to respond to the threats of terrorism, crime, public health issues, and disasters of all kinds.

“The Citizen Corps mission will be accomplished through a national network of state, local, and tribal Citizen Corps Councils, which will tailor activities to the community and build on community strengths to develop and implement a local strategy to have every American participate.... If there is not a Citizen Corps Council in your area, please contact your State Citizen Corps representative and work with your local officials to get one started.” Citizen Corps

You may want to compare this network of councils with the Soviet hierarchy of councils (or soviets). Both sets of councils are accountable to the polices or standards set at the top of the pyramid. Both operate in local cells or groups that seek consensus through the dialectic process and are accountable to the higher council. Both match the new global vision of solidarity, community, collective thinking and dedicated service to a Greater Whole.

One such example is the President’s Council on Sustainable Development. Like more than 150 similar national councils, it is accountable to the UN Commission on Sustainable Development. While not formally linked to Homeland Security, the new network of governmental systems and partnerships means that the massive grass-roots network (a “civil society” committed to the UN ideology) will also be supporting community efforts to organize dialectic groups under the umbrella of Homeland Security. The two fit together, for the primary goal of Sustainable Development is not “saving the earth” but social transformation through trained facilitators and the dialectic process. See Local Agenda 21- The U.N. Plan for Your Community

If you follow the links from the Department of Homeland Security website, you will find both Citizen Corps and Service Learning. To understand how these nice-sounding terms are used to change values, blot out absolute truths and build solidarity through the dialectic process, read Serving a Greater Whole. It explains that community service or “service learning” is not simply showing compassion and serving the needy. The real purpose is to involve everyone in the consensus “process.” To build the new community—and to share in the “Capacity Building” encouraged by President Bush as well as by the United Nations—we must learn to think collectively. “Separateness” is out; solidarity is in.

Corinne McLaughlin, a theosophist (she follows the occult teachings of Alice Bailey) became the first task force coordinator for the President’s Council on Sustainable Development under Bill Clinton. She also taught this transformational process at the EPA, the Pentagon and the Department of Education. In her book, Spiritual Politics, she wrote,  

“There really is only one sin—separateness. War is more likely to spring from rampant nationalism, ethnocentrism, and intolerant religious fundamentalism—all extreme and separative attitudes....”[15]

Her solution? It echoes Clinton’s values: “What is needed as a cure for separateness is a deep sense of community—that we’re all in this together.” Both knew that community participation was key to the envisioned government control.

3. National and international standards

Those who set the standards and define the terms will rule the systems. Those who manage the resources and determine the consequences of failure will control their “partners” and enforce compliance. The promise of “local control” is meaningless when federal funding is tied to federal standards and policies.

If you haven’t done so already, read Reinventing the World Part 3: Global Standards. It will explain the standards that bind communities and states to national and international benchmarks and standards.

Then go to solidarity and learn about the UN standard for community participation. Following UN guidelines, every community must be assessed and monitored for its social capital. At the 1996 UN Conference on Human Habitats (Habitat II) I asked Ismail Serageldin, Vice President of the World Bank, to define social capital for me. Ponder his answer (which I recorded) in light of today’s national drive to broaden the web of partnerships, community service and consensus groups:

“Social capital is the interaction between people—the sense of solidarity or shared values that exists between them.... It is the number of voluntary associations which people enter at the grass-roots level and create a community of willingness and solidarity between them.”

Neither the standards nor the transformational agenda are new. Most of the systemic changes took place before George W. Bush became president. As early as 1922, New York Mayor John Hylan warned the people that - 

“... the real menace of our republic is this invisible government which like a giant octopus sprawls its slimy length over city, state and nation. Like the octopus of real life, it operates under cover of self-created screen. It seizes in its long and powerful tentacles our executive officers, our legislative bodies, our schools, our courts, our newspapers and every agency created for the public protection.”[14]

Today, the top of the pyramid is international, and the Bush administration has neither slowed nor blocked this silent shift. Instead, the White House has pushed the agenda forward and won legal support through a Congress that has been all too reluctant to slow the advance of the new world order. (Yet, it deserves thanks for one victory: it blocked the TIPS program—at least for the time being. The Justice Department probably won’t be asking mail carriers to spy on the community they serve.)

