Search This Blog

Monday, April 26, 2010

United Kingdom, Canada Forcing Christian Schools To Teach Anti-Christian ‘Values’

United Kingdom, Canada Forcing Christian Schools To Teach Anti-Christian ‘Values’
Lee Duigon
Posted on April 8, 2010

“Values are fundamentally divisive. But man is hostile too often to ‘divisive’ values, and so the values he prizes are in effect anti-values, attempts to reduce religion, ethics, or whatever value he seeks, to an all-inclusive level.”  —R. J. Rushdoony[1]

When R. J. Rushdoony wrote those words in 1961, he could hardly have guessed that, almost fifty years later, governments throughout the English-speaking world would be moving to force Christian schools to teach anti-Christian values. But he would not have been surprised.

Today in the United Kingdom and in Canada, legislation either pending or recently enacted aims to force religious schools to teach that homosexuality is, in the words of one member of the British Parliament, “normal and harmless.”[2]

“This has been building up for generations,” said Michael Donnelly, an attorney with the Home School Legal Defense Association. He’s not exaggerating. Here is what a professor of anthropology said, 100 years ago:

“Our actual family circle is most often imperfect: so few families can give, or know how to give, a healthy physical, moral, and intellectual education to the child, that in this domain large encroachments of the State, whether small or great, are probable, even desirable. There is, in fact, a great social interest before which the pretended rights of families must be effaced”[3][emphasis added]—including, it would appear, the right of Christian parents to provide their children with a Christian education.
Britain’s Bill

In Great Britain, the Children, Schools and Families Bill—note that “Schools” comes before “Families”—is being debated and amended in Parliament. Its final form can only be a matter of conjecture; but so far it displays an intention, at least, of some members of Parliament to nullify the whole purpose of a Christian school.

Originally the bill included several radically anti-Christian measures. As late as February 25, as reported by the Ignatius Press, the bill proposed requiring Christian schools to teach contraception, abortion, and homosexuality. Said Edward Balls, Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families, “If you are currently a Catholic school … you could choose to teach only to children that contraception is wrong, homosexuality is wrong. That changes radically with this bill.”[4]

And, “A Catholic faith school can say to their pupils we believe as a religion contraception is wrong but what they can’t do is therefore say that they are not going to teach them about contraception to children, how to access contraception, or how to use contraception. What this changes is that for the first time these schools cannot just ignore these issues or teach only one side of the argument. They also have to teach that there are different views on homosexuality. They cannot teach homophobia. They must explain civil partnership. They must give a balanced view on abortion, they must give both sides of the argument, they must explain how to access an abortion, the same is true on contraception as well”[5][emphasis added].

Forcing a nun to teach a classroom of twelve-year-old girls how to “access” an abortion does seem to push the envelope; and many Liberals in and out of Parliament would consider the entire Christian teaching on homosexuality to be “homophobia” and therefore banned—while at the same time, teaching those “different views” on sodomy would still be mandatory in a Christian school. No wonder a Church of England bishop called the legislation “fascist”![6]

Faced with so much controversy, the government moved quickly to amend the bill—only to come up against more controversy, this time from the Left. The British Humanist Association accused the government of trying to “deprive children of their right to broad, balanced and objective Sex and Relationship Education” and blamed Catholic groups for “lobbying [that] produced the change of policy by Ed Balls.”[7]

What the amendment did was to allow religious schools “to teach PSHE [Personal, Social, and Health Education], which includes Sex and Relationships Education, ‘in a way that reflects the school’s religious character.’”[8] To us this language may seem ambiguous, but humanists and “gay” organizations insist it represents a “U-turn” by the government.[9]

“The amendment was designed to make clear that equality requirements do not force governing bodies or heads [of religious schools] to teach about issues such as homosexuality and contraception in a particular way,” reported “pinknews.”[10]

In the United Kingdom, unlike in the United States, the “faith schools” receive government funding. About a third of the schools covered by this legislation are religious schools.[11]

Note that for the humanist, “balanced, objective” education means the rigorous exclusion of Biblical teaching—that would be “homophobia”—in favor of the teaching that sodomy is “normal and harmless.”

