1

Efforts to Stop UN World “Health” Power Grab Accelerate

Amid a major power grab by the United Nations World Health Organization (WHO) seeking to further empower the global agency, lawmakers and leaders across the United States are stepping up efforts to protect self-government, national sovereignty and the rights of all Americans. In fact, many in Congress and beyond say it is time for the U.S. government to defund and even withdraw from the WHO once again.

Last week, governments from around the world sent delegates to the annual World Health Assembly in Geneva. They will be meeting until May 30. The main objective of this year’s confab is to radically extend the organization’s power over healthcare and citizens under the guise of improving “health” and fighting future disease outbreaks in a coordinated global fashion. Critics say it is a dangerous plan to centralize power in a corrupt agency controlled by Beijing.

There are two primary methods of attack. First, using COVID and possible future pandemics as a pretext, the WHO is pushing for a new “International Pandemic Accord.” The scheme was being called a treaty until it became obvious to all involved it would never get two-thirds support in the U.S. Senate, as required for ratification of all treaties. The WHO hopes to have the details worked out by next year’s World Health Assembly.

The second prong in the attack involves amendments to the so-called International Health Regulations, or IHR. Because these are considered mere changes to an existing treaty, globalists at the WHO and in the Biden administration — not to mention the Communist Party of China lurking behind the scenes — also see this as a vehicle for empowering the global “health” apparatus without pesky interference from Congress.

But critics are working on ways to fight back. The Sovereignty Coalition, formed to fight the WHO assault on self-government, brings together a broad alliance of conservative leaders, organizations, and lawmakers united in the effort to preserve and restore national sovereignty. In fact, the coalition is calling for an American exit from the WHO entirely.

Signatories include hundreds of America’s most prominent conservative leaders as well as doctors and other medical professionals. Leading organizations in the medical freedom movement and the broader conservative movement also signed on including Daily Clout, Eagle Forum, Liberty Counsel Action, Tea Party Patriots Action, Women’s Rights Without Frontiers, ConservativeHQ, Act for America, and more.

Last week around 20 lawmakers and leaders held a press conference outside Capitol Hill calling for an end to the WHO’s scheming. Illinois’ own U.S. Representative Mary Miller, a Republican, was among those speaking out. “Our hard-earned taxpayer dollars should not support a globalist organization that is controlled by China, undermines our national sovereignty, and threatens our rights,” Rep. Miller said, echoing the concerns of many of her colleagues and constituents.

“President Trump made the right decision to cut all funding and participation in this organization, and it is foolish for the Biden Administration to place trust in an institution that repeated China’s deceptive narratives regarding the origins of the pandemic in Wuhan,” she added. “I stand proudly with my colleagues in calling for the United States to withdraw from the corrupt WHO. In Congress, I will always work to protect our nation’s sovereignty, preserve our rights and freedoms, and ensure the responsible use of taxpayer dollars.”

Other lawmakers who spoke at the press conference and denounced the WHO and Biden’s support for the power grab included U.S. Representatives Ralph Norman (SC-05), Ronny Jackson (TX-13), Chris Smith (NJ-04), Harriet Hageman (WY), Tim Burchett (TN-02), Brian Babin (TX-36), Andy Biggs (AZ-05) (sponsor of H.R. 79), Kevin Hern (OK-01), Thomas Tiffany (WI-07), Chip Roy (TX-21), Eli Crane (AZ-02),  Paul Gosar (AZ-09),  Lauren Boebert (CO-03), Eric Burlison (MO-07),  Anna Paulina Luna (FL-13) Rep. Dan Bishop (NC-08), Glenn Grothman (WI-06), Clay Higgins (LA-03), and more.

Watch the press conference here:

Sovereignty Coalition co-founders Reggie LittleJohn and Frank Gaffney were there, too. In a statement posted on their website, the leaders and the signatories noted that the WHO was effectively under CCP control and was being used to advance a “post-Constitutional-America and ‘global governance’ dominated by the Party.” “The CCP’s hegemonic ambitions have no place for a powerful United States of America, human freedom or personal sovereignty,” the group explained. The WHO is also doing the bidding of Big Pharma and billionaire population-control zealot Bill Gates, one of the outfits top financiers, the coalition said.

Speaking at the start of the WHO’s annual meeting, former communist terrorist and current WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus insisted that the organization needed even more power. “We cannot simply carry on as we did before,” said Ghebreyesus, who was installed with strongarm tactics by the CCP. “The pandemic accord that member states are now negotiating must be a historic agreement to make a paradigm shift in global health security, recognizing that our fates are interwoven.”

UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, former leader of the Socialist International global alliance of communist and socialist political parties, echoed the call for a stronger globalist regime. “I hope the current negotiations on pandemic prevention, preparedness and response result in a strong multilateral approach that saves lives,” said Guterres, who has also been a vocal advocate of the World Economic Forum-led “Great Reset” being opposed by countless millions around the world.

Blasting the WHO’s response to COVID, the Sovereignty Coalition said it was “outrageous” that the Biden administration was scheming to hand over even more power—without even Senate approval. “These accords would effectively repose in Dr. Tedros the authority unilaterally to dictate what constitutes an actual or potential Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC) and to order how affected nations must respond,” the coalition said in a statement, noting that these authorities would purport to allow America’s enemies to deprive Americans of their rights.

In light of all the problems with the schemes being negotiated as well as the systemic issues plaguing WHO, the Sovereignty Coalition said enough was enough. “The United States must end its membership in, cease funding of and submitting to the World Health Organization before the WHO is granted the authority effectively to compel compliance with the public health dictates of Dr. Tedros Ghebreyesus or any other unelected, unaccountable international bureaucrat,” the alliance declared.

At the state level, efforts to stop the WHO are gaining steam as well. A new bill in the South Carolina legislature, H.4246, would nullify the power grab by banning any state or local cooperation with the effort. “This is the rightful remedy,” SC Representative Josiah Magnuson told me, blasting the fact that Biden was not even planning to seek the advice and consent of the U.S. Senate as required by the Constitution of all treaties. “If this does go into effect, we’re going to have the framework here to resist.”

Former President Donald Trump removed the U.S. government from the WHO, but Joe Biden promptly rejoined when taking power. Republicans in the U.S. House, though, have the opportunity to defund the global body in the upcoming budget. With outrage surrounding the WHO and its leadership growing rapidly amid the attempted power grab, it may be tough for elected officials in the United States to continue supporting it. The next year will be critical in that battle.

Take ACTION: Click HERE to send a message to your U.S. Representative to encourage them to support legislative actions to withdrawal the U.S. from the The World Health Organization (WHO). This U.N. agency is effectively controlled by Communist Chinese Party and other subversive globalist interests, but it is actively seeking greater, totalitarian control over its member nations. This is a serious threat to our national sovereignty and our individual liberty.

Ask them to co-sponsor H.R. 79, the “WHO Withdrawal Act,” H.R. 343, the “No Taxpayer Funding for the World Health Organization Act,” and S. 444, the “No WHO Pandemic Preparedness Treaty Without Senate Approval Act,” to stop the implementation and/or enforcement of the WHO’s proposed pandemic treaty.





Information Is Key to Fighting SEL: Julie & Allen Quist

In the interview below, our good friend Alex Newman focuses on social and emotional learning (SEL), which is labeled “fake education” and pure neo-Marxist indoctrination by Julie and Allen Quist. After discussing the background of SEL and its funding by international corporate interests such as Bill Gates and the Zuckerberg Institute, the Quists emphasize that information is key to getting SEL out of schools — especially Christian schools — as most people have no idea what it truly is.

The Quists are both heavily involved in true education and protecting our children from the cultural Marxism being pushed not only in public schools, but in Christian schools, as well. Julie is board chairman of Child Protection League, and Allen is a former Minnesota state legislator, adjunct professor of Christian apologetics at Bethany Lutheran College, and the author of 10 books on education and theology.

Please watch and share the interview below. If we are to save our children and culture, it is imperative that we educate parents, administrators, and school-board members to the dangers of social and emotional learning.





