Behind frequent protestations by public school officials about local control of the schools, a federal curriculum has been quietly imposed by law. All the pieces are now in place for this major goal of the Clinton Administration.

Elementary and secondary school education used to be organized around subjects such as reading, math, history, geography, language and science. While smatterings of those subjects are still taught, the focus has shifted from academic subjects to teaching attitudes, beliefs, values, themes, behaviors, and job skills.

This is indoctrination, not education. Leftwing professors write the textbooks and the teachers' unions control the public schools, so the ideology is what those groups deem politically correct. And it's all hiding behind the good conservative word "standards." Who could possibly be against standards?

Two of the three 1994 Bill Clinton laws, Goals 2000 which defines the goals and School-to-Work which prescribes the shift from academics to job skills, were touted as "voluntary." The third 1994 law, the appropriations reauthorization (known to many as H.R. 6), tied the knot, warning that schools would not get any federal money unless they conform to the other two laws.

In a remarkable inclusion of special-interest legislation, the third law named and funded a private organization, the Center for Civic Education (CCE), to develop the national standards for teaching civics and government. This cozy relationship was reconfirmed in the 2002 education law called "Leave No Child Behind" and means that CCE is empowered, with the force of federal law and a stream of taxpayers' money, to decide what is taught in our nation's schools about civics and government.

CCE produced a 180-page volume called "National Standards for Civics and Government," plus textbooks, teacher's guides and other materials for elementary, middle, and high school levels. This great quantity of words is short on facts and long on inculcating attitudes.

CCE's textbook called "We the People: the Citizen and the Constitution" admits a peculiar aversion to facts: "The primary purpose of the text is not to fill your head with a lot of facts about American history and geography. Knowledge of the facts is important but only insofar as it deepens your understanding of the American Constitutional system and its development."

"Deepens your understanding," that is, of a prescribed worldview without cluttering your mind with hard facts about American history and what's actually in the U.S. Constitution. For example, the fact that the U.S. Constitution contains a Second Amendment doesn't exist in the book called "Standards."

This is curious because, while the federal law was vague about the content of the standards CCE was empowered to write, the law was very specific in demanding instruction on the Bill of Rights. Many pages of "Standards" are devoted to the Bill of Rights, but funny thing, the Second Amendment is completely censored out.

The 180-pages of "Standards," of course, contains much that is informative, but the information is peripheral to the selling of a political agenda designed to change the student rather than educate him. The book admits that "Standards" is trying to teach "certain dispositions or traits of character."

One major theme is put-down of allegiance to national sovereignty. Professor Allen Quist of Bethany Lutheran College made a word count and discovered that the book contains only 8 references to national sovereignty, but 17 references to the environment, 42 references to diversity, and 42 to multiculturalism.

When "Standards" listed the seven "fundamental values" of the United States, national sovereignty didn't make the cut, but diversity did.

Six of the eight mentions of national sovereignty use the same curious wording: "The world is divided into nation-states that claim sovereignty over a defined territory and jurisdiction over everyone within it."

Do we only "claim" national sovereignty, or is it a historical fact that we won our national sovereignty in a War of Independence and we jolly well need it to protect ourselves against foreign aggressors. The words "divided into" imply that maybe it would be better if we were not "divided" into countries, phrasing that is a favorite of those who advocate global government.

CCE's "Standards" puts two government purposes on equivalent levels: "the protection of the rights of individuals and the promotion of the common good." The words "common good" are repeated over and over again in this book, but they are not in our Constitution.

"The common good" can mean whatever a totalitarian government wants it to mean. Our Founders never would have ranked "common good" as an equal value with our Creator-endowed individual rights.

The last page of "Standards" gives its final advice to the students: Citizens have "the ability to reaffirm or change fundamental constitutional values." Is that what a federal curriculum is all about-changing our constitutional values?

