CONTENTS: (1) MOM EXPOSES Agenda Profs! (2) Letter to Congress Reps on TIA! Save Our Fourth Amendment! (3) URL Link to MEDIA EXPOSED Video! WOW! (4) DEATH to BILL OF RIGHTS by PATRIOT 2 (URL) (5) Conservatives Deceived by NGOs You'll be SHOCKED. =================== =================== (1) MOM EXPOSES Agenda Profs! http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/2/62003c.asp WYPFINNWYG -- What You Pay For Is Not Necessarily What You Get Concerned Mom Starts Website That Exposes 'Indoctrination' by College Profs By Jim Brown February 6, 2003 (AgapePress) - A California mother says when a professor at UC-San Diego attempted to browbeat her son and his classmates into a particular political viewpoint, she did some research and found the school had known about the problem for years and did nothing. In response, she is waging a battle against liberal political and social bias in university classrooms. Luann Wright says of the five essays in her son's required freshman writing program, four of them discussed the "toxicity of whiteness." Wright used the Freedom of Information Act to study more college programs, and found such brainwashing was not a problem isolated to one campus -- but one that is occurring nationwide. She recently launched a website called "NoIndoctrination.org" http://NoIndoctrination.org where students can report professors who silence opposing views or teachers who stray from the class description outlined in the school course catalog. She says she has been amazed by the response. "This site has only been up a few months, and some days we get 7,000 visitors from all over the world," Wright says. "What these students have to say are virtual windows into academia -- and most of us haven't had a clue really about what's going on. These students are living it, but it's time for the rest of us taxpayers [and] tuition-payers to know what is going on." Wright says the website is a "safety valve" for students who have no outlet to express their frustration with what is being taught in their classroom. "There's one web posting where a student signs up for Mezo-American art history of archeology up to [the year] 1500, and most of the lectures [deal with] the Middle East situation. Or writing-skills courses or speech courses that are required are so 'agendized' that the specific skill -- writing [or] speaking -- is secondary to the agenda," she says. "So what they're paying for is not always what they're getting." Wright is hoping that with the pressure of parents and alumni, universities will start enforcing academic freedom statements they claim to endorse. ==================== ==================== (2) Letter to Congress Reps on TIA! Dear Friend, Copy/paste the following text into a letter to your representatives in Congress! Find your rep's contact info here: http://users.netreach.net/InfoQuest/government.htm#CONGRESS Letter text: Dear [ENTER REP'S/SENATOR'S NAME HERE]: A new threat to our liberty is 'Total Information Awareness (TIA),' a computer system under development by the Defense Department that gathers information on all of your electronic transactions and communications (ATM, credit card, video rentals, drug prescriptions, magazine subscriptions, car rentals, telephone conversations, faxes, e-mail, etc.), which includes the Human Identification at a Distance (HID) program that is developing advanced facial identification capabilities using biometrics and long-distance optical and imaging technology ("Minority Report" movie!) and a computerized gait identification program that will identify you by the way you walk or run. The TIA program has been developing silently at the Pentagon's Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) under the direction of Rear Admiral John Poindexter, who was national security advisor to President Reagan and oversaw the arms-for-hostages fiasco that became known as the "Iran-Contra" scandal. This is not science fiction - it is happening now! Are we as naive as the WWII Germans, who allowed Hitler to take away their right to privacy through Hitler's enabling act ("Gesetz zur Behebung der Not von Volk und Reich" - translated: "Law for Removing the Distress of People and Reich")? The Total Information Awareness program would further destroy the Fourth Amendment of our Bill of Rights: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." In your Oath of Office, you swore to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America above all else. Please be a man of your word and permanently defund and dismantle the TIA. The Senate has attached an amendment to the Fiscal 2003 Omnibus appropriations bill that would temporarily defund the TIA program. I implore you to ensure that this/such legislation is enacted and upgraded from "temporary" to "permanent." Even if you trust today's administration, what if an unsuspected tyrant is elected in the future, who would use the TIA in a Nazi-like way? If we remain ignorant and do not act immediately, history, once again, will repeat itself, and we will lose everything that was won by the blood of our forefathers and those defending our country today. As President Thomas Jefferson