Will the government give in to the clamor on the Left, and amend the bill again?

All we can say is that there is in Parliament and elsewhere a long-standing interest in forcing Christian schools to teach abortion and sodomy, and that whatever happens with the bill this year, those who have that interest will continue to promote it.

Homeschool in the Crosshairs

The Children, Schools and Families bill also takes aim at homeschooling Christian families. Parents will be required to sign a “home-school agreement” with the “head teacher” of the nearest government school, obliging them to educate their children in accord with “the school’s aims and values,” whatever those might be.[12] Also, “the head teacher may invite the pupil to sign the parental declaration as an indication that the pupil acknowledges and accepts the school’s expectation of the pupil.”

The Conservative Party in Parliament has strongly objected to the bill’s provisions for regulating homeschooling. In the words of Conservative Member of Parliment Michael Gove, “this is about the Secretary of State being able to say that an individual home education parent is not providing an education that he deems appropriate and therefore they should not have the right to educate that child at home.”[13] Also, Gove said, “it allows the state to terminate the right of a family to educate a child at home if the education offered is not deemed suitable according to regulations that the Secretary of State writes.”

We have seen from Ed Balls’ quotes what sort of education he deems appropriate. Said Gove, “this legislation means the state will take it upon itself to regulate what may or may not be taught in the home.”

He also denounced “the additional bureaucratic burden” that the legislation would impose on parents: a yearly report to the head teacher, and a visit from “an inspector” from time to time, to ensure that the school’s “aims and values” are being met in the home.

Quebec’s Crusade—Against Christianity

Meanwhile, across the Atlantic in Canada, the provincial governments of Quebec and Ontario have enacted laws to force Christian schools to provide anti-Christian teaching.

As part of an announced government crusade against “homophobia,” and a promise “to wipe out attitudes not supportive of all sexual orientations”[14]—supportive?—Quebec has installed an Ethics and Religious Culture program, mandatory for all schools, including all religious schools; and a Quebec court has ruled that parents cannot exempt their children from this course.[15]

“The program will replace the Catholic Religious and Moral Instruction, Protestant Moral and Religious Education, and Moral Education programs that have been taught until now,” says an official government website.[16] In addition to teaching the normalization of homosexuality, the program also teaches that no religion is more valid than any other.

In Ontario, a new Health and Physical Education curriculum for grades 1-8—mandatory for all publicly-funded schools, including Christian schools—will go into effect in September. It is intended to promote “equality and inclusive education,” says the provincial Ministry of Education, “which include the advancement of homosexualism and transgenderism,” reports LifeSite News. “A notable aspect of the curriculum’s revision is the attempt to instill a sense that homosexuality and transgenderism are perfectly normal.”[17]

Supposedly the teaching is to be “open and respectful of various points of view,” including the Christian point of view. It is difficult to imagine how “educators” committed to the normalization of sodomy and sexual mutilation will be able to show respect to the Biblical view that such behavior is an abomination to the living God.

A Case in New Hampshire

We must not assume that Christian schooling in America is immune to interference by the government.
“Now is not the time to relax our vigilance,” said Michael Donnelly. “This is going on all over the world, and of course there’s always more of it on the horizon.”

In New Hampshire, for instance, a judge has ordered a ten-year-old girl, who has been homeschooled by her mother since she was in first grade, to be enrolled full-time in public school. Donnelly is one of the attorneys handling the case for the Home School Legal Defense Association.

“Actually, this is a child custody case,” Donnelly said. “The parents are divorced, the mother’s a Christian, the father’s a non-religious person, and both have legal custody of the child. They have to agree on what’s best for the child, and they can’t agree, so the state had to find a remedy.

“But in this case the judge’s reasoning was so outrageous that it had to be appealed. The case has been accepted by the New Hampshire Supreme Court for a hearing, and we’re preparing a brief now.”

The judge ruled last year that “this child and her mother are too religious,” and that the girl needed to be “exposed to other worldviews.” The judge’s order read, “Amanda’s vigorous defense of her religious beliefs … suggests strongly that she has not had the opportunity to seriously consider any other point of view.”[18]

“Outrageous” is putting it mildly. What if a judge were to order a publicly-schooled child to be homeschooled full-time in order to absorb a Christian point of view? The storm of protest from the ACLU, academics, and the media, would be deafening.