By now, you may have realized that this three-pronged transformation matches the “Third Way” politics touted by British Prime Minister Tony Blair.  It also parallels the socialist vision of Amitai Etzioni, the founder and today’s main spokesman for communitarianism. His message deals with the new education system, but it matches the three-pronged structure established under the banner of Homeland Security:

SYSTEM: “The good society is a partnership of three sectors: government, private sector, and community.... While these... may change with social condition, in a good society the three sectors seek to cooperate with one another....

“In order to encourage communities’ role in social services, all state agencies should have citizen participation advisory boards. Their talks would be to find ways for citizens to participate as volunteers in delivering some services currently carried by the state. They should also play a role in providing timely, relevant and informed feedback on the performance of service providers.”

PROCESS: “Third Way governments do best when they resist the rush to legislate good behavior. When there is a valid need to modify behavior, the state should realize that relying on informal community-based processes is preferable....”

STANDARDS: “To ensure that this core education principle will be heeded, an annual assessment should be made in all schools of the educational (as distinct from teaching) messages they impart, and of their approach to character formation.”[10]

Prevention, profiling and potential terrorists like us

Do you wonder who might be targeted by this vast, interconnected system? The three categories of suspects are:

1.      Foreign terrorists abroad

2.      Foreign and domestic terrorists in the US

3.      Potential domestic terrorists

Much of the Homeland Security focus is on the last category. In its chapter on “Domestic Counterterrorism,” the National Strategy states, “The attacks of September 11... have redefined the mission of federal, state and local law enforcement authorities.... Law enforcement agencies... should now assign priority to preventing and interdicting terrorist activity within the United States.”[11]

Notice the word “preventing.” It is important, because it shifts the public emphasis from catching criminals to exposing potential terrorists. It also shifts our government’s administration of justice from the judicial and legislative branches to the executive branch.

Many have tried to define a “terrorist”. Some definitions are so open-ended that almost any conservative or home-schooling parent could be suspect. The Homeland Security Act is more precise. Section 2 defines “terrorism” as any activity that—

(A) involves an act that—

(i) is dangerous to human life or potentially destructive of critical infrastructure or key resources

(ii) is a violation of the criminal laws of the United States...and

(B) appears to be intended

(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;

(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or

(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction....

Reading this definition, you and I have every reason to feel safe. Right? But with today’s emphasis on prevention, our leaders have prepared lists of potential terrorists. What might they be looking for? Or rather, who might—in their eyes—be willing to use violence in order to “intimidate or coerce a civilian population” or “influence the policy of a government”?

In Muslim lands, an author who wrote a contrary book would be guilty.  But what about in America?

Would lobbyists be suspect? Radio hosts? Christian organizations?

The FBI-led Joint Terrorism Task Forces (JTTFs) gives us some clues. The White House’s National Strategy explains the part played by the JTTFs in Homeland Security:

“We will build and continually update a fully integrated, fully accessible terrorist watch list. When we have identified any suspected terrorist activities, we will then use all the tools in our Nation’s legal arsenal... to stop those who wish to do us harm.

“...the FBI is expanding the Joint Terrorism Task Forces, now operating in 47 field offices, to all 56 FBI field offices by August 2002.”[12]

One of those 56 FBI field offices—located in Phoenix, Arizona—printed a three-fold flier several years ago. The back panel introduces the JTTFs mission: “...the purpose of this information sheet is to assist uniformed patrol officers in identifying potential domestic terrorism. Domestic terrorism is defined as: Groups or individuals operating entirely inside the US, attempting to influence the US government or population to effect political or social change by engaging in criminal activity.”[13]

The front panel states, “If you encounter any of the following, call the Joint Terrorism Task Force.” Its list of suspects justifiably included “Hate Groups” such as “Skinheads, Nazis, Neo-Nazis (usually recognized by tattoos), KKK, White Nationalists....”  But it also listed some surprising suspects:

Right-Wing Extremists

Ø      ‘defenders’ of US Constitution against federal government and the UN (Super Patriots)

Ø      groups of individuals engaged in para-military training

Common Law Movement Proponents

Ø      No drivers license

Ø      Refuse to identity themselves

Ø      Requests authority for stop

Ø      Make numerous references to US Constitution

Ø      Claim driving is a right, not a privilege

Ø      Attempt to “police the police”

Single Issue Terrorists

Ø      Lone individuals

Do you still feel safe? I smile as I ask that question, for I may well be listed in their vast, integrated system of databanks tracking American suspects. Some years ago, a federal investigator in New Mexico heard a local radio program discussing the United Nations and its agenda. He went to the station, interrogated the staff and included questions about previous guests. One of the two names he mentioned was mine. Apparently, we were suspect because we valued the US Constitution and exposed the power, influence and aims of the United Nations. [See A Terrorist? Me?]