Resistance Grows to UN WHO & Biden “Global Health” Power Grab

** Urgent: Please click HERE to communicate directly with your federal legislators. **

Under the leadership of a Communist Chinese-backed “former” Marxist terror leader, the UN World Health Organization (WHO) and the Biden administration are plotting an unprecedented power grab to build a planetary bio-medical police state. Think Shanghai during lockdown, but worldwide. Leading experts argue that this is truly the emergence of the “New World Order” discussed by Biden and others.

Already, the WHO claims all sorts of draconian authorities, including powers to work with UN member states in quarantining villages or nations, locking down societies, forcing medical “treatments” such as vaccines, and generally crushing medical freedom. When Ebola was spreading, for instance, the Obama administration sent thousands of U.S. troops to help the UN enforce medical martial law in the Ivory Coast.

Now, under changes proposed to the WHO’s “International Health Regulations” by the Biden administration, the dictator-friendly global “health” body would gain the power to carry out its wishes without even the approval or consent of the targeted nation. Not surprisingly, neither the WHO nor the Biden administration plan to consult the U.S. Senate on the matter.

Despite the enormity of the ongoing usurpation, and the drastic implications for freedom and self-government around the world, the establishment media have been largely silent on the issue. Still, concern is growing quickly as more and more experts and activists speak out. Word is starting to spread. But the first major deadline to stop it will arrive in a matter of weeks at a WHO meeting in Geneva starting May 22.

There are two key routes of attack being pursued by the WHO and its allies. In June, a dangerous “pandemic treaty” is set to be considered giving the WHO new “teeth” to enforce its dictates. But the first and most urgent assault on liberty and self-government involves a series of 13 controversial amendments being proposed to the WHO’s so-called International Health Regulations (IHR). The details of the amendments were only released publicly — and very quietly — about a month ago.

The health regime created under the IHR, which was first approved by the World Health Assembly in 2005, is already draconian in its current state. Indeed, these regulations are what supposedly empowered the disgraced global organization to “recommend” the totalitarian policies it deployed worldwide in response to COVID. Much of the leadership in the global war on freedom over the last two years came from the WHO.

But under the new amendments proposed by the Biden administration last month, it would go from bad to catastrophic. Among other concerns, the WHO would acquire new powers to impose its will on nations and peoples against their will. Indeed, the WHO would be able to declare a “health emergency” in any nation, with virtually no limits, going far beyond even actual pandemics, as long as it “could present significant harm to humans.”

One of the most significant changes would remove language from the WHO’s international health agreement requiring a government to consent to the WHO’s determinations before action is taken. Under the new language, all that would be necessary is for the WHO boss to claim there is “a public health emergency of international concern” (PHEIC). Even a claimed suspicion of such an “emergency” would be enough to get the gears turning.

Once it declares an emergency, the WHO would be authorized to partner with a dizzying array of global agencies and organizations such as the UN and more under the guise of protecting “health.” That includes UN agencies overseeing food, agriculture, aviation, the environment, and much more. In short, a full-on assault on a nation by a range of would-be global government agencies is in the cards for defiance of the WHO.

The amendments would accelerate the process of turning the head of the WHO into a global health dictator, numerous critics say. That is especially troubling considering that WHO chief Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, installed by the regime in Beijing, is a former politburo member of the Tigray People’s Liberation Front, an ethno-Marxist terror group designated a terrorist organization by governments around the world. Countless critics have called for him to be prosecuted for ghastly crimes perpetrated by the terror group he helped lead, and later the brutal Ethiopian regime he served at a high level.

Leading Psychiatrist Speaks Out 

“If passed, the Biden administration’s proposed amendments will, by their very existence and their intention, drastically compromise the independence and the sovereignty of the United States,” warned Dr. Peter Breggin, one of the leading medical voices sounding the alarm about this power grab and author of the best-selling new book Covid-19 and the Global Predators: We Are the Prey.

According to Dr. Breggin, a Harvard-trained psychiatrist, the same threat applies to the sovereignty and self-government of all of the UN’s 193 member states, representing virtually the entire global population. In an interview with The New American, Dr. Breggin suggested this was a major step in the direction of global government, led by a global “predator class.” The proposed changes would put “enormous new powers” in the hands of “unelected technocrats” — powers that “would be exercised whether the target nation agreed or not,” he explained.

“The amendments would give WHO the right to take important steps to collaborate with other nations and other organizations worldwide to deal with any nation’s alleged health crisis, even against its stated wishes,” warned Dr. Breggin, adding that these measures could include economic and financial attacks orchestrated by the WHO and its partners.

These attacks would hardly be limited to genuine pandemics. “Under WHO’s approach, it would be difficult to find any important national issue that was not a potential health problem,” warned Dr. Breggin, pointing out that the Communist Chinese regime and Bill Gates were the largest influences at the WHO. “With the imminent passage of the American-sponsored amendments to the International Health Regulations, WHO will have free reign for using these expansive definitions of health to call a crisis over anything it wishes in any nation it desires.”

If the WHO succeeds in advancing its agenda, he added, the most important use of these arbitrary authorities would be against the United States — at least if the American people were ever to elect another anti-globalist government such as the Trump administration. Under Trump, the U.S. government exited and defunded the WHO, though the Biden promptly reversed that upon taking office.

“We need to face that these American-sponsored amendments are a great step toward America voluntarily forfeiting its sovereignty to the New World Order or Great Reset — and that without strong opposition, the ratification of the amendments is a foregone conclusion,” added Dr. Breggin. “Our success or failure in stopping the ratification of these amendments will establish the pattern for the future, including WHO’s ongoing effort to make legally-binding treaties that rob nations of their sovereignty.”

But it is even worse than a loss of sovereignty. Instead, it amounts to handing power over all of humanity to a global class of predatory elites interested not in health, but in power and money, he said.

“In reality; they will be forfeiting their sovereign powers to the global predators who rule the UN and WHO, including the Chinese Communist Party and supporters of the Great Reset, like Bill Gates, Klaus Schwab, and giant foundations and corporations — all of whom benefit from weakening or destroying the sovereignty of the Western nations,” continued Breggin. “Western civilization, and mainly the United States, is all that stands in strong opposition to the globalist takeover of the world, called the New World Order or the Great Reset.”

Already, the WHO and its allies — and the global predators behind the whole machine — have shown their awesome powers. During the COVID crisis, the global agency was the key mechanism for unleashing and coordinating the unprecedented assaults on freedom around the world.

“WHO was highly effective during COVID-19 in implementing the aims of the global predators, led by the groups around Bill Gates and the Chinese Communist Party, in their organized assault and terror campaign against the Western democracies,” Dr. Breggin said. “This purposely resulted in the vast weakening of any potentially anti-globalist, freedom-oriented, patriotic nations, including the U.S., Great Britain, Australia, Canada, and others. That success may explain why the global predators chose WHO to now deliver a major and potentially lethal death blow to the sovereignty of the world’s nations.”

If not stopped, the ongoing power grabs would make all of it orders of magnitude worse, he said.

WHO Insider Speaks Out 

In an interview with The New American, Dr. Astrid Stuckelberger, a prominent epidemiologist and international health scientist in Geneva and a former WHO official turned whistleblower, also warned that the WHO was the leading force behind the tyranny that enveloped the globe during COVID. Already, the situation is dire.

In defiance of its own IHR, which Dr. Stuckelberger taught at the university level, the WHO used fear-mongering to “issue directives that were totally not commensurate to the situation,” she said. If the amendments are passed, it would get even worse. It all shows that the WHO and its backers such as Bill Gates “have moved now, clearly, into global governance,” Dr. Stuckelberger said. “The way they are handling WHO is not like coordinating member states that can decide for themselves.”

The global model truly came into view over the last two years. “Before, in the IHR, we trained [students] that everything should be customized to countries,” she said. But now, “they have brought everybody to obey one governance, to obey a single standard.” “WHO is now more and more taking power of the world together as the only organization to be able … to direct any epidemic preparedness plan or pandemic intervention plan,” she added.

The dystopian developments are moving from rhetoric to reality. At the WHO’s extraordinary World Health Assembly meeting late last year, member governments were given a document headlined “A Guide to a Pandemic Treaty.” Member states voted to accept the procedures to develop that treaty, which is now underway. “They are so sneaky,” she said. “They are going to take the instrument that will be adopted the quickest, and the instrument likely to be adopted the quickest is the International Health Regulations.”