Almost ten years ago, political scientist Rob Reich argued that American children have a “right” to be instructed, by the state, in worldviews other than their parents’, and that Christian homeschooling should, by law, be made subject to the secular authority of the state.[19] Without invoking Reich by name, the judge in New Hampshire echoed Reich’s reasoning.

Who Owns the Children?

“You can’t point to a person or persons behind this—other than Satan himself, perhaps,” Donnelly said.

But we can say that this campaign to force Christian schools to teach anti-Christian principles is only to be expected, given the secularist, God-denying, statist philosophy that has been at the heart of public education from its beginnings in the nineteenth century.

Consider these quotes from a British government document, Sex and Relationship Education Guidance to Schools.[20] Herein, schools are charged to “promote equality, inclusion, and acceptance of diversity”—meaning a “diversity” of sexual practices and “lifestyles”—to the end of “reducing the likelihood of sexist, sexual, homophobic, and transphobic [sic] bullying” and creating universal “gender equality.” It goes on and on, page after page of messianic utopian drivel—and there is to be no opt-out from this teaching once the child turns fifteen.

Documents such as this show that the state schools put themselves above the child’s parents as the authority on what constitutes sexual morality. We also see it in Ed Balls’ title—Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families: note that “Schools” comes before “Families” and comes between “Children” and “Families.” How could they be any clearer about what they’re trying to do?

Christianity teaches “that life belongs to God rather than to the social group,” Rushdoony wrote. “It is precisely this note that is now being submerged by the rise of statism. The structure of the family as an order from God and having certain rights beyond the state and its law is now disappearing, and education has been especially instrumental in its erosion.”[21]

In 1961 Rushdoony saw in public education “a call for the re-ordering of all aspects of life and the world itself in terms of this democratic and leveling perspective.”[22] This was already a ponderous chain in 1961, and the statist public educators have labored on it ever since. They are not going to change. Their cultural aggression against the Christian schools of the United Kingdom and Canada shows how much their confidence, and their ambition, have grown in fifty years.

Can It Happen Here?

“Woe to the inhabiters of the earth and of the sea! For the devil is come down unto you, having great wrath, because he knoweth that he hath but a short time” (Rev.12:12).

Rushdoony believed that the godless, secular, humanist civilization of the West is in decline and heading toward a fall—despite, or perhaps because of, its “radically messianic and religious program, aiming at the re-creation of man and his total culture.”[23] “But today’s crisis,” wrote Rev. Edmund Opitz, “is religion’s opportunity.”[24]

Are we taking advantage of that opportunity? Are we building Christian institutions—schools, colleges, hospitals, media, and Bible-faithful churches—that will survive the failure of humanism, and lay the foundation of a new Christendom?

Millions of America’s Christian families are in denial about public education, and tens of millions of Christian children continue to be sent to public schools. Do we have the common sense to look across the Atlantic, and across the Canadian border, to see what the government “educators” have in mind for us?

Thankfully, Christian schools in America, unlike those in Canada and Britain, receive no funding from the state. That makes them much less vulnerable to state interference with the curriculum. By all means, Christian schools should never take money from the government. Beware the Greeks bearing gifts!

Nevertheless, there is in America an opinion that Christian children must be “exposed” to anti-Christian points of view; and in New Hampshire a judge has acted on it.

We must be vigilant. We must defend our Christian schools and our right to homeschool.

But above all, we must remove our Christian children from the public schools and provide them with a Christian education.

In the years and tumults yet to come, they’ll need it.


[1] R. J. Rushdoony, Intellectual Schizophrenia (Vallecito, CA: Ross House Books, Vallecito, CA, [1961] 2002), 17.
[3] Rushdoony, 6.
[5] Ibid.
[6] op. cit., dailymail.co.uk
[8] Ibid.
[10] Ibid.
[11] Ibid.
[15] Ibid.
[21] Rushdoony, 117
[22] Ibid, 64.
[23] Ibid., 7.
[24] Ibid., xv.



