THE CHURCH MILITANT
Ephesians 5:11-"And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather expose them". This Christian News Blog maintains a one stop resource of current news and reports of its own related to church, moral, spiritual, and related political issues, plus articles, and postings from other online discernment ministries, and media which share the aims to obey the biblical commands to shed light on and refute error, heresy, apostasy, cults, and spiritual abuse.
Because there’s no threat, you see, because Islam is peace, don’t you know?
“Schumer slams Obama budget cuts to anti-terror funds,” Associated Press, February 14, 2016 (thanks to Lookmann):
NEW YORK (AP) — Sen. Charles Schumer is slamming a White House proposal that would reduce funding for counter terrorism programs across the country by nearly $300 million.
The New York Democrat is pushing President Barack Obama to reconsider the cuts.
Schumer notes that the cuts to the Urban Area Security Initiative were included in the proposed 2017 budget released last week by the White House. The initiative helps fund programs in cities across the U.S. to prevent extremist attacks, or respond to and recover from them. The proposed budget would cut the funding from $600 million to $330 million.
“These proposed cuts are ill-advised and ill-timed and they must be reversed. End of story,” Schumer said in a statement to The Associated Press. “In light of recent attacks in Paris and San Bernardino, and the vow by our extremist enemies to launch more attacks on our shores, it makes no sense to propose cuts to vital terror-prevention programs like UASI.”
Schumer, who is expected to hold a news conference Sunday to decry the cuts, said the program is necessary to adequately fund counter terrorism programs in high-density urban areas like New York City.
“New York City remains terror target number one and the NYPD relies on these programs to keep us safe,” he said….
THE ARROGANCE OF NEW ENGLAND'S EDUCATED "PROGRESSIVE" ELITE DESTROYS FUNDAMENTAL CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS AT HARVARD ISSUING DICTATES TO STUDENTS RESEMBLES GOD-LIKE HINDU ATTRIBUTES, TOTALLY UN-AMERICAN; INCOMPATIBLE WITH AMERICAN VALUES
(Freedom.news) The political Left is rife with social change artists – men and women who, for reasons known only to them, believe their sole purpose in life is to impose their views on the masses, and to do so, hypocritically, under the pretense of liberty.
That’s the only way to explain why undergrad Harvard College Dean Rakesh Khurana would want to make his next mission in life to force the school’s all-male clubs to accept females, despite criticism that doing so is a blatant violation of the First Amendment’s freedom of association clause.
As reported by the Washington Free Beacon on Monday:
The dean delivered a “veiled threat” to graduate members of the clubs during a closed-door meeting last fall that “students who joined any of the clubs would be subject to expulsion,” one alumnus and graduate member of a final club said.
“He has as much as said, ‘This is what we foresee,’” the alumnus continued. “If the clubs don’t agree to these changes, harsher things will happen.”
The clubs are located off-campus and operate much like fraternities, but as the alumnus said, what Dean Khurana appears to be doing is implementing the “Amherst option,” a reference to the manner in which Amherst College banned off-campus sororities and frat houses.
So in other words at Amherst, and now Harvard, the freedom to associate with whom you want is no longer a constitutional right but instead one that is subject to the whims of a nanny statist, else your freedom to associate be banned altogether. Only the Left – which ironically decries as “right-wing extremism” any act intended to actually support and defend the Constitution’s founding principles – can justify such authoritarianism.
And Khurana attempts to do so. As the WFB noted, Khurana is claiming such gender-specific clubs are exclusive and elitist – at one of the most exclusive, elitist universities on the planet.
But even if they are “exclusive” and “elitist,” so what? The First Amendment’s “freedom of association” clause doesn’t come with exclusivity or elitism caveats.
He also says such clubs are not “appropriate” for Harvard, while failing to disclose how it is that he, and only he, is uniquely qualified to reach such a conclusion. Are Harvard students not smart enough to figure out for themselves what is and is not “appropriate” for them – or do they need Leftists like Khurana to decide for them?
In school publications Khurana has employed another tactic of the liberty-stealing Left – vagueness – when asked about his intentions. The WFB noted further:
Khurana has been vague in his public statements about the clubs, saying that nothing is “off the table” when it comes to compelling them to accept women. He would not rule out the possibility that administrators will make it against school rules to join the all-male final clubs in an interview with the Crimson.