said, "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be." Please educate your peers and permanently dismantle the TIA and all such Fourth Amendment-destroying acts and policies. I look forward to your reply regarding the action that you will take on this matter. Sincerely, [ENTER YOUR NAME & ADDRESS HERE] ==================== ==================== (3) URL Link to MEDIA EXPOSED Video! Dear Friend, I watched this video last week. WOW! WOW! I'm buying a copy for myself and to share with others. I highly recommend, in fact, I beseech you to get a copy for yourself! It's got a ton of video clips of the media lying, and then it even shows when the media is forced to apologize on the air!!! WOW! "Behind the Big News" http://www.aobs-store.com/reviews/vbbn.htm Most Americans know the mainstream media manipulates stories, manufactures illusions, and exploits fears. But the reason is more than just liberal bias or sloppy reporting. "Behind the Big News" exposes a revolutionary agenda - originating outside the media - that defines today's headlines. This powerful and fast-paced video examines some of the biggest news stories in recent decades to discover how this subversive agenda is promoted. "Behind the Big News" also reveals an effective strategy to overcome this ongoing assault on American freedom. Available in VHS or DVD formats. (©2003 JBS Tapes, 59 min.) ==================== ==================== (4) DEATH to BILL OF RIGHTS by PATRIOT 2 (URL) 'Patriot 2' Raises Concerns for Civil Liberties Groups By Lawrence Morahan CNSNews.com Senior Staff Writer February 13, 2003 http://www.cnsnews.com/Nation/archive/200302/NAT20030213b.html *** IQ* Note: Dear Friend, I'll share this article with you next week in its entirety so that you can forward it to others. I am sick and tired of those elected officials who give unconstitutional and tyrannical legislation patriotic labels like "Patriot Act" and "Patriot Act 2"! Look at this: Are we as naive as the WWII Germans, who allowed Hitler to take away their right to privacy through Hitler's enabling act ("Gesetz zur Behebung der Not von Volk und Reich" - translated: "Law for Removing the Distress of People and Reich")? Hitler had his own Patriot Act, which he used to remove the Germans' right to privacy, which is EXACTLY what the Patriot Act did. *** IQ* Solution: Read the article at this URL: http://www.cnsnews.com/Nation/archive/200302/NAT20030213b.html Write letters to your Federal and State representatives to educate them to this information, to report your firm disagreement to it, and to request that they reply to you in writing! Find the contact information for your representatives here: http://users.netreach.net/InfoQuest/government.htm#CONGRESS ==================== ==================== (5) Conservatives Deceived by NGOs Conservatives Deceived by NGOs by Thomas R. Eddlem http://thenewamerican.com/tna/2001/07-16-2001/vo17no15_ngo.htm Traditionalists who attempt to work with the United Nations via Non-Governmental Organizations will only hasten the day when the UN rules as a global government. The May 3rd decision of the United Nations' Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) to withdraw U.S. membership from its subcommittees on human rights and narcotics control should give conservative organizations courting the global body cause to reconsider their tactics. The decision to exclude the U.S. from the Human Rights Commission resulted in a U.S. House of Representatives vote to withhold nearly $250 million from claimed back dues and resulted in even some long-standing supporters of the United Nations to reassess the value of the global body. Longtime UN supporter A.M. Rosenthal, a veteran UN reporter for the New York Times and columnist for the New York Daily News, mourned the fact that "the United Nations, created in 1945 by the governments of the world, is being put to death by the governments of the world. No doubt there will be some more years of meetings, press releases and America-baiting." But the UN itself, Rosenthal noted, is dead as a body capable of good. "That paragraph is among the most difficult I have written in a lifetime of journalism," Rosenthal lamented. By way of contrast, the conservative Family Research Council (FRC) published a pro-United Nations editorial a month earlier that now seems Pollyannaish in retrospect. "Now, the president of the United States is pro-family and pro-life," William L. Saunders wrote triumphantly in the April 2001 issue of the Family Research Council's Washington Watch newsletter. "If the Bush administration continues to appoint delegations that reflect the pro-family views of the vast majority of Americans, things will change for the better. Instead of being a foe of the values we hold dear, the United Nations may become a place where nations can explore sensible policies to deal with the problems that beset the world's families." Saunders explained that American pro-family groups have an obligation to "do what we can to ensure that the United Nations respects the natural family." And the Family Research Council has followed this policy by pursuing ECOSOC accreditation as a Non-Governmental