Search This Blog

Saturday, March 20, 2010

John McCain’s Attack On Liberty

John McCain’s Attack On Liberty
By Chuck Baldwin
March 16, 2010

Anyone paying attention knows that John McCain has been a Big-Government Globalist Neocon (BGGN) for virtually his entire senatorial career. As with many BGGNs hiding out in the Republican Party, McCain likes to talk about smaller government, but his track record is littered with the promotion of one big government program after another. But, what else would one expect from a member of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR)?

Lately, however, McCain has outdone himself. He has introduced two bills in the US Senate that are about as Machiavellian as they could be. I am referring to S.3081, a bill that would authorize the federal government to detain American citizens indefinitely without trial, and S.3002, a bill that would authorize the federal government to regulate vitamins, minerals, and virtually all health and natural food products.

According to Examiner.com, “Last week, John McCain introduced a bill into the U.S. Senate which, if passed, would actually allow U.S. citizens to be arrested and detained indefinitely, all without Miranda rights or ever being charged with a crime.”

The Examiner report continued by saying “This bill, introduced by McCain, who despite overwhelming evidence, claims to be a ‘conservative,’ would not only take away our right to a trial, but would also allow the federal government to arrest and imprison anyone the current administration deems hostile.

“Of course, that would be the same administration whose Homeland Security Secretary has classified veterans, retired law enforcement, Ron Paul [and Chuck Baldwin] supporters, and conservatives as ‘terrorists.’”

The Examiner report concluded by saying “If it was not clear before, it should be now that John McCain has as little respect for the Constitution as he does for our borders.”

Amen!

If Juan McCain gets his way, your constitutional right to a speedy trial by jury is gone, as well as your constitutional right to Habeas Corpus. But, of course, they would attempt to justify this by claiming it is being done in the name of national security and the war on terrorism.

See the Examiner report at:

Regarding McCain’s desire for the federal government to take over the vitamin industry, attorney Jonathan Emord wrote, “If you had any doubt about whether John McCain is a limited government conservative, you may put that doubt to rest—he is not. On February 3, 2010, John McCain introduced to the United States Senate the Dietary Supplement Safety Act of 2010. Reflecting upon this poorly written bill, I am struck by the fact that John McCain apparently sees little difference between fissile material and dietary supplements. He is intent on regulating supplements as if they were radioactive enriched uranium rather than bioactive vitamins, minerals, amino acids, and botanicals that more often than not help people.

“The Dietary Supplement Safety Act of 2010 enjoys support from the most liberal members of Congress. It is an invitation for the FDA to assume broad new powers and replicate here the system now operating in Europe over dietary supplements where dietary ingredients are presumed adulterated and unlawful to sell unless pre-approved by the government. In short, good bye free enterprise, good bye limited government, and hello more heavy handed, arbitrary and punitive FDA bias against the beleaguered dietary supplement industry.”

See Emord’s column at:

Please remember, this is the same John McCain that, during the 2008 Presidential campaign, said he would “order the secretary of the treasury to immediately buy up the bad home loan mortgages in America.” Of course, McCain didn’t explain where this authority would come from, because such a proposal has no legal or constitutional authority. And, by the way, this one little sentence, if implemented, would cost taxpayers some $300 billion.

McCain also said he wanted to tap Mr. Climate Change Wacko himself, Al Gore, “to work in his administration on developing a new and much tougher U.N.-sponsored global warming treaty.”

(Source: Cliff Kincaid. See his column at:

This is the same John McCain who addressed the Hoover Institution on May 1, 2007, and said if he were elected President, he would create a new international organization known as “The League of Democracies” (LD).

In advancing the LD, McCain said, “We should go further and start bringing democratic peoples and nations from around the world into one common organization, a worldwide League of Democracies.” He then added, “The new League of Democracies would form the core of an international order . . .”

See McCain’s speech to the Hoover Institution at:

If McCain and his CFR buddies get their way, this new LD would be a United Nations on steroids! As I said all over America on the campaign trail in 2008, “John McCain is a globalist.” Of course, so is Barack Obama. In fact, every President since (and including) George H.W. Bush has been a full-fledged, rotten-to-the-core globalist.