More hypocrisy: It isn’t clear if Khurana is going to force all-women final clubs to accept males – or whether they he will go even further and just impose co-ed locker and shower room policies too
You know, to be more “inclusive.”
A couple of the final clubs have already acceded to this militant Leftism, the WFB noted. Two of the eight all-male final clubs, Spee Club and the Fox Club, say they will now accept female members, with the latter organization tellingThe Crimson that it was forced to do so by the administration. [Shortly after deciding to accept women, the 117-year-old club shut its doors for good].
“Harvard University has applied tremendous pressure on all of the clubs to go co-ed. We now believe that our individual reputations and careers, as well as the reputation, autonomy and existence of the Fox Club going forward, are at serious risk if we do not act by November 1,” the club’s undergraduate officers wrote in an October letter to graduates.
In addition, the letter read that future association with gender-specific clubs will likely result in expulsion.
“Khurana has made it clear that when the University says final clubs must go co-ed … the University will promulgate a standardized plan mandating a specific process that all non-coed clubs must follow. Additionally, any student affiliated with a non-compliant club will likely be required to disaffiliate from that club in order to remain enrolled at Harvard,” the letter read.
It should be clear by now to any fair observer of modern American society and politics that the political Left has evolved (or devolved, depending on how you look at it) into a movement that is, frankly, not only anathema to our founding principles but to Americans’ culture and way of life. When something offends the sensibilities of a Leftist, their knee-jerk response is to banish it from existence – an act of intolerance done in the name of “being tolerant.”
Living in America does not require that you approve of everything someone else does, and our Constitution, when observed, does not command your approval. Rather, it does require your understanding of said action or speech or viewpoint as an individual right and not one that is subject to someone else’s preference or manipulation.
Increasingly, however, academic Leftists who inhabit our institutions of higher learning seem to have either forgotten these principles or, in their arrogance, have dismissed them. We believe it is probably the latter.
EXCERPTS:"Pryor was raised in a devoutly Roman Catholic family. He and his siblings attended McGill-Toolen Catholic High School in Mobile. Pryor also received national attention in 2003 when he called for the removal of Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore, who had disobeyed a federal court order to remove a Ten Commandments monument from the Alabama Judicial Building. Pryor said that although he agreed with the propriety of displaying the Ten Commandments in a courthouse, he was bound to follow the court order and uphold the rule of law. Pryor personally prosecuted Moore for violations of the Canons of Judicial Ethics, and the Alabama Court of the Judiciary unanimously removed Moore from office."
CHARLESTON, S.C. — During Saturday night’s Republican presidential debate in South Carolina, Donald Trump said that if he were to nominate a judge to replace Justice Antonin Scalia, he would consider Diane Sykes or Bill Pryor, the latter of which prosecuted “Ten Commandments Judge” Roy Moore.
“If I were president now, I would certainly want to try and nominate a justice. And I’m absolutely sure that president Obama will try and do it,” he said in light of Scalia’s sudden death Friday night. “I hope that our Senate, Mitch and the entire group, is going to be able to do something about it in terms of delay.”
“We could have a Diane Sykes or a Bill Pryor,” he added, providing examples of who he would nominate if he were president. “We have some fantastic people.”
Bill Pryor, the former attorney general of Alabama, prosecuted Roy Moore in 2003 over his refusal to remove a Ten Commandments monument from the rotunda of the Alabama Supreme Court. Pryor’s comments to Moore during his trial focused more on Moore’s refusal to stop acknowledging God as chief justice.
“[Y]our understanding is that the federal court ordered that you could not acknowledge God; isn’t that right?” Pryor asked. “And if you resume your duties as chief justice after this proceeding, you will continue to acknowledge God as you have testified that you would today?”
“That’s right,” Moore replied.
“No matter what any other official says?” Pryor asked.
“Absolutely,” Moore stated. “Let me clarify that. Without an acknowledgment of God, I cannot do my duties. I must acknowledge God. It says so in the Constitution of Alabama. It says so in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. It says so in everything I have read.”
“The only point I am trying to clarify, Mr. Chief Justice, is not why, but only that, in fact, if you do resume your duties as chief justice, you will continue to do that without regard to what any other official says; isn’t that right?” Pryor asked.
As Moore continued to stand his ground, he was ordered by Pryor to be “removed from his position of Supreme Court justice of Alabama.” Moore was re-elected to serve as chief justice in 2012.