Lee Duigon is a Christian free-lance writer and contributing editor for the Chalcedon Report. He has been a newspaper editor and reporter and a published novelist.

Gill Rapoza
Veritas Vos Liberabit





Sunday, April 25, 2010

Emergent: Why Can’t We All Be Right?

Emergent: Why Cant We All Be Right?
by Bob DeWaay

Emergent writers decry any approach that declares some ideas to be true and others false. Propositions force people to decide what to believe. One Emergent writer, Dwight J. Friesen, explains his view: “The theological method of orthoparadoxy surrenders the right to be right for the sake of movement toward being reconciled one with the other, while simultaneously seeking to bring the fullness of convictions and beliefs to the other. Current theological methods that often stress agreement/disagreement, win/loss, good/bad, orthodoxy/heresy, and the like set people up for constant battles to convince and convert the other to their way of believing and being in the world.”1 Propositional truth claims do not fit into the Emergent “conversation” because they divide people. But the price of giving up such claims is to give up the very claims that the Biblical writers made.

Getting back to Paul’s address before Festus and Agrippa, his words indeed got Agrippa’s attention:

King Agrippa, do you believe the Prophets? I know that you do.” And Agrippa replied to Paul, “In a short time you will persuade me to become a Christian.” And Paul said, “I would to God, that whether in a short or long time, not only you, but also all who hear me this day, might become such as I am, except for these chains. (Acts 26:27-29)

Paul believed that truth claims such as the bodily resurrection of Christ (Acts 26:23) were to be proclaimed even before kings who had the power over Paul’s life. His was not a conversation with those who were just as likely to be right as Paul was, but a bold proclamation of the truth designed to convince others of the truth.

But the very practice of the New Testament apostles is what most Emergent leaders decry: claiming to be right about matters and anathematizing those who are in error. For example, Friesen says, “Here is my working maxim of a theology of orthoparadoxy: the more irreconcilable various theological positions appear to be, the closer we are to experiencing truth.”2 Take careful note that he says “experiencing truth” (the neo-orthodox idea) not “knowing truth.” Compare that to Paul’s assessment of the Judaizers in Galatia: “As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to that which you received, let him be accursed” (Galatians 1:9).

Furthermore, Paul urged others to follow his example and charged elders with the duty of correcting false teaching: “[The elder should be] holding fast the faithful word which is in accordance with the teaching, that he may be able both to exhort in sound doctrine and to refute those who contradict” (Titus 1:9). Contrast Paul’s instructions to Christian elders with the ideas of emergent writer Samir Selmanovic: “We have created a false tension between keeping our Christian identity intact and approaching the world in humility. Humility is to be our identity. When we open ourselves to be taught by ‘the other,’ we don’t become less the followers of Christ but more so.”3 According to Paul we are to guard the flock against “the other” (i.e., religious beliefs that are not in accord with the faith once for all delivered to the saints) and in the Emergent view “the other” teaches us. Humility is not openness to false religions and false teachings; it is the realization that we are sinners who need a savior.

The real false tension is the one Emergent thinking creates between humility and confidence in the once-for-all revealed truth. Moses was called “humble” (Numbers 12:3) and to him was given the revelation of God’s truth. Humble Moses told the Israelites not to listen to anyone who came in the name of a god they had not known—even if they produced signs (Deuteronomy 13:1-4). The idea that God’s people would listen to false teachings as a sign of their humility is antithetical to what we are told in the Bible.



(from Bob DeWaay’s book, The Emergent Church)

Notes:
1. Dwight J. Friesen, “Orthoparadoxy – Emerging Hope for Embracing Difference,” in An Emergent Manifesto of Hope, Doug Pagitt and Tony Jones editors (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2007) 208.
2. Ibid. emphasis in the original.
3. Samir Selmanovic, “The Sweet Problem of Inclusiveness – Finding Our God in the Other,” in An Emergent Manifesto of Hope, 198.

Gill Rapoza
Veritas Vos Liberabit


Saturday, April 24, 2010

‘Israel Costs Us Blood And Treasure’ What Does Obama Cost Us?