If you wonder why “lone individuals” would be listed, read The UN Plan for Your Mental Health. Al Gore summarized the “danger” in a 1992 address to a Communitarian meeting in Washington, DC. He said, “Seeing ourselves as separate is the central problem in our political thinking.”[15]

To make sure no one is “separate” or “lone,” the community programs you saw earlier have been designed to involve every person in group dialogue. As stated in the National Strategy:

“All of us have a key role to play in America’s war on terrorism. ... In order to defeat an enemy who uses our very way of life as a weapon—who takes advantage of our freedoms and liberties—every American must be willing to do his or her part to protect our homeland.”[1]

The vast network of homeland surveillance

By fall 2003, DHS Secretary Tom Ridge will have 170,000 employees in his department. “The DHS will serve as a central hub of intelligence analysis and dissemination, working with agencies throughout the federal government such as the FBI, CIA, NSA, DEA, the DOD and other key intelligence sources.” www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/theme_home6.jsp

Although his wife, Michele Ridge, is not an official “partner,” she will serve his purpose as “the hired national spokeswoman” for Communities That Care (CTC). According to an article titled, “Mrs. Ridge promotes survey on sex, drugs,” the CTC “developed the youth survey used in more than 400 communities nationwide to collect personal information from students to help local governments justify federal and foundation grant applications.”[16]  Majoring in “the field of prevention science,” the CTC is a “complete prevention planning system for a healthy community” provides “hands-on training” in leadership, community planning, “strengths assessment,” implementation and evaluation—all the TQM skills and technology needed to transform a community and measure compliance.[17] 

In contrast to the silent, behind-the-scenes work of the CTC, the following agencies and offices were officially transferred to DHS: Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), U.S. Secret Service, Coast Guard, Customs Service, Transportation Security Administration (TSA), Federal Protective Service (FPS), Office of Domestic Preparedness (ODP) and Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC).

Specific functions were transferred from the FBI, the INS, Departments of Justice, Defense, Health and Human Services, Commerce, Energy and Agriculture. 

No one mentioned the “Secretive U.S. Court” established in 1978 by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act [FISA]. An article in the San Francisco Chronicle described its power:

“Cloaked in secrecy and unknown to most Americans, a seven-judge court has been busy in a sealed room at the U.S. Justice Department approving ‘black bag’ searches, wiretaps and the bugging of homes in the interests of national security.

The court, which has been operating for more than 20 years, has approved more than 10,000 government applications for clandestine searches and surveillance of foreigners, immigrants and U.S. citizens—and only one request has ever been denied.

“In its anti-terrorism proposals, the Bush administration is asking Congress for a broad expansion of the enormous powers already granted to the executive branch under the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act [FISA]....

“Civil liberty advocates say they fear the government will take advantage of the administration’s proposed change and use the pretext of intelligence gathering under FISA to go after other criminal activity, making an end run around the stricter Fourth Amendment protections in criminal law....  They argue that the total secrecy of the process has eliminated any public accountability to ensure that the process is not being misused.”[18]

With the additional power and authority granted our President by the USA Patriot Act and the Homeland security Act, the FISA Court fades in significance and shock value. With today’s technology, there are few limits to the ways that our government can manipulate, monitor and spy on American citizens without our knowledge. And while our government’s right to personal information expands, the taxpayers’ right to be informed shrinks. So it’s not surprising that the Justice Department would draft a sequel to the Patriot Act with “sweeping new power.” Were they trying to guard this secret bill until a greater crisis would set the stage for its acceptance?[19]

While America’s founders built a government that would be accountable to the people, this monstrous new system turns the old Constitutional safeguards upside down. Today the people are accountable to unthinkable policies, rules, regulations and politically correct values, while much of our government hides its words and intentions behind a veil of secrecy.

Again, Al Gore sheds light on this revolution. Of course, his system of government control would be marketed to the masses under the banner of the “environmental crisis” rather than today’s current crisis:

“Adopting a central organizing principle – one agreed to voluntarily – means embarking on an all-out effort to use every policy and program, every law and institution, every treaty and alliance, every tactic and strategy, every plan and course of action – to use, in short, every means to halt the destruction of the environment . . . .