And, yes, this is the same Juan McCain who is one of the primary movers and shakers (along with Obama, Lindsey Graham, and G.W. Bush) attempting to provide amnesty to illegal aliens and open America’s borders to illegal immigration.

And now McCain wants the federal government to take over the vitamin industry, and he wants to give the federal government the power to jail American citizens indefinitely without trial.

The citizens of Arizona can do the American people—and liberty itself—a great favor this year by giving Senator John McCain his walking papers. Big-Government dinosaurs like McCain are an albatross around the neck of freedom and constitutional government. If we don’t send them packing now, the shackles they put around our throats will become insufferable.

P.S. As this column goes to press, word has come to me that the State of Florida is poised to vote on a bill that calls for a Constitutional Convention. Readers should familiarize themselves with the dangers that a new Con Con poses to our liberties and to the very Constitution itself.

Please read my previous columns on this subject at:

And if you live in Florida, contact your senators immediately to let them know in no uncertain terms that they must reject any bill calling for a Constitutional Convention!

*If you appreciate this column and want to help me distribute these editorial opinions to an ever-growing audience, donations may now be made by credit card, check, or Money Order. Use this link:

© Chuck Baldwin 



NOTE TO THE READER:
To subscribe, click on this link and follow the instructions:
Chuck Baldwin’s commentaries are copyrighted and may be republished, reposted, or emailed providing the person or organization doing so does not charge for subscriptions or advertising and that the column is copied intact and that full credit is given and that Chuck’s web site address is included.
Editors or Publishers of publications charging for subscriptions or advertising who want to run these columns must contact Chuck Baldwin for permission. Radio or television Talk Show Hosts interested in scheduling an interview with Chuck should contact chuck@chuckbaldwinlive.com 
Readers may also respond to this column via snail mail. The postal address is P.O. Box 37070, Pensacola, Florida. When responding, please include your name, city and state. And, unless otherwise requested, all respondents will be added to the Chuck Wagon address list. 
Please visit Chuck’s web site at http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com

Gill Rapoza
Veritas Vos Liberabit


Assaulting Truth with a Vengeance

Assaulting Truth with a Vengeance
by John Lanagan (free-lance writer and researcher)
March 7, 2010

In Brian McLaren’s latest book, A New Kind of Christianity, the reader is cordially invited to join the author in a heretical assault upon God and the Bible. Indeed, as McLaren enthusiastically demonstrates, it is not possible to attack one without attacking the other.

Acknowledging the work of fellow emergent travelers such as Phyllis Tickle, Tony Jones, and Doug Pagitt, McLaren tells us “something is trying to be born among those of us who follow Jesus Christ.” (pg.13) In fact, writes McLaren, “what is trying to be born today echoes the Great Reformation in many ways.” (pg.257)

But does McLaren’s paradigm vision really echo the Great Reformation? From the Reformation came the freedom of Sola Scriptura—the Word of God alone. The chains of a false religion were cast off. From the Reformation came men and women who were willing to die for the right to believe and proclaim Truth.

What does McLaren’s “reformation” offer? An errant eschatology. A New Age “christ.” The ascent of homospirituality into the temple. (2 Kings 23: 7) All made possible, of course, through creative misinterpretation of God’s Word. The author has brought us his Great Deformation, a theology that plays to the flesh even while being portrayed as a spiritual journey.

One of the major themes in A New Kind of Christianity, homosexuality, cleverly defines Christians who speak out against the homosexual lifestyle as suffering from “fundasexuality.” (Pg.174-5) However, you are only a “fundasexualist” if you speak out loudly against this sin.

McLaren decrees, “The term does not apply to the quiet, pious, respectful fundamentalism of straightforward, sincere people, but rather to the organizing, angry, dominating fundamentalism that declares war on those who differ.” (pg. 174-5)

In other words, when it comes to homosexuality, a good Christian is a silent Christian.

“Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter.” (Isaiah 5:20)

As my wife and I have both repented of this particular sin, it is difficult to comprehend Brian McLaren’s smiley-faced rebellion. But make no mistake: McLaren and others are being used to facilitate homospirituality, which may even assume an elevated, even sacred, status.

Ridiculous? Simply look to the Episcopalians, Lutherans, and Presbyterians. This is just the beginning.

“For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. (Ephesians 6:12)

Like Doug Pagitt, Brian McLaren believes Christians are trapped in a “Greco-Roman” understanding of the faith. “Now the god of this Greco-Roman version of the biblical story bears a strange similarity in many ways to Zeus,” he tells us, which “is a far different deity from the Jewish Elohim of Genesis 1…” (pg. 42)

Yet, no matter what name his god is given, you will not find this redesigned deity in the Old or New Testament. The only way to promote the existence of this “god” is to radically change biblical interpretation—which is exactly what the author spends much time and many pages seeking to accomplish. “There will be no new kind of Christian faith without a new approach to the Bible,” he opines, “because we’ve gotten ourselves into a mess with the Bible.” (Pg. 67-68)

In his chapter, ‘What is the Overarching Storyline of the Bible?’ McLaren notes he and others have “dared to tweak” the content of the Word of God. “We might question conventional theories of atonement or the nature and population of hell or whether concepts like original sin or total depravity might need to be modified.” (pg. 35)

McLaren does indeed “modify.” He modifies with a vengeance. Thus this emergent “Jesus” was never sent by the Father to die in our place for our sins. There is no substitutionary atonement. There is no original sin.

The Bible tells us, “I cried with my whole heart; hear me, O Lord: I will keep thy statutes.” (Psalm 119: 145)

McLaren believes traditional understanding of the Word of God has made Christians a nasty, dominant bunch. We apparently have difficulty with religious pluralism because of this flawed understanding. On top of that, Christians “currently control most of the world’s wealth, consume most of the world’s resources, produce most of the world’s waste, and sell and use most of the world’s weapons.” (Pg.215)

As in his other books, in A New Kind of Christianity McLaren exhibits his ability and talent to write well and draw readers with his conversational tone, seemingly measured, with humorous comments sprinkled in here and there. He gives the impression of allowing much room to disagree with him. He invites us on a journey, which he portrays as part of the natural “evolution” of Christianity.

“The old paradigm falls away behind us like a point of departure, and we are won over to new possibilities, caught up in a new way of seeing, looking toward a new and wide horizon.” (Pg.30) But since the author does not comprehend the Bible (1 Corinthians 2:14), what practices does he engage in to gain wisdom and knowledge?

Interestingly, McLaren identifies himself as a “contemplative/reflexive.” (pg. 226) He writes, “In the tradition of Julian of Norwich and St. Teresa of Avila and all the other mystics, we can learn to render ourselves vulnerable to the “favors of God”—those indescribable experiences that mock our dualisms and so saturate our imagination with abundance that they transcend our ability to convey joy and wonder. In the tradition of St. John of the Cross, we can learn to survive and derive benefits from the soul’s dark night.” (pg. 227) Like most leading figures in the emergent movement, McLaren advocates contemplative spirituality.

A New Kind of Christianity will serve as a lure for Bible-illiterate Christians. For believers who know the Word of God, McLaren’s heresy will sadden and astound. His book is aimed at the young, and at people who have perhaps grown up in households with little or no faith. It is aimed at the unsaved and the uncertain. It is for the disappointed and disenchanted, and for people who simply know no better. If you have a gripe against God or His people, this book will lick your wounds. But what this book will not do is provide any measure of godly hope and biblical virtue.



(from A Time of Departing by Ray Yungen, excerpted from Chapter 6)
Notes:
1. John Davis and Naomi Rice, Messiah and the Second Coming, p. 150
2. Alice Bailey, The Externalization of the Heirarchy, p. 510

Gill Rapoza
Veritas Vos Liberabit



Friday, March 19, 2010

Are We Fundamentalists?

