The Conservative Movement and Homosexuality Revisited

"The hypocrite's crime is that he bears false witness against himself. What makes it so plausible to assume that hypocrisy is the vice of vices is that integrity can indeed exist under the cover of all other vices except this one. Only crime and the criminal, it is true, confront us with the perplexity of radical evil; but only the hypocrite is really rotten to the core". - Hannah Arendt (above)

Of all the hypocritical preachings of the conservative movement, from holier than thou exhortations to economic homilizing, perhaps the most hypocritical and heinous of them all, are their anti-homosexual sermons.

I'm now reading David Brock's Blinded by the Right: The Conscience of an Ex-Conservative  (Crown 2002) and am furious.

I like books written by "ex-Conservatives" because they give you a better understanding of what the movement is all about.  They read like someone who has just escaped a cult and lived to tell about it. 

Frank Schaeffer's Crazy for God, reveals the bigotry and sanctimoniousness of the Religious Right.  Schaeffer's dad was the author of A Christian Manifesto, said to be a blueprint for the so-called Moral Majority.

David Kuo's Tempting Faith: An inside Story of Political Seduction, confirms many of the statements made by Schaeffer Jr.  As a member of George Bush's "Faith-based Group" Kuo realized that the Christian faith was being exploited for political gain.

Matt Latimer's Speechless: Tales of a White House Survivor, tells of how he was selected to be part of George Bush's speech writing team, only to learn that he was no more than a glorified ad man, reduced to creating slogans for bumper sticker politics.

Brock's book Blinded, exposes far more than religious hypocrisy and dummied down politics, however, proving that Hilary Clinton was right.  There really is a "vast right-wing conspiracy", and he would know, because he was a part of it.

Reagan's "Laissez Fairies"

Scott Brison was one of the few Progressive Conservatives in the "new" Conservative Party, created with the Reform/Alliance takeover.  He tells of how he was called into Stephen Harper's office and told that while his keen economic mind was appreciated, he would have to go back into the closet, if he wanted a place in a future Harper cabinet.

Brison was always clear that he was not a gay politician, but a politician who happened to be gay.  He refused Harper's offer and crossed the floor to the Liberals.

Arthur Finkelstein was one of Richard Nixon's most valued political operatives.  An attack ad god.  Many of the negative campaigns he helped to launch were against gay candidates, or those who had "gay sympathies".  (Finkelstein also spent sixteen years working with the National Citizens Coalition, where he taught Stephen Harper the art of  sleazy politics)

It came as quite a shock, when just before his death, Finkelstein was wed to his male partner of 40 years; only an issue because of the hypocrisy.  Working with not only Nixon, but Reagan and Bush, publicly denouncing homosexuality and gay marriage, Finkelstein earned a reputation as a homophobe.

According to David Brock the Republican Party is filled with closeted gays and lesbians, who are forced to hide their sexual orientation because of the public image that the GOP is trying to put forward.  The sad part of that, is not that they have to remain closeted, but that they have to be identified at all.  Such is today's political climate. 

Under Reagan, Brock says that the group referred to themselves as the "Laissez Fairies".

The "big tent" had no room for anyone who might upset the "Evangelicals" that Reagan had so carefully courted.  What is unforgivable is that Reagan dragged his heels on developing a strategy to fight Aids, because his "faith-based group", headed up by another demonic hypocrite, Gary Bauer, said that Aids was God's punishment for being gay.

Reagan only acted when his friend, Rock Hudson, succumbed to the disease.  Too little, too late.

In a new book on Richard Nixon, Nixon's Darkest Secrets: The Inside Story of America's Most Troubled President, former United Press International Washington bureau chief Don Fulsom, says that Nixon himself was gay, and had carried on a torrid love affair with  Charles (Bebe) Rebozo.  This only matters because Nixon also loved to gay bash, once calling San Francisco "the most faggy goddamned thing you could ever imagine," and blamed the fall of the Roman Empire on homosexual emperors (Nixon Papers, National Archives).