‘Israel Costs Us Blood And Treasure’ What Does Obama Cost Us?
By Laurie Roth
April 15th, 2010

As the latest round of Tea Parties are upon us representing millions of focused and concerned, law abiding Americans, our President continues to pretend he is doing something historical, wise and insightful regarding his Nuclear and Middle East plans? We are still reeling from Obama’s ‘pretend’ nuclear disarmament program, signed by Russian President Dmitry Medvedev and Obama recently. As you may recall, the goal is to start disarming, stop nuclear development and research, while committing in advance that we won’t use a nuclear response if we are attacked with a weapon of mass destruction. It will also render our arsenal of 9,400 nukes obsolete as rogue nations and other mystery groups rush forward with nuclear technology and weapons development…..why, because they simply want to and plan to use them. It is shockingly rude that they don’t bow down to President Obama.

It didn’t take but minutes before Ahmadinejad declared yet again his nuclear intentions. Oh yeah, and threatened to attack us with nuclear devices he would sell to terrorist groups if we dared to attack his nuclear facilities. Other countries that would quickly flip us off if we tried to manipulate them into getting rid of some of their nukes are China, Pakistan, India and North Korea. These are lovely bastions of democracy, peace and stability.

The last few weeks Obama was on a Middle East and Nuclear roll

He keeps reminding us of how huge the nuclear danger is in the world, even describing in his recent news conference how horrifying a 10-kiloton nuclear explosion would be. We heard the horror as he described an explosion….900-mph winds, bathing the land with radiation, producing plumes of fall out for hundreds of miles. The simply amazing and insane thing is most of us by now understand how disastrous, gross and far reaching a nuclear bomb would be. THAT IS PRECISELY WHY COMPROMISING OUR ARSENAL AND LEAD IN NUCLEAR DEVELOPMENT AND READINESS IS A DIRECT ATTACK ON OUR NATIONAL SECURITY AND REPUTATION.

Obama reminded the nation at the latest two-day conference on nuclear security that the nation would have to wait up to 72 hours after a nuclear blast for a ‘significant federal response.’ He shared how hard it would be to mitigate damage and respond. This president has a hard time responding to the truth so naturally he would have a hard time responding to a disaster. Regarding his statement of a 3 day delay in response, that seems to be typical with him. It took him 3 days to even respond from Hawaii to the underwear bomber who almost brought down a plane on Christmas day.

Obama’s latest speech also signals a shift with Israel

President Obama is now ramping up the pressure toward Israel, saying that the Israeli/Palestinian conflict has cost us too much ‘blood and treasure.’ We have seen the classic, Jimmy Carter slams on Israel, Obama’s first 15 months. The most recent lunacy was Hillary and Biden getting their knickers in a twist when Prime Minister Netanyahu didn’t kiss their booties when visiting over there to intimidate and manipulate him into submission. Instead of bow down he chose to exercise the rights of his country and build 1,600 new Jewish homes. Never mind those were homes in their country on land won in war, fair and square mega years ago.

Now we hear the mixed up and out of context diatribe in recent Obama speeches. He talks of the cost of war, blood and treasure via Afghanistan, Iraq, struggling Palestine, Iran and struggling relations with Muslims. The implication is that all this could simply be solved if Israel would give away more land; if Israel would stop building; if Israel would cut in half Jerusalem and their Holy places; Translation for those who are mentally impaired: IF ISRAEL AND THE JEWS WILL STOP EXERCISING THEIR GOD GIVEN RIGHTS AND WALK INTO THE SEA AND DROWN.

Obama is the most radical and dangerous President we have ever had. The only evil he believes in is at the hands of Jews, Christians and conservatives. He is boldly committed to big government, socialism/communism. He continues to show the world his commitment to moral compromise and political denial of reality.

It is like a severe case of dyslexia.