Hello Everyone,

One of my previous pastors, who could not be mistaken for anything outside of old school fundamentalist, once called me a “fundy.”  I asked him what in the world that meant.  He said he could see that in deep I was fundamentalist too, like he was.  At the time I figured it was a complement, but I also then took the term fundamentalist to mean a hard nosed, never give an inch, King James 1611 edition or else, type.  I was not in that group I was sure. 

Turned out my old pastor read me better than what I figured myself to be.  I am not a King James 1611 type, though I use the New King James for preaching, and the New American Standard translation for personal study.  I am not so hard nosed that I never listen, but I noticed I have the habit of saying there is nothing new under the sun when the “new” forms of worship and such jump out as the real thing.  As to giving an inch, well, sometimes, but you have to work for it, and I’ll just go back and study some more to make sure I got it right.  That is not a terrible thing in itself.  I have found on occasion I was not as right as I thought, and I admitted to it. 

So if a fundamentalist means one is actually closer to sticking to basic Biblical truth and not being highly inclusive with every “new” thought or teaching that comes our way, as what the article below portrays, I figure being called a “fundy” is not a bad thing. 

One of these days I have to figure how I went from a Massachusetts liberal (long time ago thank you) to thinking it OK to be called a “red neck.”  But that is for another time. 

Godspeed,

Gill Rapoza
Veritas Vos Liberabit



Are We Fundamentalists?
by Dr. Peter Masters
Minister of the Metropolitan Tabernacle in central London
This ministry started in 1865 by Pastor C. H. Spurgeon

THERE ARE NOW TWO KINDS OF EVANGELICAL.... The old is the authentic, biblical position.  The new is far off the track, not in its basic view of salvation, but in its readiness to compromise with doctrinal error and worldly ways. The new is selling the faith for earthly respect and recognition... and churches are being ruined. [Illustrations] <Also listed below>

Today, old-style evangelicals are in the minority....  This booklet attempts to give a clear picture of the present alarming scene, in order to encourage believers to take a clear stand.

Old-style evangelicals are often called fundamentalists, particularly in the USA. New-style evangelicals adopted the term, ‘new evangelical’ to describe themselves in the 1950s. ...We are told that the fundamentalist label was first coined in America in 1920 to describe militant evangelicals. ... It would be fairer to say that fundamentalist is someone who cares about the defense and preservation of the Gospel...

Those of us who are old-style evangelicals are now being labeled as fundamentalist by our critics, the new-style evangelicals. A repetition is occurring of what happened at Antioch, where the ‘the disciples were called Christians first’ (Acts 11.26). That glorious name was given to them by their critics....

Why are the new-style evangelicals calling us fundamentalist? They are doing so for reasons of tactical self-advantage. ... Harold J. Okenga, the distinguished Boston pastor, joined with Carl F. Henry and Billy Graham to steer American evangelicals into a more liberal position, they were keen to be known as the new evangelicals. They founded the magazine Christianity Today as the flagship journal for their new direction. ...

The new evangelicals were inclusivistic rather than separatistic. They ... urged Bible-believers to stay in compromised denominations....  Liberal scholarship was studied and in many respects embraced.... The old, sharp line between worldly activities and spiritual activities was swept away, and believers were encouraged to be much more involved in worldly culture, leisure and entertainment. ...

...the new evangelicals began to put less stress upon the new, and to speak of themselves simply as evangelicals, and the old-style believers as fundamentalists. This made them sound more orthodox. All that remained was to give the term fundamentalist an objectionable, negative image, and the new evangelicals would then appear to be mainstream.

This is precisely what is now happening in Britain. The new evangelicals are appropriating to themselves the exclusive use of the term evangelical, and calling old-style believers fundamentalists. Like their American mentors they define the latter term in the most objectionable way.[1]



You may want to visit the Biblical old Metropolitan Tabernacle and order this special 30-page booklet reprinted from a 1995 issue of The Sword and Trowel.