Another book, Lothar Machtan's The Hidden Hitler, (Perseus 2001) makes the claim that the former dictator was also a closeted gay man, with past male lovers. (Mend Protocol)  The assassination of Ernest Rohm and 150 other members of the party, says Machtan, was to bury Hitler's past and reduce the risk of blackmail.

Yet the Nazis sought to exterminate all homosexuals, sending many to concentration or labour camps.  Definitely worse than than simple discrimination, but damaging nonetheless.

When 15-year-old Jamie Hubley committed suicide after constant bullying because of his sexual orientation, members of Canada's Conservatives  actually had the audacity to release public service messages saying "It gets better".  Stephen Harper's homophobia, whether real or just for show, is well chronicled, as are the views of many members of his caucus.

They are part of the problem.

David Brock, gay himself, said that conservatives didn't stop at ridiculing those known to be homosexual, but assumed that any male in their 30s or older, who had never married and were not seen to be dating women, were automatically assumed to be gay, so had to endure the same abuse.

If this is true, Brad Trost, Jason Kenney and Rob Anders, might want to rethink their anti-gay rhetoric.  Apparently perception is enough.

The Republicans and the conservatives in the U.S. are currently  engaged in open warfare, for control of the party, and one of the criterion, for being a true conservative is that you oppose gay rights.  However, according to Brock, most could care less.  They simply have to keep up the appearance to sooth the pseudo-Christians with all the bucks.

Arendt is right.  Rotten to the core. The whole damn lot of them.

The Canadian Manifesto 10: The Exploitation of Religion Has Many Victims

David Kuo was a foot soldier in the Evangelical army that stormed the White House for George W. Bush. He eventually came to realize that his role was purely political, and that the Bush administration had no intention of honouring their promises.

At a particularly bad time, when his spirits were at their lowest, Kuo was asked by a senior official what they could do to fix things.

"For starters", Kuo said, "you could stop calling us the f...ing faith-based group". They had been reduced to an annoyance and diminished through profanity.

Kuo, like many others, had been led into politics by people like Ralph Reed and Karl Rove, believing that he could make a difference.  His "faith-based" priority was to end abortion, but he also wanted to eradicate poverty, improve education and set higher moral standards for politicians.

Instead he spent his time polishing Bush's halo and fundraising for the Republicans.  So he resigned and wrote a book of his experiences; Tempting Faith: An inside Story of Political Seduction.

Kuo advises that Evangelicals need to take a time-out from political activism, and re-connect with their faith. 

I have seen what happens when well-meaning Christians are seduced into thinking deliverance can come from the Oval Office, a Supreme Court chamber, or the floor of the United States Congress. They are easily manipulated by politicians who use them for their votes, seduced by trinkets of power, and tempted to turn a mission field (politics) into a battlefield, leaving the impression Jesus' main goal was advancing a particular policy agenda. I know: I've seen it, I've done it, I've lived it, and I've learned from it. (1)

"Little Platoons" of Soldiers for Christ

“To be attached to the subdivision, to love the little platoon we belong to in society, is the first principle (the germ as it were) of public affections. It is the first link in the series by which we proceed toward a love to our country and to mankind."  Edmund Burke (1729-1797)

One of Kuo's bosses and mentors was Chuck Colson, who rallied his troops under the battle cry:  "Storm the battlements for Christ!" 

Using Edmund Burke as inspiration, an army of political Evangelists would have to create "little platoons" that could be easily mobilized to bring down the enemy.

Of course, this meant different things to different people, and for David Kuo, an enemy he was inspired to destroy was poverty.  What he found instead was that he had been inducted into an army trained to attack the poor.  He referred to them as "little platoons against the welfare state".

Using terms not unlike those used by Harrisites (Mike Harris) and Harperites, he had allowed himself to be convinced that only "tough love" would heal the nation, and that the only way to get people off welfare was to make them work.  (2)

When Mike Harris first ran in Ontario, he promoted the same thing, prompting many on social assistance to vote for him, believing that he would help them find a job.  Instead they had their benefits slashed by 22% and were left to their own devises, looking for jobs that never existed, and would never exist.

More "tough love" was aimed at single mothers, especially those who had children out of wedlock.  "Welfare needed to stop paying people to have illegitimate children and needed to be a much tougher way of life". (2)  Spoken by someone who has never had to live as a single mom on the meagre welfare "hand out".  It doesn't get much tougher than that.