Editor's Note: "No Child Left Behind" (HR 1) gave the authority to the Department of Education to allocate funds to the CCE. CCE utilizes funds for the We The People Program described in this article. CCE also utilizes funds for a Cooperative Civic Education Exchange Program, which wrote the International Framework for Education in Democracy. This curriculum framework connects the dots from a national curriculum to one advocating world-citizenship and is analyzed in the next article.

 

Most Americans reject any possibility of a one-world government. We are a proud, patriotic and unified people - especially after the September 11th attacks on our nation's soil. We are THE leader of the world. We constitute a nation of immense wealth girded in capitalism and free markets, and we relish in sublime freedoms unparallel to any other country. But as our recent history has shown, knowing too little too late can be catastrophic. Perhaps internalizing the evidence of CCE's strategy to build a foundation for a one-world government in the minds of our children will catapult us all into the battle.

"No Child Left Behind" (HR 1) authorizes funds for an emerging CCE curriculum framework that overtly advocates a world without borders. This curriculum, called An International Framework for Education in Democracy (IFED) is currently under review and if implemented, ensures indoctrination of unexpecting young minds to principles of world citizenship and the cosmopolitan concept of a transnational distribution of labor while simultaneously desecrating the American mindset that has prospered America to be the most powerful nation in the world.

The most alarming section of IFED is entitled by the question: How does democracy shape the world and the world shape democracy? The bullet points are quotes from this section. (underline added)

• "Emerging view of the individual. The effect of the affinity of democratic and liberal understandings of the individual is an increasing tendency to conceive of persons as having a common identity owing to their status as equal and independent units regardless of their membership in any political community. This common identity has led to the proposition that it is possible to have 'world citizenship' based on democratic principles."
  
  The IFED advocates individuality as a bridge to a common identity with others as opposed to advocating citizenship, like American citizenship, as a bridge to a common identity with other Americans. The effect of redefining the basis of common identity blurs sovereign borders and sets the stage for introducing world citizenship.
  
• "Civil society. Liberal democracy encourages forms of association and cultural activity in which persons organize themselves and work together to achieve goals independent of government. Thus, there is no logical need for individuals, associations, or enterprises to be confined within the boundaries of nation-states states."
  
• "International economics and democratic citizenship. International transfer of labor and migration of workers, or transnational distribution of the tasks of production may promote a more cosmopolitan concept of citizenship through exposure of the citizen to greater ethnic or racial diversity."

The first generation inoculated by this curriculum will be able to conceptualize the possibility of a one-world government. Perhaps, the second IFED generation will politely tolerate notions of patriotism and American solidarity; respectfully appreciate the ideology of capitalism and free markets and their propensity to impact the world economy. It is upon this stronghold that the third IFED generation may emerge resolute that a one-world government is the only comprehensive solution to the world's ills and thus, dedicate their lives to implementing it. And by so doing, no child will be left behind…all will be forced to comply.

Sources: http://thomas.loc.gov (click on appropriate icons to HR 1) & http://www.civiced.org

WHAT YOU CAN DO: Urge your congressman to repeal the financial support for the CCE, its development, expansion and distribution of We The People Program.

 

According to Newsweek's Howard Fineman, it is the intention of the Democrat Party to launch an all-out political attack on conservative Christians during the next election cycle. Democrats will accuse the Republican Party of being out of the mainstream because it is under control of the "religious right," a force within America that mirrors the bigotry of the Taliban and does not "honor the ideals of tolerance-religious, sexual, racial, reproductive-at home." The New York Times is cooperating by referring to Islamic radicals as "the religious right."

As vicious as this seems at first glance, it should come as no surprise. For more than 40 years, the heathen left have successfully executed a systematic, step-by-step dismantlement of a structure of morals and values carefully put in place to protect the history, heritage and cultural identity of America.

Our books, movies, art, television and music are a unified chorus of smut and anti-social messages. We curse in public places; the media makes celebrities of serial murderers; our children are taught about condoms in third grade; the Boy Scouts are under attack to embrace atheists and homosexuals; the family is being legally undermined; churches are pressured to rewrite scriptures to accommodate those who are proud of their transgressions; religious apartheid is officially sanctioned and practiced by the government; and bewildered taxpayers are told they have no choice but to pay for liberal propaganda, blasphemous art and pornography on public television.