Examples of the “new evangelical” church
An Idolatrous Silence - Evangelicals & the Egalitarianism of Sin: “...I woke up to find myself the campus minister of a banned Christian fellowship. In a trial held over the preceding midnight, the Tufts University student judiciary met secretly to “derecognize” the Tufts Christian Fellowship for its refusal to allow a gay advocate into leadership. We were politically isolated on the Tufts campus and abandoned even by other Christian groups at Tufts....
“Many Christians (not just Evangelicals) swallowed the argument: ‘Jesus talked more about greed than about sexuality, and aren’t we also guilty of being greedy?’ The philosophical laziness of their reasoning should be apparent–although it is not to them or to much of their audience–since they fail to make the obvious distinction between acknowledged moral lapses and the wholesale abandonment of a moral standard. ...” Rom 1:22-32

The Passion Experience Tour: “Dive in to all of who God is! One hundred eighty minutes worth... and all your life. Undignified reverence.” This “experience” seems to major on emotional highs while minimizing truth—a shift that is transforming the church. It may sound exciting, but you don’t become a Christian through a “dive into all of who God is!” See The Global Church

Most church youth programs are spiritually shallow: “Barry St. Clair has been involved in youth ministry for more than 30 years, writing some 20 books on the subject. So when he recently called most youth ministry programs ‘a mile wide and an inch deep,’ he had quite a few intent listeners.
“The Georgia-based speaker, who is a Southern graduate, said the goal of youth ministry should be to ‘reach every student on every campus with the life-changing message of the gospel.’ But too many youth ministries are falling short of that goal, St. Clair said, because they have the wrong emphasis—entertainment.”  See What it means to be a Christian and Biblical versus Cultural Christianity.

This dream we call DAWN: “The database approach, research strategy and action planning along with prayer by the whole Church attracted me to DAWN,” says Agustin ‘Jun’ Vencer. “...It is focused in its ministry, measurable in its outcomes, good management leadership, uses technology well, high in accountability, and increasingly becoming international in its staffing. It is systemic in its approach to ministry.”
Notice the TQM buzzwords in his statement. [Glossary of Church Terms] He praises the new global management system with its high tech monitoring and standards-based assessments. Does he know how these “outcome-based” strategies will be used to manage minds and members everywhere? See Reinventing the World



Endnotes:
1. Peter Masters, “Are We Fundamentalists,” The Sword and Trowel [started in 1865 by C. H. Spurgeon], 1995; page 3-5.


Gill Rapoza
Veritas Vos Liberabit


Thursday, March 18, 2010

The Ominous “Success” of Re-Education


Hello Everyone,

Here is another outstanding article by Berit Kjos.  I don’t know how I missed when it was first published this last October. 

I firmly agree and believe that there are many that would “re-educate” our children and even us adults if they can.  And they have had some success no doubt.  They did it whole scale in Communist Russia and China, and there is reason to believe the same type would do it here as much as possible.  Just look at some of the top political leaders presently in this nation, and see what they say and believe. 

Only God Almighty can give us back what we have lost. 

Godspeed,

Gill Rapoza
Veritas Vos Liberabit



The Ominous “Success” of Re-Education
By Berit Kjos
October 5, 2009

“The purpose of education and the schools is to change the thoughts, feelings and actions of students.”[1]

“As the home and church decline in influence... schools must begin to provide adequately for the emotional and moral development of children. ...The school... must assume a direct responsibility for the attitudes and values of child development. The child advocate, psychologist, social technician, and medical technician should all reach aggressively into the community, send workers out to children’s homes....”[2] “Joint Commission on Mental Health of Children

“A proposal for new social studies curriculum in Texas public schools removes a mention of Christmas in a sixth-grade lesson, replacing it with a Hindu religious festival....”[3] Houston Chronicle

“...the breakdown of traditional families, far from being a ‘crisis,’ is actually a. ... triumph for human rights against ‘patriarchy.’”[4] UN Population Fund leader

The traditional Christian family has been a continual obstacle to the globalist vision of solidarity. And for over sixty years, the United Nations and its mental health gurus have fought hard to eradicate those old “poisonous certainties” that stood in their way. They seem to be gaining ground!