CONTINUED BELOW AFTER VIDEO:
Roy Moore cross-examined for acknowledging God
Uploaded on Jan 8, 2007
www.morallaw.org. On November 12, 2003, Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore was put on trial by a state ethics panel for not removing a Ten Commandments monument from the Alabama Judicial Building when a federal court ordered him to. This video clip shows (1) part of his cross-examination by then-Attorney General Bill Pryor and (2) the verdict read November 13, 2003.
“The defunding law excludes Planned Parenthood from Medicaid for a reason unrelated to its fitness to provide medical services, violating its patients’ statutory right to obtain medical care from the qualified provider of their choice,” Sykes wrote.
She then stressed the court’s belief in the “right” to abortion, and advised that the state must be careful to not indirectly limit access to abortion while simultaneously withholding taxpayer funds from known abortion providers.
“It is settled law that the government’s refusal to subsidize abortion does not impermissibly burden a woman’s right to obtain an abortion,” Sykes stated. “If a ban on public funding for abortion does not directly violate the abortion right, then Indiana’s ban on other forms of public subsidy for abortion providers cannot be an unconstitutional condition that indirectly violates the right.”
Trump has also stated in the past that his sister, Judge Maryanne Trump Barry, who serves on the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, would make a “phenomenal” Supreme Court justice. Barry has issued pro-abortion rulings, stating regarding a New Jersey law that “a woman’s constitutional right to obtain an abortion would be impermissibly chilled.”
“I think she’d be phenomenal,” Trump told Bloomberg in August. “I think she’d be one of the best. But frankly, we’d have to rule that out.”
TED & RAPHAEL CRUZ "HEARD FROM THE LORD" AFTER LONG PRAYER
TED CRUZ, FORMER CANADIAN, NOT NATIVE BORN CITIZEN AS FOUNDERS INTENDED, PURPORTS TO DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION WITH THE HELP OF HERETICAL WORD OF FAITH FOLLOWERS?
Rev. Rafael Cruz - Reclaiming America
Published on Jan 21, 2016
Rev. Rafael Cruz ministering at Kenneth Copeland Ministries Ministers' Conference. PORTRAYS HIMSELF & SON TED AS PRO LIFE, PRO TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE, ANTI-SOCIALIST, BUT BYPASSES ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION AMNESTY ISSUE
An Interview with Rafael Cruz, Father of Sen. Ted Cruz by Dr. Michael Brown, another charismatic: "A WORD CAME FROM THE LORD"
Kenneth Copeland Says
Ted Cruz ‘Called and Anointed’ for Presidency
at Conference With Raphael Cruz
"WORD OF FAITH" CHARISMATICS LOOK FORWARD TO A "GREAT AWAKENING" IF AMERICA WAKES UP,
FORT WORTH, Texas — Raphael Cruz, the father of Republican presidential candidate Ted Cruz, recently spoke at a minister’s conference hosted by Texas prosperity preacher Kenneth Copeland, during which time Copeland declared Cruz to be “called and anointed” for the presidency.
Cruz appeared at the Jan. 19 KCM Minister’s Conference in Fort Worth, where he spoke about the biblical standards for voting and the need to reclaim America for Christ.
“If the wicked are in authority, they are going to legislate their wicked brand of morality,” he proclaimed.
Prior to taking the stage, Copeland declared in his introduction of Cruz, “I believe with all my heart that his son is called and anointed to be the next president of the United States.”
“To God be all the glory. It’s an honor to be here with you,” Cruz said, patting Copeland’s arm, “and with all of you people here.”
At the end of his teaching, Copeland asked Cruz to outline how the family spent time in prayer before his son announced his candidacy for office. Cruz said that his son had spent six months praying, and recalled the day that the family gathered in his pastor’s office praying for two hours.
“I remember the final word came from Ted’s wife, from Heidi, and the word from the Lord was, ‘Seek My face, not My Hand,'” he stated. “[I]t was as if a cloud of the Holy Spirit descended on that room. And all of a sudden we were all worshiping.”
“And the words that came out from Ted’s mouth were, ‘Here am I, Lord, use me. Let Your will be done,'” Cruz outlined. “It was total brokenness, and I’ll tell you, I believe that God has raised him up for such a time as this.”
Copeland and other word of faith preachers, such as Jerry Saville and Keith Moore, laid hands on Cruz and prayed for strength and boldness for the preacher. Copeland’s son-in-law George Pearsons then prayed that prophesies of a “new birth” of the nation would come to pass, where prayer would return to schools and abortion abolished.