Backwards with Israel

Everything with this President is back to front. We have to change our policy with Israel because they are the enemy…why, they won’t do what Obama has ordered to fulfill his international peace legacy and kiss up desires to Islam. It is one of the long time liberal fantasies, to bring peace to Israel and Palestine. Remember the obsession and peace attempts of Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter? Never mind since 1948 that the real attempts at peace, a two state solution from the very beginning, and limited and controlled responses to decades of slaughter and attacks HAVE BEEN BY THE JEWS AND ISRAELIS. REAL PEACE ATTEMPTS HAVE NEVER BEEN ATTEMPTED BY ANYONE ELSE.

Backwards with who the real enemies are

This administration has made it very clear with numerous statements that we are the new terrorists, not Islamic radicals. We persecute them and they are the victims of our success and the Jews. If we dare to notice the constant attacks, lack of women’s rights, slaughter of the innocents, attacks on Jewish settlements…..we have mental illness. We are Islamaphobics.

I pray Dick Morris, in his recent statements are right. He said on national TV just recently he is convinced conservatives will not only sweep the House but also the Senate and win the Presidential election 4 years from now. He was referring to the health care bill disaster and saying we could quickly defund it, then when controlling both the House and Senate and White House, repeal it.

There will be a whole lot more than that we have to repeal, unfund and shred. We must also fix the insane movement away from nuclear strength and stop the absurd pressure on Israel, the only real friend we have in the Middle East and democracy.

Elections come quickly!



This entry was posted on Thursday, April 15th, 2010 at 9:24 am and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Responses are currently closed, but you can trackback from your own site.

Gill Rapoza
Veritas Vos Liberabit


Friday, April 23, 2010

SPLC Publishes Patriot Hit List

SPLC Publishes Patriot Hit List
By Chuck Baldwin
April 21, 2010

In a report on its web site dated April 2010, entitled “Meet The Patriots,” the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) profiled “36 individuals at the heart of the resurgent [patriot] movement.” (In reading the list, I counted only 35 “patriots” and 5 “enablers” for a total of 40. I’m not really sure how the SPLC came up with “36.” Perhaps their ability to count is commensurate with their ability to appreciate patriotism and liberty.) The SPLC (founded by Morris Dees) sees itself as America’s guardian against “right wing militias” and loves to label conservatives and libertarians that it doesn’t like as “extremists.” The SPLC is one of the most ultra-liberal organizations in the country and should be dismissed as a group of paranoid leftists, not worthy of thought or mention.

The sad truth is, however, our federal government has chosen to exalt the SPLC to the position of being its “go to” source for information regarding “potential domestic terrorists” and similar characterizations. As a result, the information and reports disseminated by SPLC wind up in police reports and bulletins all over the United States. As an example, the SPLC had its fingerprints all over the infamous MIAC report. One could even question whether the SPLC is merely a front organization for Big Brother.

Therefore, it is highly likely that the report negatively profiling 40 American patriots will find its way into Department of Homeland Security (DHS) fusion centers and be distributed to police agencies all across the country. So, should the 40 people who find themselves targeted by SPLC expect some kind of government/police attention? Are we really that close to Nazi-style persecution in America? If the SPLC has its way, the answer seems to be a definite yes.

I remind readers that in the book, Nazi Justiz: Law of the Holocaust (page 3), there were five steps to Hitler’s plans for the destruction of European Jews. Step 1: Identification/registration of the targeted group as a public menace. Step 2: Ostracism of the targeted persons. Step 3: property confiscation. Step 4: Concentration of members into geographical locations. Step 5: Annihilation. In this latest report, SPLC seems quite willing to accomplish steps 1 and 2.

Here are the 40 names that are targeted in the SPLC report (and guess who is listed at the very top? Yours truly):