Since Hitler outlawed homeschooling about 70 years ago, German parents have faced the harshest battles. Now other nations are catching up. Notice the government attitudes in the following examples:

“A critical hearing is scheduled in Germany in that nation’s war against homeschoolers to determine whether a family can continue to control the education of its high-performing son, 14.... ‘One of the fundamental rights of parents is the right to educate their children according to the dictates of their own religious beliefs.’”[5]

That “fundamental right” is fast being replaced by government-defined “community” or “collective rights.” The fact that those homeschooled children have “extraordinary academic abilities” and are “socially competent” doesn’t matter. Today’s rising global system doesn’t want “competent” Christian leaders. Not in Sweden, not in America—not anywhere!

“A North Carolina judge has ordered three children to attend public schools this fall because the homeschooling their mother has provided over the last four years needs to be ‘challenged.’ The children, however, have tested above their grade levels – by as much as two years.... The judge... explained his goal ...to make sure they have a ‘more well-rounded education.’ ...the judge also said public school would ‘prepare these kids for the real world and college’ and allow them ‘socialization.’”[6]

Such socialization tactics “worked well” in the Soviet Union. Based on the Marxist/Hegelian dialectic process, they include collective thinking, manipulative peer pressure, denial of absolutes, shameless “tolerance” for immorality, and irrational intolerance for contrary views.

The results can be disastrous. Students trained to scorn God’s guidelines and conform to the crowd are anything but free. Most are soon driven by evolving new notions that undermine all truth and certainty. Loosed from moral constraints, many are bound by their own lusts, obsessions, and (ultimately) despair.

A Model School for Future Leaders

Bill Clinton’s “Governor’s School”—one of many across America during the eighties—demonstrates the tragic results. For six weeks each summer, it isolated selected Arkansas high school students from the outside world and immersed them in liberal ideology, sensual literature, group dialogue, and mystical thrills—both real and imagined.[7]

“Students do me a favor,” urged author Ellen Gilchrist, a guest speaker at the school. “Totally ignore your parents. Listen to them, but then forget them. Because you need to start using your own stuff, your real stuff that you have.”[8]

Her aim was to free students from “obsolete” family values, not promote personal independence. They must reject the old ways and become “open-minded”—ready to accept the unthinkable practices that would bombard their minds. (See Paradigm Shift)

By the time they left the Governor’s School, their utopian dreams seemed more real than the actual world. Like the planned results of Soviet brainwashing, they had been weaned from truth, facts and reality. With seared consciences, new ideals, and volatile emotions, they would now face the old world they had left behind only six weeks earlier.

The Marxist change agents behind this transformation are too numerous to list, but behavioral psychologist Kurt Lewin gives us a simple formula. Linked to infamous psychological research institutes in London (Tavistock) and Germany (Frankfurt Institute), Lewin moved to America when Hitler began his reign. His influence spread through MIT and other universities, then paved the way for “sensitivity training” and the formation of National Training Laboratories that would prepare transformational tactics and textbooks for public schools.

Lewin outlined his program with a 3-step formula:

·        Unfreezing minds: Questioning the old ways through facilitated dialogue, peer pressure, and group “experience”—real or imagined.

·        Moving the students to the new level: Using cognitive dissonance (mental, moral and emotional confusion), peer pressure, and manipulated consensus to loyalties from the old ways and to the new.

·        Freezing group minds on the new level: The new views become the norm. They feel good!  The old views become offensive as well as wrong![9]

For the students, the transition back to reality—to home, family and normal life—was painful. For some it was lethal. “When I came back home, I sort of wrote a suicide note to myself,” confessed LeAndrew Crawford. “Not actually wanting to kill myself, but wanting to kill the reality of what society had been teaching me for so long.... I was totally down, because my family just didn’t feel like my family.... I didn’t want to be back.”[7]

Brandon Hawk did kill himself within a year. Hearing about his death, other concerned parents contacted Brandon’s parents.