The WHO “Constitution” — something governments have — is likely in place to help turn the agency into a true global authority with governmental powers, Stuckelberger said. And the outfit’s constitution purports to enshrine a “fundamental right” to the “highest attainable standard of health.” It also calls for the “fullest cooperation of individuals and States.” This is basically a blank check for intervention in people’s lives.

In Article 21 of the WHO Constitution, the World Health Assembly is empowered to “adopt regulations” on everything from “sanitary and quarantine requirements” to “standards” for diagnosing diseases. This is what made possible the global tyranny that enveloped the world in early 2020, as well as the unreliable PCR COVID tests that fed the narrative, said Dr. Stuckelberger, who served as president of the WHO’s Geneva International Network on Ageing.

“We have to be liberated from the United Nations,” said Stuckelberger before urging everyone to contact their elected officials, attorneys, and others in a bid to derail the WHO power grab.

Seeking Even MORE Powers 

Another significant WHO threat to medical freedom, national sovereignty, and self-government comes from the proposed “International Pandemic Treaty” being worked on now behind the scenes. Under the guise of controlling future pandemics, this global agreement would also hand vast new powers to the global “health” organization. Advocates of the treaty are proposing to turn the WHO into a global health ministry with vast powers over every person and government on Earth.

Even actual sanctions on nations whose governments defy their would-be WHO overlords are now being peddled. For instance, WHO boss Tedros claimed that “maybe exploring the sanctions may be important.” Meanwhile, German Health Minister Jens Spahn argued “that countries that fail to follow up on their commitments to the WHO should face sanctions.” This sentiment is widespread among global elites.

Indeed, less than a year ago, an “independent” UN panel of high-level globalists convened by the WHO chief claimed the health agency “needs to be empowered — financially, and politically.” This empowering should include making the WHO more independent, creating new “capacities” (powers) at the global level, and establishing a “new international system for surveillance.”

The UN report, which suggests COVID damage could have been mitigated with more global tyranny, also seeks to bring in the “precautionary principle.” Similar to the “climate” narrative, the precautionary principle involves implementing policies — in this case medical tyranny — as a precaution in response to potential dangers rather than in response to a proven threat.

Offering broad insight into the objectives, the report celebrated regimes such as the Communist Chinese dictatorship for their authoritarian response to COVID. Numerous globalist bigwigs working with the WHO and Beijing such as Gates and Schwab have repeatedly praised the barbaric COVID response by Beijing while condemning jurisdictions that respected individual rights and the rule of law. This was all foreseen as far back as 2010 in the Rockefeller Foundation’s “scenario” dubbed Lockstep involving a hypothetical pandemic.

Even as these battles are raging, totalitarians are already scheming on even more draconian powers over basic rights such as free speech. The WHO itself has been working to silence what it considers “misinformation,” “disinformation,” and “conspiracy theories” for years. “We’re not just battling the virus,” said WHO Director-General Tedros in the summer of 2020. “We’re also battling the trolls and conspiracy theorists that push misinformation and undermine the outbreak response.” The WHO was “working closely” with Big Tech firms to censor the web, it boasted. Ironically, the WHO has urged health professionals to lie to parents in order to peddle vaccines.

Opposition Grows as Legal Questions Swirl 

In a memo to the WHO, U.S. Health and Human Services Assistant Secretary for Global Affairs Loyce Pace cited almost 50 other governments that support the Biden administration’s proposal. Those include the member governments of the European Union, along with numerous other governments including those in India, Australia, Japan, Canada, the United Kingdom, and more.

Normally, governments would have 18 months to withdraw from the UN WHO scheme. However, in this case, the time period has been shortened to a mere six months. According to experts on WHO processes, if a majority of member governments consent to the amendments, then they will be considered to be part of “international law.” The amendments to the WHO’s regulations are set to be approved by May 28 of this year if not stopped.

Because of the existing international agreement adopted by member WHO member states almost two decades ago, the UN WHO considers any updates to its International Health Regulations to be binding on all nations and all of humanity, legal experts say. Similar machinations were used to impose UN “climate” schemes on the planet without ratification by the U.S. Senate.

However, there are several constitutional issues at hand as far as the United States is concerned. For one, the states that created the U.S. government never delegated these sorts of powers over “health” to the government they established. If the U.S. government lacks a specific authority or power, it certainly cannot hand a power it does not rightfully possess over to another body — at least not without a constitutional amendment.

In fact, the U.S. Supreme Court confirmed as recently as 1957 in the case Reid v. Covert that the U.S. government could not grant new powers to itself — or delegate those powers to other bodies — merely by adopting international agreements. Thomas Jefferson, a key architect of America’s constitutional system, understood that as well. “I say the same as to the opinion of those who consider the grant of the treaty-making power as boundless,” he explained in 1803. “If it is, then we have no Constitution.”

Neither the WHO nor the Biden administration’s Department of Health and Human Services responded to requests for comment.

In an interview with The New American, journalist and commentator James Rogusky, among the first to sound the alarm on these amendments, called on people to resist while it was still possible. “The time to speak out and stand for your rights is now,” he explained, calling on Americans to share the warnings with those in their sphere of influence and to contact their elected representatives.

In an effort to derail the WHO’s power grab, The John Birch Society recently launched a grassroots effort encouraging lawmakers to nullify the schemes at the state level. “Rather than sitting back and being complacent, state legislators must take bold action to nullify any WHO agreement,” the Society said in a mass email to its national membership.

“Nullification of the WHO’s pandemic treaty wouldn’t be the first time the states have taken such bold action,” the organization’s alert continued. “Among multiple other examples, Alabama in 2012 enacted a strong law banning the implementation of the UN’s Agenda 21 (now Agenda 2030) in the state. Multiple other state legislative chambers passed similar bans.”

Urging activists to contact their lawmakers, the group, which has chapters nationwide, called for strong laws to prohibit implementation and enforcement of the WHO scheme. This could include ensuring that no state or local officials can participate in the enforcement of any actions originating from the WHO or under the authority of its illegitimate agreements.

In an interview with The New American magazine, U.S. Representative Thomas Massie (R-KY) expressed support for getting out of the UN entirely. “It’s full of dictators, and it’s also something that I don’t think our sovereign government should defer to,” he explained. Legislation to do just that, the American Sovereignty Restoration Act, has been regularly introduced in Congress for decades.

Derailing the WHO’s draconian power grab would be a good step in the direction of neutralizing the ever-increasing threat of globalism and international tyranny. However, over the long term, small victories in battles such as this one will not be enough. A full restoration of sovereignty must be the ultimate objective — and this massive attack on humanity by the WHO may be the perfect catalyst to supercharge the movement to stop globalism for good.

Take ACTION: Click HERE to contact U.S. Senators Dick Durbin, Tammy Duckworth and your federal representative in the U.S. House and urge them to oppose these dangerous amendments and urge them to enact strong legislation fully preventing the implementation and/or enforcement of the WHO’s proposed pandemic treaty.

Read more:

WHO & Global Predators Plot Global “Health” Tyranny

UN Whistleblower: WHO is Tip of the Spear for Global Tyranny

Marxist UN WHO Boss Must Be Put on Trial, Critics Say

Citing Ebola, Obama Boosts UN and Sends Troops to Africa


This article was originally published at TheNewAmerican.com.




Trading Academics for Far-Left ‘Social-Emotional Learning’

Academics are fast becoming a thing of the past in public schools.

In their place are behavioral psychology and “social and emotional learning” (SEL) designed not to educate but to transform children’s core values, attitudes, beliefs, and behavior.

Once upon a time, education meant learning how to read, write, do math, and think. It meant learning history and science as well.

That is barely happening now, as government data show.

Perhaps more importantly, once upon a time, school children all over the nation also learned the Ten Commandments—do not murder, do not lie, do not steal, and so on.

They learned the Golden Rule, too: Treat others as you want to be treated.

But those “good old days” are largely gone.

Today, government schools use advanced methods including SEL to instill in children a radical new and oftentimes contradictory “politically correct” value system: radical environmentalism, radical feminism, critical theory, Marxism, social justice, LGBTQ-plus, population control, socialism, hyper-racialism, class struggle, and more.

There’s also an occult connection to it all that would shock most secular observers—not to mention Christians, Muslims, Jews, and adherents of other traditional faiths.