In his new book "The Death of the West," Pat Buchanan describes what has happened with these chilling words: "In half a lifetime, many Americans have seen their God dethroned, their heroes defiled, their culture polluted, their values assaulted, their country invaded, and themselves demonized as extremists and bigots for holding on to beliefs Americans have held for generations."

A few years ago, Dr. James Dobson, president of Focus on the Family, reminisced about the way America was in 1954 when he graduated from high school. In searching through the news archives, he came across a statement made by Earl Warren, chief justice of the Supreme Court. Chief Justice Warren, remembered as a liberal jurist, was quoted in Time magazine on 2/15/54: "I believe no one can read the history of our country without realizing that the Good Book and the spirit of the Savior have from the beginning been our guiding geniuses…. I believe the entire Bill of Rights came into being because of the knowledge our forefathers had of the Bible and their belief in it; freedom of belief, of expression, of assembly, of petition, the dignity of the individual, the sanctity of the home, equal justice under law, and the reservation of powers to the people…."

Less than 50 years later, if a nominee to the Supreme Court today said what Chief Justice Warren said, he would not have any chance at all of being nominated by the Senate. He would be considered too extreme to interpret the Constitution.

If a teacher in a public school in America today, in a general assembly or in a history class, were to say what Chief Justice Warrren said, that teacher would be labeled a mean-spirited racist bigot, accused of spewing hate in the classroom, and sent to "sensitivity" training for the purpose of erasing the completely unacceptable idea that there might be something unique or superior in the way the United States came into being.

In a larger sense, anything having to do with religion, particularly the Christian religion, has been treated like an unhealthy contamination, and systematically exorcised out of what has come to be called the public (as opposed to the private) sector. Unfortunately, essentially everything in the country has been declared to be in the "public" sector and hence subject to unconstrained state control.

Perhaps the greatest challenge facing America today is whether people of faith will allow themselves to be quarantined.

 

Democrats and Republicans don't agree on much these days, but the Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Democrat Bob Graham, and the Ranking Member, Republican Richard Shelby, concur that there are at least 100 al Qaeda operatives hiding in the United States. Graham says they pose an "immediate threat" to our security. Egyptian President Hosni Mubarek said virtually the same thing in the Washington Times (3/4/02), warning of terrorist sleeper cells in the U.S.

The magnitude of the problem confronting law enforcement officials searching for these killers-in-hiding is revealed by the Dept. of Justice. Spokesman Dan Nelson says that following the Sept. 11 attacks, U.S. authorities arrested 560 terror suspects. Some were released after investigations failed to turn up any evidence that would justify their continuing to be held. Nelson says 327 remain in detention and under investigation.

Of far greater concern is what Nelson says are "314,000 absconders," people who've been ordered deported but law enforcement can't find them. These are aliens in the U.S. illegally because they've violated their visa status. Nelson says deportations will increase as each case is processed. But with 314,000 "absconders," this is bound to be laborious and time-consuming. Can we afford to wait?

While waiting for the deportations to begin, perhaps something can be done about the training grounds of hate currently on American soil. The Washington Post has carried several stories on Islamic schools in the Washington area which teach Muslim children that "the day of Judgment can't come until Jesus Christ returns to the Earth, breaks the cross, and converts everyone to Islam, and until Muslims start attacking Jews." It's that last part that ought to be of concern.

The Post reports there are "about a dozen" of these schools between Baltimore and Richmond and 200 to 300 nationwide, with at least 30,000 students. Thousands of other students attend Islamic weekend schools, the Post reports. One of the schools profiled by the newspaper is the Islamic Saudi Academy, located in the Virginia suburbs of Washington. An 11th grade textbook at the school says one of the signs of the Day of Judgment will be that Muslims will fight and kill Jews, who will hide behind trees that say, "Oh Muslim, Oh Servant of God, here is a Jew hiding behind me. Come and kill him." The Saudi government subsidizes the school, whose role in educating students in extremist Wahabi brand of Islam has been widely reported.