“They see the same thing in their kids that we saw in Brandon,” the father explained.... They just sort of walk off and leave the family.”[7]

But Brandon wasn’t the only one who chose death rather than life.  After the third suicide, the Joint Interim Education Committee of the Arkansas legislature held hearings that exposed some of the problems. Perhaps the most revealing testimony came from Brandon’s mother, who read from her son’s log. In his first entry, he wrote,

“‘Moms are the best people around, and my mom is the best mom on earth.’ But three weeks later, he wrote: ‘My mom is so closed minded I feel like we will have a standoff soon over issues.’ And his final entry stated: ‘After I came back from the [three-day, July 4] break, my friends and I could tell that we had suddenly been transformed into free thinkers.’”[7]

Another mother testified that, “My son came back from Governor’s School and his favorite line was ‘There are no absolutes; there are no absolutes.”[7]  

It didn’t take long to change the students’ minds and hearts, did it? Yet few teachers or parents are aware of this subversive agenda.

Back in 1982, Professor Benjamin Bloom, an internationally known behaviorist, defined “good teaching” as “challenging the students’ fixed beliefs and getting them to discuss issues.”[10] (Sounds like Kurt Lewin, doesn’t it?) He added,

“The evidence collected thus far suggests that a single hour of classroom activity under certain conditions may bring about a major reorganization in cognitive as well as affective (attitudes, values and beliefs) behaviors.”[11]

The most revealing evidence that this scheme really “works” comes from those who participated in the Clinton’s Governor’s School. In light of today’s rapid changes, it makes sense to remember their testimonies as recorded in the documentary video titled “The Guiding Hand”:

1. Isolate Students From Traditional Family Values

“For the six weeks ... they are not allowed to go home except for July the Fourth. They are discouraged from calling home.... They can receive mail but they are encouraged to have as little contact with the outside world as possible.” (Shelvie Cole, Brandon’s mother)

“I felt that I needed not to talk about it. I don’t know why. Maybe because we were supposed to stay here and the fact that we couldn’t leave.... No one... who had gone before would talk to me about it.” (Kelli Wood, former student)[7]

The “effectiveness” of such mandatory separation may help explain why (1) educational change agents want to put 3-year-olds in pre-school programs and (2) why “Obama says American kids spend too little time in school.”[12]

2. Reinforce New Liberal, Anti-Christian Values

“We watched movies like Harvey Milk. We learned about gay life—those things that your parents say, ‘This is wrong... You shouldn’t see this type of thing because, hey, that’s just not right...’" (LeAndrew Crawford, former student)

“[The instructors] tear down their authority figure system and... help establish another one.... They convince the students that ‘You are the elite. The reason why you’re not going to be understood when you go home—not by your parents, your friends, your pastor or anybody—is because you have been treated to thought that they can’t handle.’ ...[This] intellectual and cultural elitism gives them the right... to say, ‘We know better than you.’” (Mark Lowery, former director for Governor's School publicity)

3. Emphasize Feeling-Centered (Affective, Not Cognitive) Teaching:

“Rather than learning what 2 and 2 equals, they would be asked what they feel about 2+2. Right now we have a move going on in our Arkansas schools called restructuring, where they are trying to get away from more objective, substantive learning into this subjective area of feelings.” (Mark Lowery)

“You would think that there would be some academic challenges... getting ready for college... The main textbook that I remember from there is a book called Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance and the book is totally Hindu religion defined.” (Steve Roberts, former student)

4. Shape A Personal, All-Inclusive Spirituality:

“A lot of places. . . even Christian camps, you get that stress about ‘What am I doing wrong?’ . . .There it was like, hey, I can talk to God! Me and God are one, the world is one... Jump up and down, you know, just twirl around.”