SEL: The Mechanism for Transformation

In public schools across the United States today, from pre-K through 12th grade and beyond, children are being subjected to what is seemingly just the latest educational fad—silly, perhaps, but no more harmful than anything else—at least on the surface.

The education establishment refers to it as “social and emotional learning,” “social-emotional learning,” or just SEL for short. Generally they speak only in vague generalities using soothing language while dealing with the public.

And it’s true, some of what falls under the SEL umbrella is fairly harmless.

But then again, the food pellets that contain rat poison are fairly harmless, too—at least until the poison, which is just a trace component in the pellets, is digested by the intended victim.

Similarly, SEL all seems innocent enough at first glance.

“Social and emotional learning (SEL) is the process through which children and adults understand and manage emotions, set and achieve positive goals, feel and show empathy for others, establish and maintain positive relationships, and make responsible decisions,” explains the Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning (CASEL), one of the leading outfits promoting SEL.

The way proponents explain it, SEL is simply aimed to help children do well emotionally and succeed.

What could be wrong with that?

Well, CASEL’s website, a review of SEL programs, and educators themselves reveal a great deal more about the agenda. And it’s not pretty.

Political Extremism and Radical Values

Behind the nice public facade lurk swarms of psychologists, psychiatrists, “educators,” and radical leftists hoping to exploit a century of psychological research for the purpose of molding children’s beliefs and “deconstructing” the values parents seek to instill.

“With a growing number of partners, CASEL is creating a more comprehensive approach to education, one that will lead to a more equitable, just, and productive society,” the organization’s website boasts under the headline “SEL as a Lever for Equity,” hitting multiple key buzzwords associated with the far-left “social justice” movement.

In other words, one of the purposes of SEL—as its leading promoters admit—is to reform society.

Among the webinars offered there are “SEL as a Lever for Equity and Social Justice,” and also a lecture on how to use SEL to “support antiracist practices.” Another webinar outlines how to use policy to “dismantle inequities.”

Again, the leftist buzzwords are everywhere. And that isn’t an accident.

Under SEL Competencies, CASEL drops multiple bombshells acknowledging the far-left globalist indoctrination taking place under the guise of “social” and “emotional” learning.

“SEL competencies can be leveraged to develop justice-oriented, global citizens, and nurture inclusive school and district communities,” it states, adding that the programs will involve getting children to “assess power dynamics” and confront “issues of race and class across different settings.”

The children are also expected to “develop an understanding of systemic or structural explanations for different treatment and outcomes.”

In short, they are expected to believe the highly controversial hypothesis that America is awash in “systemic” and “structural” racism, and that only massive government-led social engineering can fix it.

The children are also expected to accept and agree with the artificial divisions being fomented along “race” and “class” lines as part of the now-obvious effort to “divide and conquer” America.

Put simply, this is all blatantly Marxist “critical theory” rhetoric masquerading as “education.”

It’s extremely dangerous.

In Practice, Educators Shine the Light

A review by The Epoch Times of a wide range of SEL programs used across the United States found that all contain similar extremism, along with highly controversial teachings on sex, sexuality, gender, race, racism, class, economic liberty, family, marriage, and more.

Interviews with educators and a review of their writings on the subject were also very revealing.

In short, the real goals of SEL go far beyond “helping” children socially and emotionally. And it isn’t difficult to find that out.

In fact, in practice, SEL is frequently and explicitly used in public schools to instill certain attitudes and values in children that many parents, if not most, would find controversial at the very least.

For example, public-school teachers in Florida, to comply with SEL mandates, were ordered to show a number of videos to their middle school students.

These included propaganda videos promoting homosexuality, bisexuality, transgenderism, “diversity,” “inclusion,” and more.

Regardless of one’s views on these subjects, countless parents—especially those from faith traditions including Christianity, Islam, or Judaism—would find the effort to obliterate traditional sexual morality and even biological sex in children’s minds to be objectionable.

Numerous other highly controversial political, religious, economic, and worldview positions are treated as “correct” by the forces behind SEL.

More than a few self-styled SEL educators are very open about how they intend to use SEL to brainwash children.

Open Circle Director Kamilah Drummond-Forrester, who supports “social and emotional development for children,” wrote openly at EdSurge.com about weaponizing SEL to indoctrinate children with her hyper-racialist views.

“Teaching [white children] to be aware of their racial identity would allow them to better understand the privileges that accompany that identity,” she wrote, adding that this would help them dismantle the “concept of ‘whiteness.’”

“Social and emotional learning (SEL) has an important role to play in that education.

“One of the core competencies we focus on, as a necessary foundation for the others, is self-awareness. That self-awareness must include race,” she continued, without acknowledging that many parents probably don’t want their children obsessing about “race” or being propagandized by a far-left activist posing as an educator.

In an article for EdTech Magazine on peddling SEL to students amid coronavirus-inspired online learning, writer Adam Stone touts “SEL-oriented teaching materials from the Zinn Education Project.”

Howard Zinn, of course, is the far-left pseudo-historian whose dishonest and politically motivated narratives were most recently debunked by historian Mary Grabar in the book “Debunking Howard Zinn: Exposing the Fake History That Turned a Generation Against America.”

Zinn described himself as “something of a Marxist,” his biographer recounted.

According to EdTech, though, the “SEL-oriented” propaganda from Zinn is supposedly “aimed at nurturing empathy and compassion.”

In the real world, Marxism has everywhere and always nurtured hatred, death, slavery, torture, starvation, shortages, political repression, religious persecution, and other evils.

And yet under the guise of SEL programs and “nurturing empathy and compassion,” millions of children are having their minds poisoned by being force-fed actual Marxist propaganda and fake history.

And perhaps even more alarming, Stone urges educators to use surveillance tools that give “insight into students’ online behaviors—both inside and outside the virtual classroom—to enhance SEL.”

One of the recommended total surveillance tools offers educators “a holistic view of online activity across search engines, social media, email and web apps,” Stone said, adding that an artificial-intelligence engine would perform “real-time assessments” to “flag online behaviors that indicate emotional distress.”

As explained in an earlier segment of this series, Orwellian technology is used to monitor and track “progress” on adjusting children’s attitudes, too. That data is being compiled and saved forever under the label of “emotional intelligence.”

The Big Brother technology is also used to determine whether further “interventions” are needed to coerce the child into holding the desired attitudes, values, and beliefs about the issue in question.

And, as U.S. Department of Education documents make clear, it will also be used to predict “future behavior and interests” of the children.

Educators Speak Out

Of course, educators who have seen through the agenda reject SEL as a massive threat to America’s children.

One of those who spoke out against the SEL abuses taking place in her school, Jennifer McWilliams of Indiana, was even fired for being too vocal about it.

“The thing I find to be the most disturbing about social emotional learning is how well it disguises its true sinister motives,” she told The Epoch Times. “Parents do not understand that SEL psychologically manipulates children to question (and eventually rebuke) any Christian or conservative beliefs that may be taught in the home.”

While parents are led to believe that SEL is like teaching children The Golden Rule, “it is quite the opposite,” McWilliams said.

“Social emotional learning is rooted in progressive, social justice ideology that divides anyone who questions the radical groupthink agenda,” she said. “From my personal experience, not only do parents not understand it but teachers and administrators don’t either.”

SEL also represents the “brainwashing of our children,” McWilliams continued, noting that it trains children to “compromise on everything” with no consideration of what is taught in the home.

“These programs rely on a bombardment of propaganda, conditioning, and role playing to separate children from God and the nuclear family,” she said, saying SEL was the vehicle used to get children to accept as truth the narratives behind Comprehensive Sexuality Education (CSE) and Black Lives Matter (BLM).

The popular SEL program used in McWilliams’s school, Leader in Me, was designed to “shift the culture of the school to influence children’s morals and values based on progressive social justice standards,” she said, adding that it became ubiquitous on campus.

When she began publicly speaking out about it on social media, she was fired for supposedly making the school look bad.

“Parents must speak up and take back control of the influence in their children’s lives. If not, the kids will pay with their freedom,” McWilliams said.

The Occult Origins of SEL

The story behind SEL is even more troubling.

According to a history of SEL by CASEL, the term “social and emotional” originated in a meeting at the Fetzer Institute, a shadowy New Age powerhouse created by wealthy New Age guru and late media baron John Fetzer.