In Ontario under Harris, John Baird became so ruthless that it resulted in the death of a singe mom, who was trying desperately to claw her way out from under the welfare system.  His reaction:  Oops!

The "faith-based" crew saw the government undermining God, by providing services that ought to be left to the Church and their "little platoons".  Yet churches and poverty have co-existed for centuries, so clearly that strategy wasn't working.

Conservative activists love to quote Edmund Burke as inspiration, often citing:  "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing".  However, that quote cannot be found in any of Burke's writings.  The closest attribution comes from Tolstoy's War and Peace.

An actual quote of Burke's, is the one they should be paying attention to:

"The interest of that portion of social arrangement is a trust in the hands of all those who compose it; and as none but bad men would justify it in abuse, none but traitors would barter it away for their own personal advantage.”

"Faith-based" Organized Crime

One area in which George Bush's "faith-based" group hoped to have an impact, was in the allocation of government grants.

Conservative Republicans were in the midst of derailing carefully laid plans. One thing they wanted was more Charitable Choice—that is, a broader range of religious charities eligible government grants ...  Now, with a conservative evangelical president in the Oval Office, with Republicans controlling the House and nearly the Senate, some conservatives thought it time to allow "real" faith-based groups to receive federal funding. In short, they wanted to allow groups that aimed to convert people [my emphasis] to a particular faith to be able to receive direct federal grants which was far beyond what Charitable Choice was actually intended to do.

They also wanted numerous large federal grant programs converted to vouchers so that grant recipients could have access to plainly religious groups. Finally, they wanted to give religious groups receiving public funds an unfettered right to hire and fire people based not only on their professed religion but on whether they lived according to the "rules" of their religion ( no gay Catholics, pork-eating Orthodox Jews, bug-killing Jainists, leather-wearing Buddhists, or drinking Christian fundamentalists). They wove these objectives together into a single, highly partisan bill. It wasn't exactly the legislation-free bipartisanship that Brother John had hoped for. (3)

This was not charity, but proselytizing, and taxpayers were being asked to fund it, despite the fact that unless they adhered to the stringent requirements, they would see no benefits.  Only the corporate sector and the "God for the creation of personal wealth" elite few, would cash in.  A perfect example of this, is one I already provided, that is taking place in private (for-profit) corporate prisons.

Hundreds of millions of dollars to "save" instead of rehabilitate prisoners.*  Cha ching, cha ching.

Another priority for "faith-based" was a change in the tax laws that would make it more appealing to donate to charities.  That too got lost in the shuffle.

In my third day on the job, President Bush signed the tax cut that had been one of his top priorities .... There were cuts in capital gains taxes (p: from the sale of stocks and land). The inheritance tax was with the exemption slowly increasing to $3.5 million ($7 million for couples) .... But something was missing: the president's promised $6 billion per year in tax credits for groups helping the poor. Those tax credits had been the centerpiece of compassionate-conservative efforts for years and the centerpiece of the president's own compassion agenda during the campaign. The best estimates projected that the proposal would create more than 11.7 million new givers throughout the country, stimulate an additional $14.6 billion in charitable giving in the first year and more than $160 billion over ten years, and increase current giving levels by 11 percent.  Unfortunately, those charity tax credits weren't listed by the White House as must-haves, so the House skipped over them. (3)

Bush's changes only benefited the already wealthy, or soon to be wealthy, as couples could now inherit up to seven million dollars without paying a dime.  This hurt charities, because it meant that there would be no incentive to give some of it away, as a means to avoid paying tax.  The wealthy recipients could just keep it all, and usually did.

The National Council of Churches spoke out against the 2001 Bush tax cuts, that favoured the rich as a means to "balance the budget".  Their General Secretary Rev. Dr. Bob Edgarru, said that "There’s no budget surplus if there are still people living in poverty."