“It was kind of like that Baha’i idea. How you have Islam, Baha’i, Muslim, Christianity... They’re all different kinds of trees, but underneath, its root system grows together [and] is the same god.” (Steven Allen, student)

5. Instill The Target Beliefs—A ‘New’ Social And Political Agenda:

The next quote fits Bill Clinton’s experience. He was selected as a potential future leader—a Rhodes Scholar—worthy of the required indoctrination:

“I think the whole intent of the Governor’s School in taking 350 - 400 students per summer, is to pick out the four, five or six students that could be political leaders and then to mold their minds in this more liberal and humanistic thinking.... [T]o be considered intellectual... you have to be a liberal thinker....” (Mark Lowery, former director)

“They’re bringing a political agenda in the guise of academic excellence.... It was something that was well orchestrated, well organized, it was mind-bending and manipulative.” (Steve Roberts)

“Prominent themes promoted by this school include radical homosexuality, socialism, pacifism and a consistent hostility toward Western civilization and culture, especially [America’s] Biblical foundations.” (Jeoffrey Botkin)

6. Build Allegiance To The New Community:

“You could dress just about any way you want. We had almost naked people. It was real liberal... an awful lot of cursing.” (Mike Oonk, former student)

“The students... say, ‘This is the perfect place. I never want to go home.’ I caught myself saying that several times.” (Mike Oonk)[7]

Indoctrinating students with diverse beliefs, socialist values, utopian dreams, and idealized love leads to deception, disillusionment, corruption and chaos. But that fits the battle plan for global transformation just fine. Today’s change agents need chaos and crisis to justify their oppressive action.  Not only does it unravel the old social order, it gives an illusion of newfound freedom—from family values as well moral restrains.[13]

“It would be impossible for me to describe to you just how exciting and unusual this educational adventure is,” said Bill Clinton.[7]

It wasn’t exciting for re-programmed students who returned home. But that problem may soon be resolved. Through “service-learning” and other long-term re-learning projects, today’s students can stay rooted in the new environment—even if they sleep at home.

This is where we are headed, dear friends! During this last year, three students at a top-rated high school in California committed suicide—one of the many consequences of today’s emotional confusion. One evening, as desperate parents met with school officials to seek solutions, a fourth student attempted suicide at the nearest railroad crossing. He was pulled off the track seconds before the train thundered down the track.[14]

Standing firm in this social and spiritual war

The school offered no real solutions. But our God does! Please take these guidelines to heart:

·        Pray! For, as Jesus said, “...apart from Me you can do nothing.” (John 15:5)

·        Prepare yourself. “Be strong in the Lord and in the power of His might. Put on the whole Armor of God....” Eph. 6:10-11

·        Equip your children to discern evil and resist compromise. “Do not be deceived....” 1 Cor. 15:33

·        Trust God, not yourself. “O our God... we have no power against this great multitude that is coming against us; nor do we know what to do, but our eyes are upon You.” 2 Chron. 20:12

·        Inform and warn all who will listen. “I now send you, to open their eyes, in order to turn them from darkness to light...” Acts 26:17-18

“Thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore, my beloved brethren, be steadfast, immovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord...” 1 Cor. 15:57



Endnotes:
1. Benjamin Bloom, All Our Children Learning, (New York: McGraw Hill, 1981), p.180.
2. “Joint Commission on Mental Health of Children.” The unabridged report is no longer available, but the 1969 report is summarized at Education Resources Information Center (eric.ed.gov).
3. “Curriculum plan would remove mention of Christmas.” Since the link to this original article is now obsolete, you can find the information here: http://article.wn.com/view/2009/09/11/Curriculum_plan_would_remove_mention_of_Christmas/
4. Matthew Cullinan Hoffman, “United Nations Population Fund leader says family breakdown is a triumph for Human Rights,” February 3, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com)
7. From “The Guiding Hand,” a video produced by Geoffrey Botkin in 1992.
8. Ibid. Quoting Ellen Gilchrist, author of In the Land of Dreamy Dreams, quoted by a student.
10. David Krathwohl, Benjamin Bloom, Bertram Massia, Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, The Classification of Educational Goals, Affective Goals( McKay Publishers, 1956), p. 55.
11. Ibid., p. 88.
14. “3rd Caltrain Teen Suicide Spurs Action” at http://cbs5.com/local/caltrain.teenager.suicide.2.1141695.html


Gill Rapoza
Veritas Vos Liberabit