It is time to be concerned. Any school-whether Muslim or white supremacist-that teaches hate and encourages violence should not be accredited by the state, and in fact, should be shut down. In the name of tolerance and academic freedom, we have allowed schools to proliferate that teach ideas antithetical to the American way of life and are a threat to the very existence of our country. This is sedition. Those who hate us are using our openness and good will against us.

We will continue to tolerate this at our peril. In fact, the peril is already here as demonstrated six months ago on September 11.

Just when parents and school districts thought that the TAAS was the only assessment test for Texas public school children, along comes the "No Child Left Behind" bill (HR 1), requiring a national assessment test.

According to the bill, any state wishing to receive federal grant money for education (the- old-carrot-on-the-stick trick), will be required to give the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) test, which "assesses samples of students in grades 4, 8 and 12 in various academic studies." Testing reading and math are required, with other subjects voluntary.

The NAEP has been around since 1969 and is billed as a "voluntary" academic achievement test. In reality, the assessment is two-thirds personal, demographic information gathering. "If the NAEP were available to parents, the public would demand that it be rewritten to focus on basic academic knowledge and to eliminate offensive propaganda that intrudes into the private lives and worldviews of families," writes Kimberly Geyer, Mars (PA) School Director, in an article to Pennsylvania parents and educators.

In addition, even though the test is "confidential," any branch of government and many corporations have total access to the NAEP questions and to the detailed data "to collect, cross tabulate, compare and report information…." The information is placed in a federal database, suggesting that children are tracked from grades 4-12 on their attitudinal and performance assessments, as well as their academic assessments.

The good news is that, even under HR 1, parents can opt their child out of the NAEP. Here are some pointers from Ms. Geyer for parents who are concerned about their children participating in intrusive government assessments:

1. Never agree to let your child participate in surveys. It is not the business of schools or the federal government to be collecting data on your child or your family.
   
2. Recognize that "confidential" does not mean "anonymous." Do not be fooled into thinking that no one will have access to "confidential" data.
   
3. Include a "Parental Informed Consent Notice" in your child's file at school. The letter would serve notice that you require a five-day prior notification of any statewide test or assessment being given to your child. It would also serve notice that you refuse permission for your child to participate in any survey without your consent.
   
4. Refuse to have your child participate in the national NAEP if he/she is selected. Parents do not have to give a reason as to why and school districts are not permitted to ask for explanations. Simply send a written excuse to the school district building principal stating your child will not be participating in the NAEP.

Sources: The Nation's Report Card; U.S. Department of Education, Texas State Information: No Child Left Behind; and NAEP by Kimberly Geyer, Mars School Director, Valencia, PA. geycon@stargate.net

The one issue that generates more complaints to my office than any other is the income tax. For most people, their income tax return represents their most meaningful interaction with the federal government. Every April, Americans confess to the IRS their actions of the past year in excruciating detail. It's an annual ritual guaranteed to elicit strong feelings of disgust. Thanks to the deception of withholding taxes, April is the only time of the year when most people realize how much money they really send to the federal government.

What do Americans have to say about the income tax? First and foremost, they think federal tax laws are far too complex. They are tired of the incomprehensible rules, schedules, and forms that take hours to complete. They believe income taxes should be much simpler and fairer. They resent the arbitrary power the IRS has over their lives, especially when it is so difficult to calculate one's tax liability. Of course, they also think taxes are too high, that government wastes taxpayer dollars with excessive and unwise spending. In short, Americans want reform.

Yet, tax reform is not a key issue in most elections. Why no push for a massive overhaul of the tax system?