1.              Chuck Baldwin, Pastor, Radio Broadcaster, Syndicated Columnist, 2008 Constitution Party Presidential nominee.
2.              Joe Banister, former IRS special agent, tax protester.
3.              Martin “Red” Beckman, tax protester
4.              Catherine Bleish, head of the Liberty Restoration Project.
5.              Chris Broughton, Second Amendment advocate, member of “We The People” group.
6.              Bob Campbell, head of American Grand Jury.
7.              Robert Crooks, Army veteran, retired commercial fisherman, anti-illegal immigration proponent.
8.              Joseph Farah, CEO of World Net Daily
9.              Gary Franchi, producer of “Camp FEMA: American Lockdown,” national director of RestoreTheRepublic.com.
10.          Al Garza, head of the Patriot’s Coalition, an anti-illegal immigration group.
11.          Ted Gunderson, retired FBI agent.
12.          John Hassey, “The public face of Alabama’s militia movement in the late 1990s,” says SPLC.
13.          Alex Jones, Radio Talk Show host.
14.          Devvy Kidd, “prolific columnist, blogger, and public speaker.”
15.          Larry Kilgore, telecommunications consultant, former US Senate candidate from Texas, pro-secession advocate.
16.          Cliff Kincaid, syndicated columnist and author, editor of AIM Report (Accuracy in Media’s publication), founder and president of America’s Survival, Inc., a UN watchdog group.
17.          Mark Koernke, associated with the now-defunct Michigan Militia.
18.          Richard Mack, former Graham County, Arizona, Sheriff, author, and public speaker.
19.          Jack McLamb, former Phoenix, Arizona, police officer, author, and public speaker.
20.          John McManus, former member of the US Marine Corps, president of the John Birch Society.
21.          Daniel New, father of Michael New (the Army medic who refused to wear a UN uniform), author, public speaker.
22.          Norm Olson, founder of the now-defunct Michigan Militia.
23.          Larry Pratt, executive director of Gun Owners of America.
24.          Stewart Rhodes, Army veteran and Yale Law School graduate, founder of Oath Keepers.
25.          Jon Roland, computer specialist, founder of the Constitution Society.
26.          Luke Rudkowski, founder We Are Change.
27.          Robert “Bob” Schultz, founder of We The People.
28.          Joel Skousen, editor, World Affairs Brief.
29.          Jim Stachowiak, Radio Talk Show host, “Longtime militia organizer,” claims SPLC.
30.          John Stadtmiller, founder, Republic Broadcasting Network.
31.          Orly Taitz, California attorney, a leader in the push to make President Obama disclose his US birth certificate.
32.          Amanda Teegarden, executive director of Oklahomans for Sovereignty and Free Enterprise.
33.          Mike Vanderboegh, anti-Obama health care activist.
34.          Paul Venable, former candidate for the Idaho House of Representatives.
35.          Edwin Vieira, Jr., attorney, author, proponent of constitutional State militias, lecturer.
36.          Michele Bachmann, US Representative from Minnesota.
37.          Glenn Beck, Fox News Channel TV host.
38.          Paul Broun, medical doctor, US Representative from Georgia.
39.          Andrew Napolitano, attorney, former State judge in New Jersey, Fox News Channel legal analyist, lecturer.
40.          Ron Paul, former member of the US Air Force, medical doctor, US Representative from Texas, 2008 Republican candidate for President.

See the SPLC report at:

The SPLC, no doubt, sees each person on the above list as being a leader of the “radical right,” a “conspiracist,” and “antigovernment.” But understand, the SPLC makes its living off of big-government, leftist ideology. To say it is a shill for Big Government Liberalism is an understatement. The SPLC is so radical it makes the ACLU look conservative!

Again, this SPLC report would not even merit a mention (much less an entire column) except for the fact that the SPLC has become a source of information fuelling anti-freedom hysteria for countless bureaucrats at the DHS. Add this to the previously exposed MIAC and DHS reports, and the Army major’s report blaming “millennialist” Christians for much of the ills of the world, and a disturbing trend is quickly developing: so-called right-wing ANYTHING is being targeted and demonized as a “public menace.”

But the lists that you and I are not seeing are even more disturbing.

Joel Skousen quotes (Radar Magazine’s) Christopher Ketcham’s The Last Roundup as asking if the federal government is “compiling a secret enemies list of citizens who could face detention?” He goes on to say, “A number of former government employees and intelligence sources with independent knowledge of domestic surveillance operations claim the program that caused the flap between [former assistant attorney general under John Ashcroft, James] Comey and the White House was related to a database of Americans who might be considered potential threats in the event of a national emergency. Sources familiar with the program say that the government’s data gathering has been overzealous and probably conducted in violation of federal law and the protection from unreasonable search and seizure guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment.