One of the founders of the SEL movement, David Sluyter, served as president and CEO of the organization.

“Our mission is to help build the spiritual foundation for a loving world,” the group states on its website, adding that it is working toward a “transformative sacred story for humanity in the 21st century.”

According to Brian Wilson’s book “John E. Fetzer and the Quest for the New Age,” Fetzer was, among other things, a public and fervent devotee of Alice Bailey, the controversial occultist who founded the Lucifer Publishing Company (now known as the Lucis Trust).

So obsessed was Fetzer with Bailey that he and his people would regularly recite her “Great Invocation,” which she claimed was given to her by spiritual beings known as “ascended masters,” Wilson documents in his book.

The Fetzer Institute didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment. CASEL initially suggested it would make somebody available for an interview, but didn’t follow up despite multiple requests.

More than a few other prominent names in education were similarly enamored with Bailey’s bizarre teachings from supposed spiritual entities.

United Nations World Core Curriculum author Robert Muller, for instance, who served as assistant secretary-general of the U.N., said in the teachers’ manual that his U.N.-backed global school curriculum was based on the teachings of Bailey and one of her “ascended masters.”

The values being taught to children under Fetzer-inspired SEL programs feature remarkable similarities to those taught by John Dewey, a man almost universally known among educators as the founding father of America’s “progressive” education system.

Dewey, who was inspired by the Soviet educational system, was a co-author and signer of the Humanist Manifesto, a religious document rejecting God and prescribing collectivism as the cure for society’s ills.

For at least 12 years—more if they go to college—American children are indoctrinated into the collectivist values of Dewey’s religion, which was essentially just warmed-over communism and atheism hiding behind a religious facade.

Interestingly, as early as 1898, Dewey himself expressed an understanding of the need to utilize psychology, a discipline then still in its infancy, if the plan to re-shape Americans through “education” was going to succeed.

Even more interesting, perhaps, is the fact that Bailey, citing her ascended masters, recognized the importance of Dewey’s educational schemes in achieving her goal of a one-world order with a global religion.

“Our problem is to attain the kind of overall synthesis that Marxism and neo-Scholasticism provide for their followers, but to get this by the freely chosen cooperative methods that Dewey advocated,” Bailey wrote in her book “Education in the New Age.”

Funding and People

Even a brief review of the funding and individuals behind SEL also reveals a great deal about the agenda.

On its website, CASEL lists, among other financiers, billionaire Microsoft founder Bill Gates.

Gates, who has a friendly relationship with the Chinese Communist Party and its leader, Xi Jinping, put almost $300 million behind the Obama-backed Common Core standards, which formally nationalized and helped globalize America’s education system.

Before that, Gates signed a deal with UNESCO, the subject of part nine in this series, to work on globalizing the world’s education systems.

Also listed among the financiers of CASEL is Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors, which CASEL said “provides generous funding to CASEL to support school districts and their capacity to promote social and emotional learning.”

For some background, the recently deceased patriarch of the family, David Rockefellerwrote in The New York Times in 1973 that “the social experiment in China under Chairman Mao’s leadership is one of the most important and successful in human history.”

Rockefeller also boasted in his autobiography “Memoirs” of “conspiring” with a “secret cabal” of globalists, “against the best interests of the United States,” to build a “One World” political and economic system.

Aside from its financiers, CASEL’s leading super-stars also suggest something is amiss, to put it mildly.

Consider the involvement of radical Stanford educator Linda Darling-Hammond, a board member emeritus of CASEL and known associate of communist terrorist turned educator William Ayers.

Ayers’s Weather Underground group set off bombs across America in cooperation with communist Cuban intelligence. The FBI operative who infiltrated the group’s leadership, Larry Grathwohlrevealed that the organization’s leadership was plotting to exterminate millions of Americans in camps.

Interestingly, Darling-Hammond had an opportunity to test out her educational quackery unimpeded in the Stanford New Schools. The results are now in: In 2010, Stanford New Schools placed in the lowest-achieving 5 percent of schools in California, according to multiple reports.

More than a few other colleagues of Ayers are or were also involved with CASEL and SEL, with his University of Illinois at Chicago being central to the scheme. At least 3 of 13 members listed on CASEL’s website came from that university’s Department of Education and Psychology.

SEL was formally unveiled in the late 1990s. However, the real history behind it goes way back to Lev Vygotsky, a Soviet psychologist who studied how to effectively brainwash children to become good communists.

Vygotsky’s contributions in laying the foundations for SEL are widely acknowledged among practitioners and even in the academic literature (pdf).

Interestingly, Vygotsky was a close colleague of Ivan Pavlov, the Soviet psychologist famous for his behavioral-conditioning experiments on dogs.

Vygotsky had been inspired, in part, by American psychologist and educational researcher E.L. Thorndike, a student of close Dewey-ally and associate James McKeen Cattell of Columbia University.

In fact, Vygotsky wrote the foreword to the Russian translation of Thorndike’s “Principles of Learning Based Upon Psychology” published in Moscow in the mid-1920s.

Thorndike didn’t bother to conceal his views on education: Children should be educated like circus animals, and it should be so arranged that the child will be incapable of not doing what the trainer wants.

Vygotsky, too, had grandiose ideas about how Soviet “education” and “psychology” would be used to fundamentally transform the individual, and ultimately, mankind.

“It is education which should play the central role in the transformation of man this road of conscious social formation of new generations, the basic form to alter the historical human type,” Vygotsky wrote in 1930 in the journal of the All-Union Association of Workers in Science and Technics for the Furthering of the Socialist Edification in the USSR.

“New generations and new forms of their education represent the main route which history will follow whilst creating the new type of man,” he added.

SEL is simply the latest tool of the collectivist education establishment in its fiendish drive to create this “new type of man”—a collectivist man who will mindlessly submit to the tyranny of his overlords, without the intellectual ability to effectively resist.

Conclusion

Today, while most educators and parents have little understanding of what is going on, SEL has become ubiquitous in government schools across the nation.

National Education Association (NEA) Foundation Global Learning Fellow Wendy Turner, a second-grade teacher and self-styled “SEL warrior” quoted in an article on the NEA’s website, explained that SEL is now the top priority for schools.

“SEL is the foundation, the heartbeat of the classroom,” she said. “It’s about connecting everybody and making them feel safe and secure before you get to the academics.”

In a U.S. Department of Education report, a “review” of existing studies called for subjecting “the entire student body” to constant SEL programming “in order to reinforce social and emotional learning not only in the classroom but also on the playground, in the cafeteria, and in hallways.” Parents should also “reinforce” it at home.

But the facts are now clear: The SEL craze is an extreme threat to America’s youth—and to individual liberty.

The scheme isn’t about helping children at all. Instead, it’s about manipulating and conditioning America’s youth to hold the values and beliefs that the education establishment wants to instill.

Unfortunately, those values and beliefs are incompatible with individual liberty, Western civilization, the U.S. Constitution, the nuclear family, religious liberty, and other key values that underpin the United States.

Parents and policymakers must urgently protect the nation’s children from this dangerous threat.


This article was originally published by The Epoch Times, and is one report in a series of articles examining the origins of government education in the United States.




Big Foundations Unleashed Collectivist ‘Revolution’ via U.S. Schools

It may seem counterintuitive, but massive tax-exempt foundations funded by some of America’s most prominent capitalists and industrialists helped foment what congressional investigators described as a collectivist “revolution” in the United States.

The goal was to “so alter life in the United States that it could be comfortably merged with the Soviet Union.” Many tools were used, but the public education system was the most important and effective.

Congress Investigation

In the early 1950s, with growing concerns of subversion and communist penetration surrounding the enormous foundations, the U.S. Congress launched investigations. Investigators for Congress’s Select Committee to Investigate Tax-Exempt Foundations and Comparable Organizations, sometimes referred to as the “Reece Committee,” after the chairman, found that there was good reason to be concerned.

According to the committee’s chief investigator, some of the foundations were weaponizing the American education system to enable what was described as “oligarchical collectivism,” or collectivist rule by an oligarchy. This was done by financing the promotion of “internationalism and moral relativism,” among other dangerous “isms,” investigators found.