As millions of people – parents and children, the elderly, people with disabilities and the working poor – are driven to seek charity to meet their most basic needs, we are appalled that the focus of attention in this Congressional session is not on meeting their needs; rather, it is on tax cuts that will mostly benefit the affluent."  (4)

The tax cuts and changes to tax laws, actually hurt legitimate charities, because the corporate sector only found a new way to not only avoid paying taxes, but also to obtain government grants.  What I like to call "Faith-based organized crime".

And those "little platoons" were demobilized, only to be called to action again, when they were needed to fight another election.

So Again, What Does This Have to do With Us?

Kuo tells us that prominent Republican pollsters like Frank Luntz and John MacLaughlin, advised that issues should be framed in such a way as to appeal to "religious conservative voters".

Frank Luntz has worked with the Reform-Alliance-Conservative Party for many years, and was the one who told Stephen Harper to talk about hockey as much as possible, to sell himself as a man of the people. (5)

John McLaughlin is the ad man who handled campaigns for the National Citizens Coalition (where Harper was president) and according to his 2004 bio:

John McLaughlin has worked professionally as a strategic consultant and pollster for twenty years. During this time he has earned a reputation for helping to guide underdog Republicans and conservative challengers to victory. He has worked across America and internationally in hundreds of campaigns.  Within the past year, John McLaughlin has helped elect Iain Duncan Smith, the leader of the Conservative Party (United Kingdom); Stephen Harper, the leader of the Canadian Alliance Party (Canada); Virginia Attorney General Jerry Kilgore; and a historic 30-seat Republican majority in the Virginia House of Delegates. (6)

Stephen Harper digested the "Bible according to Republican strategists", and has tapped into the vote-rich and cash-rich, Religious Right.

He has also tapped into the Bush Doctrine, not only when it comes to an aggressive foreign policy, but also in the creation of tax measures designed for the well-to-do.

However, there may be something else on the horizon, when it comes to corporate run and taxpayer funded charities.

Well known Reform-Alliance-Conservative insider, Gerry Chipeur, (also a Republican insider), wrote an op-ed piece for the National Post, soon after the Harper government announced that they would be taking their lead from George Bush's "cutting red tape" initiative (massive de-regulation), and resurrecting Mike Harris's "Red Tape Commission".

Without mentioning that the sweat on his brow came from a backroom meeting with the Harperites, hammering out their plan of attack, he outlined ten ways that Harper could cut the public out of public policy.

Targeted was Health Canada, Agriculture Canada, the CRTC, The Canadian Wheat Board (already gone), Canada Border Services (being handed over to the Americans), Fisheries and Oceans, Parks Canada ....

But one mentioned by Chipeur was removing Revenue Canada's oversight from charitable organizations.  This no doubt comes from complaints by people like Faytene Grasseschi Kryskow, who was turned down for charitable status because prayer gatherings are not classed as charity.   Apparently there have been many quasi-religious groups with the same complaints.

What Chipeaur suggested was that only CIDA should be involved with charities.  We all know how that works, when Bev Oda altered a contract AFTER it was duly signed. 

However, I see this as being a major problem.  Without Revenue Canada being involved, how do we know what are legitimate charities and what aren't?  Corporations could set up their own charities, with the money going right back into the corporation.

They could also donate to AstroTurf groups, and receive a charitable donation, despite the fact that the AstroTurf group was created by them to promote their own interests.

The National Citizens Coalition could not only apply for charitable status, but receive CIDA grants for questionable activities.

And all of this could be funnelled to the Conservative Party.

The media and the Opposition have to stay on top on this before we end up a one party/one religion state.

And the public have to separate the legitimate charities and community churches, from the Religious Right money machine. Many Christians who got involved in the associated political activism, may not yet realize as  David Kuo did, that they are being used.

According to Lloyd Mackey, in The Pilgrimage of Stephen Harper, our PM was "saved" after being introduced to the writings of C.S. Lewis.  This claim is made by many in the New Right movement.  However, Kuo found a passage in a Lewis book, that frightened him, and helped to make him realize that what he was doing was sinful.

If the Tea Partiers could read, they might learn something here too.