“Minor shifts in policy, moderate improvement in laws and regulations, rhetoric offered in lieu of genuine change—these are all forms of appeasement, designed to satisfy the public’s desire to believe that sacrifice, struggle and a wrenching transformation of society will not be necessary.”[20] Emphasis added

A Biblical perspective

In the midst of these changes, our God still reigns!  Nothing escapes His watchful eyes. And nothing happens that doesn’t in some way serve His plan. Today as always, He is our high tower and our Hiding Place. Nothing touches His people but through His love and for our ultimate good.

He is also the Truth. And He tells us that our battle is not “against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age, against spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places.” Ephesians 6:12-13

Evil is not simply militant terrorists who would destroy America or the Communist leaders in North Korea who defy UN agreements and mock our military forces. Evil is far more subtle. It is in us and all around us. It holds us captive and it blinds us to the truth. That’s why Jesus gave His life to set us free.

Two of the most dangerous evils we face are (1) the popular illusions that replace reality in our minds and (2) the psycho-social strategies that immunize our minds to God’s unchanging truths. Both are vital to the three-pronged “quality management” system that has risen like a monster out of the sea and now spreads its tentacles into every part of this planet. 

To stand firm against these and other forces that deceive and destroy, please see Brainwashing & How to Resist It. Know the tactics and how to resist. Then pray that God guide our leaders, guard our freedom, equip our children and protect our homes. Remember, when we trust and follow God, He makes us “more than conquerors” through Christ. Romans 8:37

---

Notes:

1. “Organizing for a Secure Homeland at http://www.whitehouse.gov/homeland/book/sect2-2.pdf. The page references are listed in order of their appearance in the this article: 14, 12, 11

2. Peter F. Drucker, Post-Capitalist Society (New York: Harper Collins, 1993), p. 1. Cited in “Downsizing and the Meaning of Work”

3. President Hails Passage of Homeland Security Department at http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/display?theme=44&content=136

4. Introduction at http://www.whitehouse.gov/homeland/book/sect2.pdf, page 2 - (Introduction, page 2, http://www.whitehouse.gov/homeland/book/sect2.pdf )

5. This top-down agenda may appear to reflect grass-roots opinion. That’s the goal of the continual polls and political responses. But those polls enable managers to gauge and manipulate public opinion. They show the social forces that must be countered or strengthened in order to progress toward the goal. See Force Field analysis.

6. http://www.naco.org/pubs/cnews/02-10-14/Articles/07homeland.html

7. Georg Lukacs, The Process of Democratization, p 46.  Soviet can mean an individual, someone who practices the dialectic, or a political system.  In Russia, the soviet system consists of a hierarchy of councils, from the local level all the way to the top echelon, the Supreme Soviet Council.  In this context, the soviet is the system, particularly the local council.

8. “Peter Drucker’s Search for Community,” Business Week online

9. Basic Facilitation Skills for Law Enforcement. Presented by Agent Nicolle DePriest, Chula Vista Police Department, in conjunction with the Regional Community Policing Institute, Sand Diego, California. (Regional Training Academy, COPPS curriculum, May 1998).

10. Amitai Etzioni, “A Third Way to a Good Society,” at http://kubnw5.kub.nl/web/fsw/Tijdschrift/Etzioni/Etzioni.PDF

11.Domestic Counterterrrosism at http://www.whitehouse.gov/homeland/book/sect3-2.pdf , page 25.

12. Domestic Counterterrrosism at http://www.whitehouse.gov/homeland/book/sect3-2.pdf , page 26.

13. I have a copy of the “Joint Terrorism Task Forces” flier.

14. Dennis Laurence Cuddy, Ph.D., Chronology of Education With Quotable Quotes (Highland City, FL: Pro Family Forum, Inc., 1993), page 15.

15. Corinne McLaughlin and Gordon Davidson, Spiritual Politics (New York: Ballantine Books, 1994), 147.

16. “Mrs. Ridge promotes survey on sex, drugs” and “Communities That Care” at http://www.communitiesthatcare.org.uk/

17. http://www.preventionscience.com/ctc/CTC.html

18. William Carlsen, “Secretive U.S. court may add to power Bush wants to use terrorism panel in criminal probes,” San Francisco Chronicle, October 6, 2001.

19. http://www.publicintegrity.org/dtaweb/report.asp?ReportID=506&L1=10&L2=10&L3=0&L4=0&L5=0

20. Al Gore, Earth in the Balance; Ecology and the Human Spirit (Houghton Mifflin, 1992), page 274.

---

Gill Rapoza

Veritas Vos Liberabit

http://grapoza.blogspot.com/

.