The chief culprits included some of the largest and most important foundations in the United States. These included the Ford Foundation, the Rockefeller foundations, and the Carnegie Endowment. According to congressional investigators, they were showering money on Columbia University, Harvard, Chicago University, and the University of California to advance their objectives through education. And it worked.

Norman Dodd, the director of research for Congress’s select committee, reported that the foundations had even orchestrated a “revolution” in the United States. The revolution “could not have occurred peacefully, or with the consent of the majority, unless education in the United States had been prepared in advance to endorse it,” Dodd told lawmakers in his sworn testimony.

The committee’s final report, released in late 1954, found that “some of the larger foundations have directly supported subversion in the true meaning of that term—namely, the process of undermining some of our vitally protective concepts and principles.” Those same entities have also “actively supported attacks upon our social and governmental system and financed the promotion of socialism and collectivist ideas,” investigators concluded.

Globalism and distorting history were also major priorities. In the final report, the committee noted that the foundations had “supported a conscious distortion of history.” As part of that, they also  “propagandized blindly for the United Nations as the hope for the world,” undermining American constitutional principles and liberty.

One of the experts who testified during the hearings was attorney Aaron Sargent, whose background included special investigations, especially into education and subversion. He told lawmakers that many of the big foundations were actively promoting socialism in the United States, in violation of the law and their charters, and that education was among their key tools.

“First of all, in approaching this problem of foundation influence, the subversive-teaching problem is a foundation problem,” he said, noting that the problem began in the 1890s. “This movement is closely related to Fabian socialism.” These subversives tried to infect America, but found it more difficult than in Britain due to Americanism, a written Constitution, and federal courts capable of protecting constitutional rights.

And so, the radicals “relied upon propaganda and brainwashing,” using the school system to attack patriotism, natural law, and even real history, said Sargent, who was asked to serve as counsel to the select committee but had to decline. “They sought to create a blackout of history by slanting and distorting historical facts,” he testified. “They introduced a new and revolutionary philosophy—one based on the teachings of John Dewey.”

On the educational front, he said, the story actually begins with the Rockefeller-funded Dewey Laboratory School at the University of Chicago, a topic that has already been explored in this series. From there, Dewey “expounded a principle which has become destructive of traditions and has created the difficulties and the confusion … that we find today.” As part of that, “Professor Dewey denied that there was any such thing as absolute truth,” a concept that was “revolutionary in practice.”

Foundations’ Role

In previous articles in this series on the history of public education, the Rockefeller dynasty’s role in funding collectivist “education reformer” John Dewey, widely considered to be the “father” of America’s public school system, was documented extensively. The Rockefeller philanthropies—especially the “General Education Board”—provided millions of dollars to advance Dewey’s quackery around the end of the 19th century and into the beginning of the 20th.

But that would be just the beginning. Rockefeller money also helped resettle the communists of the Frankfurt School at prestigious U.S. academic institutions, primarily Dewey’s Columbia University. From there, their subversive poison infected all of U.S. society, mostly through the public education system.

The Rockefeller dynasty was key in shaping education policy. In 1902, facing an avalanche of bad publicity over his ruthless business practices, oil baron John D. Rockefeller created the “General Education Board.” This ostensibly “philanthropic” venture was used to help fund and eventually control education in the United States.

Rockefeller put Frederick Gates in charge of his “charitable” schemes. And Gates was honest about the agenda. “In our dream we have limitless resources, and the people yield themselves with perfect docility to our molding hand,” Gates wrote in “The Country School of To-morrow, Occasional Papers Number 1.”

“The present educational conventions fade from our minds; and, unhampered by tradition, we work our own good will upon a grateful and responsive rural folk.”

He was clear that the goal was not to raise up philosophers, scientists, authors, poets, musicians, artists, lawyers, doctors, preachers, or statesmen. There was already an “ample supply” of those, he said. Instead, the goal was to create docile and largely unthinking workers who could be used and controlled by the elites.

The ultimate goal of all this subversion from the mega-foundations, though, was even more horrifying.

Dodd Interview

In an interview with G. Edward Griffin in 1982, chief investigator Dodd dropped a bombshell that should have, and would have, shocked America to the core—at least if it had been more widely known. The goal of the foundations’ scheming in education and beyond was to crush individualism, promote collectivism, and prepare the way for the United States to be merged with the totalitarian Soviet Union.

While investigating, Dodd was contacted by Ford Foundation President Alan Gaither and asked to come to the foundation’s offices in New York. “On arrival, after a few amenities, Mr. Gaither said, ‘Mr. Dodd, we have asked you to come up here today because we thought that, possibly, off the record, you would tell us why the Congress is interested in the activities of foundations such as ourselves,’” Dodd recalled in the interview.

Dodd continued: “Before I could think of how I would reply to that statement, Mr. Gaither then went on voluntarily and stated: ‘Mr. Dodd, all of us who have a hand in the making of policies here have had experience … operating under directives … the substance of which is, that we shall use our grant-making power so to alter life in the United States that it can be comfortably merged with the Soviet Union.’”

In short, the head of the Ford Foundation, one of the most influential in the world, told the chief congressional investigator of a committee investigating foundations that the foundations were helping to pave the way to a merger of the free world with the slave world. And Americans remained blissfully unaware, as the cancer crept in quietly through the school system over a period of generations.

According to Dodd and the congressional investigation, the Carnegie foundations decided after World War I that gaining control of education would be crucial. The leadership’s goal at that time, Dodd said, was to prevent “a reversion of life in the United States to what it was prior to 1914.” But the task was so enormous that it would require help. And so, while the Carnegie Endowment would focus on international education matters, the Rockefeller foundations were put in charge of domestic initiatives, according to documents uncovered by investigators in the Carnegie Endowment’s archives.

“The effect was to orient our educational system away from support of the principles embodied in the Declaration of Independence, and implemented in the Constitution, and educate them over to the idea that the task now was, as a result of the orientation of education, away from these briefly stated principles and self-evident truths,” Dodd said in the interview.

“What we had uncovered was the determination of these large endowed foundations, through their trustees, to actually get control over the content of American education.”

Investigations also found that since at least the 1930s, Moscow decided to infiltrate educational and large foundations in the United States. Following their orders from the Soviet Union, American communists even created a commission focused on infiltrating and taking over foundations.

One of the major successes identified by the congressional investigators was Soviet agent Alger Hiss, who became president of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace after playing a starring role in creating the United Nations. He was later exposed as a spy for Joseph Stalin’s mass-murdering regime.

Current State

This work of the major foundations continues to this day. Consider, for example, Microsoft founder Bill Gates pouring billions of dollars into “education reform” and into supporting the collectivist agenda of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). In fact, Gates’s foundation was, aside from U.S. taxpayers, the single largest financier of Common Core, the universally reviled national (and internationally aligned) “standards” imposed on the United States by the Obama administration. More on that in a future piece of this education series.

The Rockefeller foundations also continue to be deeply involved in “education.” And key Rockefeller bigwigs have become increasingly open about their real agenda. In his autobiography, for instance, the late dynasty patriarch David Rockefeller dropped a bombshell.

“Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists’ and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure–one world, if you will,” he wrote on page 405. “If that’s the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.”

When examining these facts, it seems perplexing that the wealth of some of America’s most important super-capitalists would be put to use advancing collectivism, subversion, and even socialism. And yet, it was hardly a new phenomenon. In his important book “Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution,” Stanford historian Anthony Sutton meticulously documented the role of major bankers and financiers from New York City in financing the communist enslavement of the Russian people.

It is time for Americans to completely rethink education or be destroyed. That rethink must involve discarding all of the quackery and subversive influences brought about by collectivists such as Dewey, and the out-of-control foundations that funded and helped them. The future of United States and liberty literally depend on sorting out this mess.


This article was originally published by The Epoch Times, and is one report in a series of articles examining the origins of government education in the United States.




Smart Phones Require Smarter Choices

Written by Steve Huston

It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, …it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair, we had everything before us, we had nothing before us…

Many of you are probably familiar with these opening lines from the classic Charles Dickens’ story A Tale of Two Cities. Well representing so many areas of our nation and our culture today, I choose to apply these opening words to the vast landscape—or virtual wasteland—of information and entertainment via technology that is only a click away via our devices.