The passage is from the Screwtape Letters, near the end when Screwtape advises his cousin:   

Let him begin by treating patriotism ... as a part of his religion. Then let him, under the influence of partisan spirit, come to regard it as the most important part. Then quietly and gradually nurse him on to the stage at which the religion becomes merely a part of the "cause," in which Christianity is valued chiefly because of the excellent arguments it can produce ... Once he's made the world an end, and faith a means, you have almost won your man, and it makes very little difference what kind of worldly end he is pursuing. (7)

Footnotes:

 *I was told recently that an old cell block at Collins Bay Pen/Frontenac Institute, that was destroyed during a riot years ago, is being renovated to possibly be used as a "repent or regret for profit" rehabilitation centre, to replace the Prison Farms.  I hope not.

Sources: 

1. Tempting Faith: An inside Story of Political Seduction, By David Kuo, Free Press, 2006, ISBN: 13: 978-0 7432-8712-8, p. xii

2. Kuo, 2006, p. 59

3. Kuo, 2006, p. 160-165

4.  "RELIGIOUS COMMUNITY FOR RESPONSIBLE TAX POLICY" IS LAUNCHED, National Council of Curches, April 5, 2001

5. American Strategist teaches Tories tips on keeping power, Canwest News Service, May 7, 2006

6. Catholic Citizen Announcement, February 10, 2004

7. Kuo, 2006, p.57

The Canadian Manifesto 5: The Exploitation of Religion

"... the seemingly squeaky clean but morally corrupt Ralph Reed." Sarah Posner (1)

In the movie Casino Jack, based on the life of Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff, we are introduced to some of the players in the massive corruption scandal, that took down two Republican senators, and nine high profile lobbyists.

One character in the movie was Ralph Reed, played by Christian Campbell, who assures Abramoff that he is ready to play his part in the casino fraud.

For an enormous fee, 'Casino Jack' set out to destroy the gambling operation of a competing tribe, for his clients, the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians.

This was not the first time that Abramoff had used questionable tactics for this client, but he couldn't have done it without the help of the "squeaky clean" and "morally corrupt" Ralph Reed, then head of The Christian Coalition.

In 1999, the Choctaw needed to defeat a bill in the Alabama State Legislature that would allow casino-style games on dog racing tracks, resulting in competition for their casino business. It was at about this time that Reed had contacted his old friend Abramoff, asking for his help in establishing his new business, Century Strategies.

"Hey, now that I’m done with electoral politics, I need to start humping in corporate accounts! I’m counting on you to help me with some contacts." (Ralph Reed to Jack Abramoff, via email, November 12, 1998)

When asked what he could do to assist with this situation, Reed said that he could access "3,000 pastors and 90,000 religious conservative households" in Alabama, as well as "the Alabama Christian Coalition, the Alabama Family Alliance, the Alabama Eagle Forum, [and] the Christian Family Association." And he would do this for a retainer of $20,000 a month.

Souls don't come cheap.  Just ask the devil.

The firm that Abramoff was then with, Preston Gates, hired Reed as a subcontractor, and Abramoff told Reed to "get me invoices as soon as possible so I can get Choctaw to get us checks asap."

"By May 10, 1999, the Choctaw had paid $1.3 million to Reed via Preston Gates, for various grassroots activities relating to the dog-track bill, as well as opposing an Alabama state lottery." (2) Eventually they broke their business ties with Preston Gates, and began dealing directly with Abramoff, using Grover Norquist's Americans for Tax Reform as a conduit.  (Norquist had done work for them in the past)

However, what Abramoff was hoping to pull off this time, was much bigger and riskier than dog tracks and state lotteries.

In October 2001, Abramoff began to suggest to the Louisiana Coushatta that the Texas legislature was "one vote away" from legalizing certain forms of gambling in Texas. The Alabama Coushatta - a related but competing tribe to the Louisiana Coushatta - also sought to open a casino in eastern Texas in 2001. Abramoff told the Louisiana Coushatta that if the Tigua succeeded in their court case, then Texas would be forced to allow the Alabama Coushatta to open their casino. Many of the Coushatta's casino customers traveled over the border from eastern Texas to Louisiana, so this could pose a grave threat to their livelihood.  (2)