“A veteran CIA intelligence analyst who maintains active high-level clearances and serves as an advisor to the Department of Defense in the field of emerging technology tells Radar that during the 2004 hospital room drama [between former Chief of Staff Andrew Card and Attorney General Ashcroft, in an attempt by Card to coerce a very ill Ashcroft to authorize President Bush’s secretive domestic spying programs as his assistant—and acting—attorney general had refused to do so], James Comey expressed concern over how this secret database was being used ‘to accumulate otherwise private data on non-targeted U.S. citizens for use at a future time.’”

The report further states, “According to a senior government official who served with high-level security clearances in five administrations, ‘There exists a database of Americans, who, often for the slightest and most trivial reason, are considered unfriendly, and who, in a time of panic, might be incarcerated. The database can identify and locate perceived “enemies of the state” almost instantaneously.’” At this point, Skousen noted, “And that is precisely why the census bureau took a GPS coordinate on every front door in America, secretly linking this to dissidents and their known addresses.”

This database of Americans who are perceived to be potential “enemies of the state” goes by the code name “Main Core.” And according to the report, “One knowledgeable source claims that 8 million Americans are now listed in Main Core as potentially suspect. In the event of a national emergency, these people could be subject to everything from heightened surveillance and tracking to direct questioning and possibly even detention.

“Officials at the Department of Homeland Security begin actively scrutinizing people who—for a tremendously broad set of reasons—have been flagged in Main Core as potential domestic threats [sound familiar?]. Some of these individuals might receive a letter or a phone call, others a request to register with local authorities. Still others might hear a knock on the door and find police or armed soldiers outside. In some instances, the authorities might just ask a few questions. Other suspects might be arrested and escorted to federal holding facilities, where they could be detained without counsel until the state of emergency is no longer in effect.”

The report also noted that former Assistant Attorney General James Comey “had concluded that the use of that ‘Main Core’ database compromised the legality of the overall NSA domestic surveillance project. ‘If Main Core does exist,’ says Philip Giraldi, a former CIA counterterrorism officer and an outspoken critic of the agency, ‘the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is its likely home. If a master list is being compiled, it would have to be in a place where there are no legal issues—the CIA and FBI would be restricted by oversight and accountability laws—so I suspect it is at DHS, which as far as I know operates with no such restraints.’ Giraldi notes that DHS already maintains a central list of suspected terrorists and has been freely adding people who pose no reasonable threat to domestic security.”

So, is there a secret list of 8 million “unfriendly” Americans kept by DHS (if there is, dear reader, you are probably on it!)? Does anyone reading this column doubt that our federal government is more than willing and capable of doing such a thing? All of us are quite familiar with the government’s “no fly” or “flagged” airline passenger list. I can personally attest to the authenticity of this list, as airport officials in San Antonio, Texas, told me that I’m on it. I also made it to the “list of three” that were named in the MIAC report (the other two were Ron Paul and Bob Barr). And now I am on the SPLC list of “patriots” (not a compliment in the SPLC lexicon). Wow! I never realize how popular I was! (With the exception of Ron Paul, I’m probably on more lists than anyone in America.)

Who would ever have thought that the day would come in America when to speak up for freedom, constitutional government, and the principles expressed by our Founding Fathers would land one on a government watch list? Well, that day is here, my friend! No doubt, the major media and federal government—in order to further ostracize patriotic, God-fearing Americans—will use the SPLC patriot hit list as a vehicle to carry our country further down the road of oppression.

But what the radical left fearmongers at the Southern Poverty Law Center fail to realize is that the more they try to marginalize and ostracize American patriots such as you and me, the more they isolate themselves from America’s future, because millions and millions of hard-working, God-fearing, liberty-loving Americans are not going to sit back and let Morris Dees and his cabal of Big Government elitists destroy the principles of freedom in our land.

So, people such as Morris Dees can put us on as many lists as they like; we will never let liberty die! And the more they try to demonize us, the more people will want to join with us. You see, freedom burns deep and strong in the hearts of real Americans. And that’s something the SPLC can’t extinguish—no matter how many lists it makes!

*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