Dickens writes about a time of extreme opposites without any in-betweens; our goal here is to recognize the extreme polarization these devices offer, yet aim at some guidelines that will, hopefully, land us somewhere in-between. That middle ground being a wise use of screens, as opposed to not using them at all or using them without restriction, having no concern for the inherent dangers they bring. While children are my main concern here, adults have also been taken captive by the alluring blue glow of their screens.

On one hand our digital devices offer “wisdom,” “Light, “the spring of hope,” and seemingly hold out “everything before us.” After all, one can read our newsletter, listen to our broadcasts, and receive our emails or those of other ministries on their favorite screen. I often “join” a congregation in Pennsylvania on Sundays, to be encouraged by great messaging. I use screens for research and occasionally to study God’s Word with online resources; what a terrific tool our screens can be.

On the other hand, digital devices also epitomize “foolishness,” “Darkness,” “the winter of despair,” and a great wasteland of “nothing before us.” We seem compelled to waste vast amounts of time with them. Males and females of all ages post or view photos or movies that range from immodest to pornographic; multitudes go from being entertained to becoming addicted; what should be used for good becomes a tool for evil as our baser side is unleashed. We have written about the dangers of hiding behind screens, neither being seen nor seeing, as we respond to others or mention them on social media. After all, who is to see, know, or care? Well, God sees; God knows; and God definitely cares about our smartphone use.

Regardless of how our children are using their smartphones, the amount of time they are on them is an issue in itself. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) reports that nine- and ten-year-old children who spend more than two hours in front of a screen each day score lower on thinking and language tests—the average “tween” spends up to six hours a day on their screens.

Bloomberg reports that “the scans of children who reported daily screen usage of more than seven hours showed premature thinning of the brain cortex, the outermost layer that processes information from the physical world.”

There are studies that show a relation between smartphone use by children and sleep deprivation and poor attention span—two-thirds of children take their devices to bed with them; some even laying their phones on their pillow for fear of missing a text.

Digital addiction is a very real and growing problem.The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation introduces their 2010 study on “Media in the Lives of 8- to 18-Year-Olds,” in part: “Eight- to eighteen-year-olds spend more time with media than in any other activity besides (maybe) sleeping—an average of more than 7½ hours a day, seven days a week…”

In a recent USA Today article we read that over 200 million mostly obsessed people are playing an online game called “Fortnite.” Some of these players are engaging in battle during school instead of paying attention to their teachers. Digital addiction is becoming more commonplace and most parents are at a loss of how to handle it. Other sources warn that victims of digital addiction can experience “destructive dependence, extreme change of personality, isolation, and physical signs during withdrawal.

Research shows that teens who spend five or more hours per day on their devices are 71 percent more likely to have one risk factor for suicide—regardless of what they are viewing. Half an hour to one hour a day seems to be the ideal for teen mental health in terms of electronic devices. “Kids who use their phones for at least three hours a day are much more likely to be suicidal.” (Businessinsider.com)

None of the above should surprise us; especially considering that Bill Gates and Steve Jobs raised their kids mostly tech free. For that matter, most Silicon Valley parents are strict about technology use—shouldn’t that raise red flags? Shouldn’t that encourage us to set some very definite limits?

Setting limits is very important; but we must also model those limits. Here are some general guidelines to start; more to come at a later date.

Keep certain times and places “screen-free.”  For starters, at mealtimes we should focus on one another instead of our phones. Intentionally set aside device free “family time,” where you can play games, talk, or work on projects together. There are some families that put their cell phones in a basket upon entering their home to intentionally be present with their family. As for places, bedrooms should definitely be off limits and any zone you choose to allow devices should be public and always available for anyone else to view.

As you set limits, help them to understand that there are dangers associated with smartphone use.

As Christians we need to keep in mind that in all we do—including smartphone and other device usage—we are to glorify God and do in the name of Jesus. And let’s not forget Paul’s admonition in I Corinthians 6:12. “All things are lawful for me, but not all things are profitable. All things are lawful for me, but I will not be mastered by anything.”


This article was originally published at AmericanDecency.org




Obama Awards Abortion Activists Bill, Melinda Gates

The Gates were just a couple of the two dozen award recipients who the president honored last week. By awarding the founders of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation – which has reportedly been instrumental in population control though its vaccines that have worked to sterilize multitudes of African women – the Obama administration is sending the message that working toward the elimination of preborn children is a noble cause.

Awarding abortion?

Pro-abortion advocates and other critics contend that the Microsoft founder and his wife – with their devotion to promote and move the abortion movement forward – do not benefit society by eliminating innocent preborn children.

According to the official language used to describe the award, the Presidential Medal of Freedom is “presented to individuals who have made especially meritorious contributions to the security or national interests of the United States, to world peace, or to cultural or other significant public or private endeavors.”

With Obama being a devout advocate of Planned Parenthood and its federal funding, many are not surprised by his adulation of the Gates.

The grant database of the Gates Foundation indicates that the nonprofit donated roughly $71 million to Planned Parenthood of America, the International Planned Parenthood Federation and Planned Parenthood of Western Washington from some time before 2009 through 2013. It is also noted that $46.1 million in contributions was given in 2012 alone to the pro-abortion organization, Marie Stopes International, by The Gates Foundation.

When introducing Bill and Melinda Gates, Obama gave them lofty accolades for their foundation’s humanitarian work in medicine – without mentioning its pro-abortion advocacy.

“For two decades, the Gates Foundation has worked to provide lifesaving medical care to millions – boosting clean water supplies, improving education for our children, rallying aggressive international action on climate change, cutting childhood mortality in half,” Obama announced. “The list could go on.”

Funding the abortion agenda worldwide

It is reported that the Gates Foundation plays an integral part in funding abortions on numerous continents around the world.

“Much of this giving is focused on Africa, Asia and Latin America, where abortion-providers like Planned Parenthood, Marie Stopes, and Ipas seek to overturn pro-life laws and sometimes even provide illicit abortion drugs,” Life News reports.

The Gates, the media and the Obama administration have done a phenomenal job touting the Gates Foundation’s work to preserve life and hide the fact that it has spent untold millions to destroy it.

“While Gates Foundation funds cannot be earmarked for abortion, the fungibility of money makes it easier for these organizations to provide abortion internationally,” Life News’ Steven Ertelt explained. “In other words, every dollar the Gates Foundation gives to Planned Parenthood for distributing birth control or building an abortion-friendly clinic frees up a dollar in Planned Parenthood’s budget to spend elsewhere.”

Furthermore, the billionaire’s wife has been witnessed on numerous occasions forwarding the culture of death.

“In 2012, Melinda Gates was criticized for promoting abortion and population control at an international meeting,” Ertelt pointed out. “The same year, she was criticized for hosting a Family Planning Summit in London with two of the biggest pro-abortion groups in the world – the U.N. Population Fund and International Planned Parenthood Federation.”

The foundation’s willingness to step in with funding when the abortion industry is lacking is also noted.

“More recently, the Gates Foundation is funneling more money into global programs promoting population control and abortion after a group warned that international family planning goals are not being met,” Ertelt added.

In the name of “women’s reproductive rights,” the foundation based in the Seattle area pledged to give millions more toward abortion.

“[The Foundation promised an additional $120 million to Family Planning 2020 programs that support] the rights of women and girls to decide when and how many children they want to have,” the news website All Africa reported last year.

The pro-abortion initiative’s press release announced that two of the largest abortion businesses in the world – Planned Parenthood and Marie Stopes International – are partners in the global Family Planning 2020 project.

Read more:  The Gates Foundation: Philanthropy Cloaked Abortion


This article was originally posted at OneNewsNow.com




The Gates Foundation: Philanthropy Cloaked Abortion

When William “Bill” Henry Gates III was born to William Henry Gates II and Mary Maxwell Gates, in Seattle in 1955, little did they know he would grow up to be (reportedly) the world’s wealthiest man.

Bill III and Paul Allen co-founded Microsoft on April 4, 1975, and grew the fledgling company into an $85 billion multi-national computer software business. Bill transitioned from CEO to CSA (Chief Software Architect) in 2000, the year he and wife, Melinda, established the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF). Then in 2006 Bill backed off, becoming part-time at Microsoft and full-time at BMGF.