The short answer, painful as it may be, is that Congress and the American people do not share the same goals. The real enemy of tax reform is the spending culture in Washington. Let me repeat, we will never have tax reform until Congress changes its spending habits. The reform rhetoric, regardless of which party it comes from, never changes the reality that federal spending grows every year. Congress spent $1.7 trillion in the last Clinton budget; the 2001 budget was $2 trillion (Ed. Note: President Bush's proposed federal budget for fiscal year 2003 is $2.1 trillion). Once created, no spending program is ever eliminated.

It is useless to discuss tax reform without spending reform. Who wants a 40% flat tax? Who wants a national sales tax if it adds 50% to the retail price of everything we buy? In other words, why change the tax structure if spending stays the same? Once we accept that Congress needs $2 trillion from us, the question is how it will be collected. The current answer is the labyrinthine tax code, which pits taxpayers against each other in a political scramble to make sure the other guy pays. The truth is that Congress does not need $2 trillion, and it is obscene that such a sum is even considered. When the federal government is held to its constitutionally limited functions, tax reform will take care of itself.

Other oppressive tax regimes have met their demise in the past, and I fear our government may be as arrogant and wasteful as any in history. Perhaps America is ready to reclaim the proud tax-fighting heritage of our Founding Fathers. I suggest the 2002 ballot box as the first battlefield. Those who support higher taxes and spending deserve to be the first casualties.

Editor's Note: TEF President Cathie Adams recently attended a UN conference on global taxation in Monterrey, Mexico and would welcome an opportunity to speak to your group on this important subject. Call our office to set up a date.

EAGLE CLIFF NOTES

CLASH OF CIVILIZATIONS
A recent Gallup Poll shows the great divide that exists between the Muslim and Western worlds. The Gallup organization polled almost 10,000 Muslims in nine nations. A remarkable 77% said U.S. military actions in Afghanistan were not morally justified; 61% rejected as false the fact that Arab terrorists were responsible for the Sept. 11 attacks; and large majorities in all countries polled harbored an unfavorable opinion of the U.S. But perhaps the most shocking result was that nearly 40% of Kuwaitis-the very people we liberated from Iraq in 1991-said the attack on us was justified! This poll shows the futility of trying to change our foreign policy to win over Muslim public opinion.
Source: Washington Update, 2/28/02 & Gary Bauer fax, 2/28/02

"FUNCTION CREEP"
A Florida company wants to market perhaps the most controversial security measure ever devised: a computer ID chip that can be embedded under the skin. Privacy advocates object, but the idea's backers say it provides almost foolproof protection for airports, nuclear facilities, and other strategic sites. The VeriChip is about the size of a grain of rice, hard to remove and difficult to counterfeit. Designers plan to ask the FDA for permission to sell the VeriChip, which they plan to market on the condition that it remain voluntary. But Lee Tien, an attorney for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, complained that unscrupulous people could begin using it for dangerous purposes. "It's what we call a function creep," he said. "At first the device is used for applications we all agree are good but then it slowly is used for more than it was intended."
Source: World, 3/9/02

CALMER SEAS
Dutch health officials sunk the efforts of a feminist group to perform offshore abortions. Women-on-Waves, an Amsterdam-based foundation, could not pass health and safety inspections for a fishing trawler it hoped to convert into an abortion clinic. The group planned to use the vessel just off the coasts of countries where abortion is illegal.
Source: World, 2/23/02

HYPOCRITICAL OATH
For years, those embarking on the medical profession have sworn to uphold a specific standard of ethics in the Hippocrates oath, promising to "do no harm." The problem, though, to today's medical establishment is that the oath is pro-life and forbids euthanasia and abortion. As a result, many medical schools leave part of it out or drop the oath altogether. Now, a panel of physicians from around the world have published a set of principles to guide the medical profession "in the new millennium." Called "The Charter on Medical Professionalism," it carefully avoids the language of morality and is more of a corporate mission statement in line with doctors' new status as HMO workers, as opposed to following a divinely ordained calling. How different from the Hippocratic pledge, "With purity and holiness I will pass my life and practice my art."
Source: Columnist Gene Edward Veith, "Hypocritical Oath, World, 3/9/02