As previously reported, around the same time that Copeland asserted that Cruz was “called and anointed” by God to be president, a group of 50 African American pastors gathered in Philadelphia to lay hands on Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton to “decree and declare the favor of the Lord” on her for the presidency.
In November, leadership and motivational speaker Lance Wallnau declared that Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump had been given “an anointing for the mantle of government.”
“God has given this man an anointing for the mantle of government in the United States and he will prosper,” Wallnau asserted.
Copeland was also among those present in October when over 30 members of the clergy met with Trump at his New York City tower and laid hands on him to pray for his potential presidency.
“[W]e ask you today to give this man your wisdom, boldly. Make sure and certain that he hears You. Manifest Yourself to him,” he prayed. “And we thank You and praise You for a bold man, a strong man and an obedient man.”
At last, the missing piece that links the viral hatred of Jews and Zionism in the Arab world today to the Arabs and Nazis of 1933. visit: www.secularzionist.com for more great videos and commentary
Here is a quoted excerpt from: Das Biber: “..Have you read “Mein Kampf”? I have! Have you read the Koran? I have! In dealing with both, it is clear that Hitler was a Muslim. He has dealt with Islam, he had the same ideas of community and family struggle as Muslims. Hitler was one of us, “says Tarik S. The 20-year-old Turk is a Hitler Jew-hater and supporter. For him, it is obvious that Adolf Hitler was a Muslim. “Why do you think Hitler has done more for the Muslims than probably any other single Muslim has done? Because he loved Muslims, he wanted to be one of them, and therefore converted to Islam.. “
“..In boundless love as a Muslim and as a man, I read through the passage which tells us how Allah at last rose in his might and seized the scourge to drive out the temple of the brood of vipers and adders..”
– Adolph Hitler | Speech on 14 October 1941
"FEDERAL AGENCY FOR POLITICAL EDUCATION";
THE GERMAN PROPAGANDA/BRAINWASHING AGENCY PRESENTS:
IN GERMAN, WITH ENGLISH SUBTITLES:
"My Jihad means being humanitarian and helping others"- Chilling German Political Educational Video
Published on Feb 11, 2016
The German Federal Agency for Political Education has released a video explaining the origins and meaning of Jihad. According to the taxpayer funded program, Jihad historically means protecting Islam against foreign attacks, standing up for free speech and strong education, being humanitarian, be socially responsible and progressive, solve conflicts through debates, tolerate people who think different and reaching out a helping hand, even to the cold, hateful and intolerant people they have to experience in the West. According to the program, the highest goal in personal Jihad is to peacefully coexist with others and do as much good as possible.
GERMANY IN DENIAL AT TAXPAYER EXPENSE:
THE WHITEWASH OF ISLAM IN 2016-REMINISCENT OF HITLER'S FOND RELATIONS WITH MUSLIM LEADERS
COULD MERKEL HAVE NAZI ROOTS?
Germany issues “Mein Jihad” video to claim jihad isn’t so bad
We saw this in the U.S. several years ago, with Hamas-linked CAIR’s brutally cynical “My Jihad” ad campaign, featuring a series of Muslims saying that their jihad consisted of things such as taking the kids to school and going to the gym regularly. The simple fact is that the word “jihad” in Arabic means “struggle,” and covers a whole range of struggles large and small, but the primary meaning of “jihad” in Islamic law is warfare against and subjugation of unbelievers. If the woman in the video thinks that her jihad is going to college and studying and being kind to people, that doesn’t negate the fact that other Muslims think that their jihad is killing non-Muslims. The German government should realize that some Muslims seeing jihad in a benign way does absolutely nothing to stop the Muslims who don’t.
The German government should be issuing videos alerting Germans to the meaning of jihad that endangers them, not trying to render its population complacent about a threat to their very lives. What on earth could be compelling it to do that? Why have Merkel and her cohorts become essentially treasonous in the face of the jihad threat?
“Struggle” in German is kampf. Why didn’t they title this video “Mein Kampf”?
“German Gov’t Launches ‘Mein Jihad’ Video To Kill Prejudice Against Word [VIDEO],” by Jacob Bojesson, Daily Caller, February 12, 2016:
The German government has released a video titled “Mein Jihad” to put a positive spin on the word often associated with radical Islam.