Organization (NGO) with "consultative status." The FRC wants "a voice at the table," to use a common expression, but the UN has proven itself fully capable of shutting out any voice it doesn't like. A Democratic Facade Traditionalist groups may actually be unwittingly assisting in the establishment of a global anti-family regime. Mark DeYoung, who represents the American Life League (ALL) at the UN, told The New American that the UN uses its NGO caucus to give the impression that global popular opinion sides with the world body. "The NGOs are supposed to act as the "will of the people." I think ALL still has a role in being there, but The New American magazine has correctly asserted that the UN is definitely using many of these non-governmental organizations as their way of saying "Look, we've got the will of the people on our side." In fact, it is not the people at all who are pushing any of these things. It is a small elite group of people. And they are working closely with these organizations to craft the agenda." DeYoung explained that despite ALL's consultative status with ECOSOC, "UNICEF, an agency which hosted the most recent preparatory committee for the World Summit for Children, is not working hand-in-hand with American Life League or any of the other pro-family groups to craft documents for an upcoming world conference. Even though we have a voice there and we should technically be included in that, UNICEF is instead working hand-in-hand with groups like Save the Children who are involved in promoting "reproductive rights" for children, and actively investing their monies in contraceptive distribution programs for women in developing nations. In a lot of ways, they are using these organizations. This idea of "civil society" [ostensibly represented by the NGOs] is a way of presenting the process as if it were a democratic one when, in fact, it isn't at all." According to DeYoung, the UN uses NGO delegates to essentially stack the deck at its policy conventions in order to easily ratify its predetermined platform. They do this "not only by trying to get seats on official member state delegations, but [also] by making it easier for pro-abortion NGOs to participate in greater numbers. For instance, the preparatory committee for the World Summit for Children that took place in late January had limited the number of passes that each NGO could have to four per Non-Government Organization. Typically each organization can accredit anywhere from 12 to 15 people for a conference like this. So they limited it, and we found out during the course of that week that one of the groups, Save the Children, had this "special relationship" with UNICEF. This is how a UNICEF official described it. Because they had this "special relationship," they allowed Save the Children to accredit upwards of 40 people for this meeting. Those are the kinds of things that go on. These agencies will break their own rules to stack more of their own people in these meetings." By being publicly "inclusive" of traditionalist concerns and allowing traditionalist spokesmen to speak at UN forums (while in reality excluding them from the decision-making process), the United Nations is able to convey to the public the impression that the world body has heard all viewpoints and that UN resolutions represent the popular will of the masses. NGOs dedicated to changing the anti-family direction of the United Nations face a daunting challenge. DeYoung explains that "no matter who you are dealing with, you often face the situation of delegates whose hands are generally tied. Their governments dictate what they need to do at these conferences." So why did ALL pursue NGO consultative status if most of the delegates are prohibited by their governments from voting the pro-family position? DeYoung explains that "there is still an opportunity to educate [the delegates] on a lot of issues they are not necessarily aware of. We find that a lot of the delegates from Africa and some of the Latin American countries are not aware of some of the things that the Western world is trying to do to their countries through population control programs. So we have opportunities there." Despite the possibility that individual delegates may be personally converted to the pro-life cause, the UN has set rules that safeguard its pro-population control, anti-second amendment, and anti-sovereignty empowerment agenda. NGO Persecution ECOSOC passed a resolution in 1996 stipulating that NGOs with consultative status must "be in conformity with the spirit, purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations" and that the organizations "shall undertake to support the work of the United Nations." DeYoung eschews the assertion that ALL is pro-UN, stating that "we have never agreed to abide by the beliefs of the UN." It is misleading to imply, he told The New American, that "because you are an ECOSOC-accredited organization, that means that you espouse the values of the UN and work toward their particular goals, whatever they may be. We have never publicly asserted such a thing, nor has our organization signed anything that says anything like