Three trustees shepard BMGF, commonly called The Gates Foundation: Bill Gates III, Melinda Gates, and Warren Buffett. Buffett (Chairman/President/CEO of $65B Berkshire Hathaway Inc.) is ranked as one of the world’s wealthiest men (net worth of about $66 billion) and has vowed to disburse 99% of his fortune to charities and causes mostly via the Gates Foundation. One Buffett pet cause being the Democratic party; he endorsed Hillary Clinton in her run for president.

The Gates Foundation, by all appearances is a humanitarian endeavor, seeking to help the least of these throughout the world, and especially in Africa. As written on the opening page of the BMGF website:

WE BELIEVE

That by giving people the tools to lead healthy, productive lives, we can help them lift themselves out of poverty.

Every year, millions of people find ways to transition out of poverty—by adopting new farming technologies, investing in new business opportunities, or finding new jobs. We know women and girls have a unique power to reshape societies. When you invest in a woman’s health and empowerment, it has a ripple effect, helping families, communities, and countries achieve long-lasting benefits.

A “woman’s health and empowerment” — now that’s an interesting phrase. Just what might that mean?

Click on the link under A CLOSER LOOK Help women make informed family-planning decisions and more of the BMGF agenda is revealed:

The Challenge

Voluntary family planning is one of the great public health advances of the past century. Enabling women to make informed decisions about whether and when to have children reduces unintended pregnancies as well as maternal and newborn deaths. It also increases educational and economic opportunities for women and leads to healthier families and communities. Family planning is a smart, sensible, and vital component of global health and development.

However, more than 220 million women in developing countries who don’t want to get pregnant lack access to contraceptives and voluntary family planning information and services. Less than 20 percent of women in Sub-Saharan Africa and barely one-third of women in South Asia use modern contraceptives. In 2012, an estimated 80 million women in developing countries had an unintended pregnancy; of those women, at least one in four resorted to an unsafe abortion.

Significant challenges stand in the way of making contraceptives more widely available and accessible, including insufficient donor and developing country funding, lack of appropriate products that meet users’ needs, weak distribution systems, lack of reliable monitoring and data collection mechanisms, and cultural and knowledge barriers.

Farther down The Foundation Strategy is defined:

Our Strategy

The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation’s Family Planning program is working to bring access to high-quality contraceptive information, services, and supplies to an additional 120 million women and girls in the poorest countries by 2020 without coercion or discrimination, with the longer-term goal of universal access to voluntary family planning.

With our partners, we support national governments that have committed to the goals of FP2020 and are leading the development and implementation of their own country-specific plans.

Foundation support includes assessing family planning needs, particularly among the poorest and most vulnerable populations; identifying access barriers and funding gaps; developing and testing interventions; sharing evidence-based practices; promoting accountability through real-time performance monitoring and data collection; and fostering coordination among governments, partners, and donors.

The verbiage repeatedly refers to “contraceptive information” and “contraceptives and voluntary family planning” and then, tucked away, “at least one in four resorted to an unsafe abortion.”

So, a whole lot of talk about women and contraception information and worries about unsafe abortions. What is starkly missing from the page is any mention of “life” or “babies.”

Also of note, The Gates Foundation operates with entities aligned with FP2020: Family Planning 2020. What is the goal of that initiative?

FP2020 is an outcome of the 2012 London Summit on Family Planning where more than 20 governments made commitments to address the policy, financing, delivery and socio-cultural barriers to women accessing contraceptive information, services and supplies and donors pledged an additional US$2.6 billion in funding. Since then, the number of countries with FP2020 commitments has grown to 36 and, in 2014 alone, donors provided US $1.4 billion in bilateral funding for family planning—32 percent more than in 2012.

Led by an 18-member Reference Group, operated daily by a Secretariat, and hosted by the United Nations Foundation, FP2020 is based on the principle that all women, no matter where they live should have access to lifesaving contraceptives.

One of the FP2020 guiding principles:

  • Universal access to voluntary contraceptive information, services and supplies, within the context of integrated programs to achieve sexual and reproductive health and rights and the health-related MDGs.

The website, like its partner the Gates Foundation, is full of mentions of contraceptive information and “sexual and reproductive health and rights.” And even more telling, the list of “Core Partners“:

  • The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation
  • The Department for International Development (DFID)
  • UNFPA, the United Nations Population Fund
  • USAID (The United States Agency for International Development)

Much has been made of The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation’s investment in African charities, but a closer inspection yields something less of a true philanthropic effort to save lives, and more of an effort to advance family planning and abortion. And this pro-abortion, utilitarian worldview was cultivated in Bill Gates III from a young age.

In a 2003 interview, Bill Moyers questioned Gates about his interest in advancing “family planning”:

MOYER: But did you come to reproductive issues as an intellectual, philosophical pursuit? Or was there something that happened? Did you come upon… was there a revelation?

GATES: When I was growing up, my parents were always involved in various volunteer things. My dad was head of Planned Parenthood. And it was very controversial to be involved with that. And so it’s fascinating. At the dinner table my parents are very good at sharing the things that they were doing. And almost treating us like adults, talking about that.

My mom was on the United Way group that decides how to allocate the money and looks at all the different charities and makes the very hard decisions about where that pool of funds is going to go. So I always knew there was something about really educating people and giving them choices in terms of family size.

Indeed, Bill Gates II, a prominent Seattle lawyer, also served on the board of Planned Parenthood. His wife, Mary, Bill III’s mother, was the first female president of King County’s United Way. The United Way shunts a portion of all donations, unless earmarked otherwise, to Planned Parenthood.

Gates Sr. is Co-Chair of the Board of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

All of these connections explain Bill Gates’ implicit pro-abortion biases, they all add up. And The Foundation doesn’t dicker, it contributes major bucks to abortion providers. Live Action News’ Josh Craddock wrote in June 2014:

Fr. Boquet notes that, “The Gates Foundation has in the past and will continue to give tens of millions of dollars to the largest abortion providers in the world, including International Planned Parenthood Federation and Marie Stopes International. These large sums of money will undoubtedly expand the reach and influence of the abortion industry.”

According to the Gates Foundation grant database, the Foundation gave Planned Parenthood of America, the International Planned Parenthood Federation, and Planned Parenthood of Western Washington about $71 million from before 2009 through 2013. Additionally, the Gates Foundation gave $46.1 million to Marie Stopes International in 2012 alone.

A year later, Micaiah Bilger writes for Life News:

The Gates Foundation promised to give an additional $120 million to Family Planning 2020 programs that support “the rights of women and girls to decide when and how many children they want to have,” the news website All Africa reported today.

. . .

Both Planned Parenthood and Marie Stopes International, two of the largest abortion businesses in the world, are partners in the global Family Planning 2020 initiative, according to a press release from the initiative.

Now factor in BMGF Trustee Warren Buffett, Hillary Clinton’s BFF. Remember that Planned Parenthood awarded Hillary the Margaret Sanger Award in 2009 and the Democratic Presidential candidate has pledged to have “Planned Parenthood’s back if elected president.” In fact, not only is Mrs. Clinton pals with Planned Parenthood CEO Cecile Richards, she was also good friends with Cecile’s mother, Ann Richards.

The mafia had a term to describe who they were, “cosa nostra,” translated that means “our thing.” And “our thing” to Bill and Melinda Gates, Bill Gates Sr., Mary Gates, Warren Buffett, Hillary Clinton, Cecile Richards, Planned Parenthood, United Way, Marie Stopes International, and FP2020 is a desire to advance an abortion agenda around the globe.

And at its heart, abortion countermands the culture of life admonished in Deuteronomy:

I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live.

Yes indeed. Mainstream Media adores The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and touts their Progressive “Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA),” but that’s just one small endeavor and not the heart of what the Microsoft billionaire really does with his fortune.

The word Philanthropy comes from the Greek: philos loving + anthrōpos man. Alas, Philanthropy, Gates-style, has absolutely nothing to do with real love of human life.



Our get-out-the-vote campaign is up and running. We are distributing the IFI Voter Guide to hundreds of churches, civic groups and tea party organizations. Will you financially support our endeavor to educate Illinois voters and promote Judeo-Christian values?  Donate today.

Donate-now-button1

P.S. Listen to recent IFA podcast episodes at : illinoisfamilyaction.org/podcast