The video’s title resembles the name of Adolf Hitler’s autobiography “Mein Kampf,” German for “My Struggle,” and even starts off by explaining that “jihad” literally translates to “kampf” in German.
The video then goes on to explain that most Islamic scholars agree that jihad hasn’t been around since the 16th century, and that it is “not a license for unrestricted killing.”
The woman behind the video, a German Muslim girl, also describes how her jihad starts “by getting up in the morning and following the call to prayer.”…
https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default... Big brother wants to be called Big Daddy now. Paul Joseph Watson writes The U.S. Department of Education and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has published a draft document which outlines a plan that will treat families as “equal partners” in the raising of children, opening the door for government intrusion at all levels. The document states “The first step in systemically embedding effective family engagement practices in educational settings is to establish a culture where families are seen as assets and partners in children’s development, learning and wellness. The first two PRINCIPLES OF EFFECTIVE FAMILY ENGAGEMENT PRACTICES state
1. Create continuity for children and families. Implement a vision for family engagement that begins prenatally and continues across settings and throughout a child’s developmental and educational experiences.
2. Value equal partnerships between families and professionals. Combine professional expertise with familial expertise to promote shared learning and responsibility for children’s healthy development, learning and wellness. Encourage two-way communication by valuing family input on all aspects of the child’s life and development, including their culture, traditions, and home language.
Principal number 4 states prioritize engagement around children’s social emotional and behavioral health. Engage families around children’s social emotional and behavioral health. Ensure constant monitoring and communication regarding children’s social emotional and behavioral health. Ensure that children’s social emotional and behavioral needs are met and that families and staff are connected with relevant community partners, such as early childhood mental health consultants and children’s medical homes.
The paper describes how government employees will intervene to provide, “monitoring goals for the children at home and the classroom,” and that if parents are failing to meet the standards set, “evidence-based parenting interventions” will be made to, “ensure that children’s social-emotional and behavioral needs are met.”
Will there be home visits you ask? The document states “Home Visits: To support ongoing relationship building with families, programs and schools should conduct periodic home visits so that teachers and families can get to know each other and communicate about children’s goals, strengths, challenges, and progress. If home visits are not possible for all families, schools or programs should require that teachers or providers and families communicate at the beginning of the year to ensure that the relationship is started in a positive way.
BRAVE NEW WORLD: GOV Plans Home Visits to Check Compliance
Published on Feb 12, 2016
The federal government is seeking to create a new bureaucracy that would intervene in family life and could even see state-appointed monitors conduct routine home visits to assess a child’s well-being.
Gov't Plan To Destroy The Family Exposed
Govt Announce Your Kids Belong To Them Now!
Published on Feb 13, 2016
The U.S. Department of Education and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has published a draft document which outlines a plan that will treat families as “equal partners” in the raising of children, opening the door for government intrusion at all levels. http://www.infowars.com/feds-push-new...
FEDS PUSH NEW PLAN FOR HOME VISITS TO CHECK ON PARENTS
The federal government is seeking to create a new bureaucracy that would intervene in family life and could even see state-appointed monitors conduct routine home visits to assess a child’s well-being.
The U.S. Department of Education and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has published adraft documentwhich outlines a plan that will treat families as “equal partners” in the raising of children, opening the door for government intrusion at all levels.
The paper describes how government employees will intervene to provide, “monitoring goals for the children at home and the classroom,” and that if parents are failing to meet the standards set, “evidence-based parenting interventions” will be made to, “ensure that children’s social-emotional and behavioral needs are met.”
The document reveals how the state will help oversee, “constant monitoring and communication regarding children’s social-emotional and behavioral health.”
The program bears the hallmarks of acontroversial scheme in Scotland, set to take effect later this year, under which a “shadow parent” appointed by the government would monitor the upbringing of every child until the age of 18.
“The document argues that Big Brother needs to know about essentially everything, for the supposed benefit of the child it wants to “partner” in caring for,”writes Alex Newman. “Citing “research,” the policy statement claims that “the institutions where children learn cannot ignore family wellness if they want to … fulfill their mission to prepare children for school and academic success.” In other words, every aspect of family life is now fair game under the pretext of checking “family wellness.”
The document also extends the understanding of the word “family,” to include, “all the people who play a role in the child’s life,” a definition that could include not only teachers but government monitors.