that." As for the American Life League, DeYoung states, "we make it clear that we are not supporting the policies and programs of the United Nations." Groups that pursue ECOSOC accreditation should, however, be under no illusions. As already noted, the UN uses its NGO caucus for propaganda purposes. But also, groups that seek UN accreditation convey the image that the UN is a legitimate body within which it is possible to influence policy. In fact, they convey the impression that the UN does influence policy. (Otherwise, why expend resources working through the UN?) This is tacit acceptance of the United Nations as a governmental body, indeed, as a world government. Moreover, ECOSOC pressure to conform to the UN line - with the threat of expulsion - can be a significant threat to an organization heavily invested in maintaining a voice at the United Nations. The United Nations has made use of its leverage. On May 18th, the Washington Times reported that ECOSOC is discriminating against Non-Governmental Organizations that have raised the ire of member states of the Human Rights Commission. "U.S. officials have tried to aid the human rights groups but face a large bloc of authoritarian regimes that also serve on the subcommittee," the Washington Times explained. The removal of the United States from the Human Rights Committee (for the first time since 1947) means that the U.S. is no longer in a position to help even if the administration is inclined to do so. State Department spokesman Garrett Grigsby told the Washington Times for May 18th that "in the past, if we really made a push we were able to get these groups accredited. Lately, the process has clearly been getting much harder." This is because the process, an administration official explained, "appears to have become more politicized." Even left-wing groups that rub totalitarian regimes the wrong way are feeling the current crunch. Adam Karatnycky of Freedom House - an organization founded in 1941 by Eleanor Roosevelt - complained that "first, they silenced the United States' voice on the human rights commission. Now, they are going after U.S.-based human rights advocacy groups." "They are seizing on alleged technical infractions as a means of censuring organizations" as a means of eliminating opposition, Freedom House spokesman Michael Goldfarb told the Washington Times. "There seems to be a climate of stifling open legitimate and substantive debate of important human rights issues and abuses." Once accredited, NGOs are not immune from UN oversight controls. The same 1996 ECOSOC resolution that called for NGOs to "support the work of the United Nations" also called for the expulsion of any NGO that did not conform with UN goals. NGOs may be expelled, ECOSOC resolved, "if ... an organization did not make any positive or effective contribution to the work of the United Nations." On October 26, 1999 ECOSOC followed through on its resolution. That day ECOSOC revoked the NGO consultative status of Christian Solidarity International by a 26 to 14 vote. Christian Solidarity International (CSI) had earned the wrath of Human Rights Committee member Sudan by lobbying against the Islamic government's policy of promoting slavery of Christians and animists in southern Sudan (for more on Sudan, see page 23). ECOSOC noted in a press release on the day of the expulsion that the decision to revoke "consultative status had been made in response to a complaint by the government of Sudan, which had charged that the NGO's actions constituted both a threat to the sovereignty and national security of Sudan." CSI's "crimes" were a global fundraising effort to buy the freedom of enslaved Christians and helping Sudanese rebel leader John Garang to testify on the new drive to enslave non-Muslims in the Sudan. Corrupt to the Core The UN is a collection of socialist dictatorships and kleptocracies, and the pro-family movement is about as likely to change the policy of the UN by lobbying from within the organization's internal structure as they are likely to change Planned Parenthood by becoming members of that organization and lobbying it from within. Even if the Family Research Council and other pro-life groups succeed in the task of making the United Nations nominally pro-life, the victory would be temporary. A pro-life and pro-family United Nations that succeeds in its other goals of gun confiscation, armament of a world military body, social regimentation under a global environmental regime, and revoking the right to trial by jury through its International Criminal Court, would emerge as a global tyranny with the power to revoke a pro-life policy at a whim. A world tyranny that bans abortion and encourages large families - like Nicolae Ceaucescu's Communist Romania - would have little trouble reversing course and adopting a pro-abortion policy. In fact, traditionalists who work with the UN, rather than changing for the better the nature of the nascent world government, are only unwittingly helping to usher in a day in which the UN will rule the world with an iron fist. The only real solution is, of course, for the United States to get out of the UN.