In arelated development, the federal government is pushing for a task force to oversee a program under which pediatricians and doctors would, “screen all students over 12 years old regularly for depression and issue prescriptions or treatment as necessary.”
The program would increase the likelihood of teenagers being given dangerous antidepressant drugs such as Prozac and Lexapro.
The idea of children belonging not just to their parents but to a “community” that involves the state is a common theme of collectivist thinking.
That notion was promoted in the video below from 2013 featuring MSNBC host Melissa Harris-Perry, in which she asserted, “We have to break through our private idea that kids belong to their parents or kids belong to their families.”
Big Brother wants to be an “equal partner” with American parents in the raising of their own children, starting before they are even born. He wants to send his agents to your house for “home visits,” too. Believe it or not, two powerful arms of Obama administration, the U.S. Department of Education and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), explicitly say so themselves.
In a draft policy statement on “family engagement,” the two unconstitutional bureaucracies openly state their joint position: families are “equal partners” in everything from children's “development” and “education” to their “wellness across all settings.” Virtually no area of family life, including the health and “mental health” of parents, as well as a family's “attitudes” and even its “housing,” would be free from government intrusion under the government's Orwellian vision. Even vague notions of “family wellness,” as defined by bureaucrats in Washington, D.C., would be put under a government microscope. "Parenting interventions" will be used to ensure compliance.
“It is the position of the Departments [of HHS and Education] that all early childhood programs and schools recognize families as equal partners in improving children’s development, learning and wellness across all settings, and over the course of their children’s developmental and educational experiences,” reads the draft policy. And it gets even more bizarre: As defined in the document, family means “all the people who play a role in a child’s life and interact with a child’s early childhood program or school.”
To advance the “goal” of turning families into “equal partners,” the joint policy statement by the two federal bureaucracies provides “recommendations” to, and highlights resources for, state and local governments. The document argues that Big Brother needs to know about essentially everything, for the supposed benefit of the child it wants to “partner” in caring for. Citing “research,” the policy statement claims that “the institutions where children learn cannot ignore family wellness if they want to ... fulfill their mission to prepare children for school and academic success.” In other words, every aspect of family life is now fair game under the pretext of checking “family wellness.”
While government usurpation of parental rights and responsibilities is hardly a new phenomenon, the Obama administration has pushed the agenda hard. Citing Obama's so-called “My Brother's Keeper” scheme, the document also touts ensuring that “children are learning across settings and that all adults who teach and care for them are strong partners with shared expectations and aligned strategies.” Thinking that Big Brother is going to align its “strategies” and “expectations” to those of parents — rather than the other way around — is naïve at best.
The “principles” underlying the agenda are spelled out explicitly, including “equal partnerships between families and professionals.” In fact, the paper calls for promoting “shared responsibility” between government “professionals” and families “for children's healthy development, learning and wellness.” The paper also calls for “jointly” developing and monitoring goals for the children at home and the classroom, with government employees told to “engage parents as capable, competent partners.”
Big Psychiatry will also play a major role. “Ensure constant monitoring and communication regarding children’s social-emotional and behavioral health,” the document demands. “Ensure that children’s social-emotional and behavioral needs are met and that families and staff are connected with relevant community partners, such as early childhood mental health consultants and children’s medical homes.” In the policy statement's “recommendations” for states — much of which will be imposed through federal bribes — state governments are told to “expand early childhood mental health consultation efforts.”
There are lots of “recommendations” — nudge nudge, wink wink — for local governments, too. If parent “partners” are not partnering in a way approved of by Big Brother, for example, local officials should “identify supports that will be offered to parents such as evidence-based parenting interventions.” By interventions, they mean exactly what you think they mean. Local arms of Big Brother should also seek out “community partners” that can “provide comprehensive services, such as health, mental health, or housing assistance to meet families’ basic needs,” the document explains.
The Obama administration also wants to make sure that Big Brother's “partners” are being regularly checked up on — even at their homes. The document calls for various government programs to visit your house. Seriously. “To support ongoing relationship building with families, programs and schools should conduct periodic home visits so that teachers and families can get to know each other and communicate about children’s goals, strengths, challenges, and progress,” the policy statement says, adding that if home visits are not possible for “all families,” other requirements should be imposed.
The document also calls on schools to “assess families' needs and wants,” and even to provide training for parents on how to raise their children. Indeed, every aspect of parents' lives is in the cross hairs. “It is important that LEAs [local education agencies], schools and programs have a strategy for supporting family well being,” the Obama administration argues. “LEAs, schools and programs can support family well being through school social workers, by implementing community schools models or approaches, or using family support staff and mental health consultants.”
At first glance, the Obama administration policy document appears to be merely about “engaging families” in the raising of their own children. Indeed, there is much in the document that, if it were not coming from a federal government that is increasingly out of control and cannot even balance a budget, much less raise children, might sound innocent enough. For instance, the policy statement refers to parents as the children's “first and most important teachers, advocates, and nurturers.” What it implies, though, is that Big Brother is also going to play the role of “advocate” and “nurturer” to your children. Perhaps Big Brother can provide hugs and bed-time stories soon, too.
In fact, throughout the document, it becomes brazenly clear that federal bureaucrats are starting from the false assumption that Big Brother is in charge of raising children, and that parents may be called upon to help out as “partners.” It also purports to provide justification for governments to pry into every aspect of family life — an extraordinarily dangerous proposition that is a hallmark of totalitarian governments. The mindset evidenced throughout the document is beyond paternalistic and condescending to parents.
So far, the joint policy statement by Obama's HHS and Education Department has flown largely under the radar. But as word spreads, critics are expressing outrage about Big Brother's accelerating intrusions into family life and child rearing. E-mails blasting the scheme have been spreading rapidly among education researchers. In a post about the policy headlined “Marxist Nanny State Coming for the Family,” education researcher Betsy Kraus noted that with “Early Childhood Education” now written into the recently approved Obama-GOP “education” bill known as the Every Student Succeeds Act, the American family is in the government's cross hairs. She also cited various extremist quotes by prominent psychiatrists illustrating just how dangerous the agenda truly is.
One furious mother, meanwhile, citing her Catholic faith and the U.S. Constitution's limits on federal power, compared the proposed governmental usurpation of parental authority in children's “development” to what occurs under communist dictatorships. “I am a Catholic and my rights and duties as a Catholic parent are to educate my children and that I am only a cooperator of that education with the love of God the Creator, NOT with the government, federal or state,” wrote the mother, Sara Wood, in a letter that has been widely circulated among education researchers and activists via the Internet.
Also blasting the joint policy statement was The People, LLC, a constitutionally focused activist and watchdog group that has dealt extensively with education and parental rights at the state and local level and has been successful in drafting laws recognizing and protecting parental rights in education. “Grants such as those related to this policy have been incentivizing states since the inception of the Maternal and Child Health Services Block Grant,” said co-founder Angela Alef. “Up to now, the effect of these grants has been realized within the population receiving childcare vouchers/assistance. With the continued expansion of the 'money-following-the-child' policies of Education Reform, such interference in parental authority will be realized across all populations unless a state-level fight is waged by citizens.”
In a statement provided to The New American, Alef cited a 2011 meeting of the Louisiana Department of Education's Early Education Supervisors to illustrate the point. She said that “concern was expressed there” that there would be “insufficient monitoring of children” whose parents decided against enrolling their pre-K-aged children in school. “The solution posed by the session leader was that, 'at some point, obviously, parents will have to be assessed,'” Alef recalled. The latest policy statement by the Department of Health and Human Services, she added, “can only be viewed as continuing the effort to standardize our families — one child at a time.”
It was not immediately clear when the policy draft was released, nor what the current status of it is. The document remains online at the federal government's website. It appears to have been put out during or after the fall of 2015. Nobody answered the phone at the agency when contacted by The New American on Wednesday to ask about the policy. In its press section, though, the department was boasting of federal agencies “joining forces” to create a new “center” that will “support the Obama administration’s goal of expanding access to high-quality early care, education, and home visiting for all young children.” (Emphasis added.) It said the goals would be accomplished through, among other means, providing “help” to states as well as “child care centers, preschools, and home visiting programs.”
Admittedly, a major part of the problem is that many parents have bought into the notion that they can, or even should, hand over their children to government “professionals” and “experts” to be raised, monitored, tracked, manipulated, and “developed.” But Big Brother has certainly played a giant role in encouraging that dangerous idea, most recently illustrated in the policy statement referring to families as “equal partners” in child rearing. Even setting aside the fact that the federal government has zero constitutional authority to meddle in child rearing or education, history suggests the results could be tragic. The American people must resist Big Brother's unwanted and unconstitutional advances at every level of government. ______________________________________________________