Abramoff then suggested to the Choctaw that they should support Christian evangelical conservatives, who were prepared to oppose gaming expansion in Texas, and Reed was again on the payroll.  "Reed worked with Houston pastors and church congregations to make demands on the state government to prevent the casinos from opening." (2)

According to the director of the movie, Alex Gibney, in response to Reed suggesting that the work he did for Abramoff was "outstanding" and something he was "proud of":

Let's say it plain: Ralph Reed is a fraud ... there was probably nothing illegal about what Reed did. But, he was engaged in a kind of spiritual fraud: telling his supporters that he was opposed to gambling when, in fact, gambling was making him rich. (3)

Though Reed still denies that he knew that the millions of dollars paid him came from casino profits, there are numerous email exchanges that prove otherwise.  And if  that deception isn't bad enough, he also implied that he was "fully investigated by John McCain's Senate Committee on Indian Affairs", and cleared.  However, according to Gibney:

Reed correctly notes that he has never been charged with a crime and implies that he had been fully investigated by John McCain's Senate Committee on Indian Affairs. But the implication is deceptive. According to one very famous, disgraced former lobbyist, Reed was supposed to have been called before McCain's committee but Karl Rove intervened and pressured McCain not to call Reed.  To Reed, Abramoff committed the unpardonable sin of getting caught, and that's why Reed prays for him. Well, Abramoff did his time and now seems to be willing to speak the truth. Reed should pray for himself. (3)

Touché!

Leo Strauss Would Have Been Proud

In her book: Leo Strauss and the American Right, Shadia Drury of the University of Calgary, reveals that Strauss suggested that the exploiting of religion by the "right thinking elite" was necessary.

The key is to use the most artful and most reliable techniques that history has made available. And in Strauss's view, nothing has ever proved to be more effective than the influence of religion. (4)

Karl Marx called religion the "opium of the people", but to Ralph Reed and most other "elite"  in the movement, it is pure gold.

Religion can be a good thing, when it inspires, but can be lethal when it incites.

There is no doubt that religion often exerts a wholesome influence on human conduct. And it may even serve as a small protection against tyranny and the abuse of power because persons committed to the moral life may prefer to risk their lives than to collaborate with wicked schemes. But it is also the case that religious fervor often turns political and even militant. Religious groups are not always satisfied with the religious freedom that liberal society affords them. They are not content to gather together, worship, sing, play, and educate their children as they see fit. They are interested in imposing their vision of private morality on the rest of society. What they want is not freedom of religion, but conformity to their religious views. (4)

Drury continues:

Their current mood is overtly political if not altogether militant. The Christian Coalition, founded by Pat Robertson and then led by his protégé Ralph Reed, is a case in point. Its "leadership school" does not waste much time on prayer, but on the political process and how best to manipulate it. Grassroots leaders in hundreds of counties in every state are instructed in the modern art of quick communication—phone, fax, and modem. These leaders are trained to mobilize their troops into rapid-response networks intended to "blitz" or bombard congressmen with the values of the coalition. (4)

It is said that 26 Republican presidential hopefuls have sought out Reed for advice, with chequebook in hand, of course.  And why not?

When [Pat] Robertson's campaign flamed out, political analysts served up a new round of obituaries for the religious right, but once again, the reports of its death proved premature. Even as Robertson nursed a wounded ego, he was hatching his organizational revenge, hiring a fresh-faced young doctoral student named Ralph Reed to build a grass-roots evangelical network, focusing first on the takeover of school boards and town councils before ultimately commandeering the machinery of the Republican National Committee itself. That institutional coup took place almost entirely beneath the media's radar, and by the time it finally caught their attention, Reed's Christian Coalition controlled both houses of Congress and would later play a major role in putting George W. Bush in the White House, not once but twice. (5) 

Their political goals include returning prayer to schools, recriminalizing abortion, stripping known homosexuals of their civil rights, teaching creationism in the schools, and censoring libraries and the press, all included in Reed's  "contract with the American family", that was released right after Newt Gingrich's 'Contract with America".

American conservatives such as William Buckley and William Bennett fool themselves in thinking that the Christian right is simply interested in safe streets, good schools, strong families, nonintrusive government, and a chummy Communitarian atmosphere .... They are very much interested in governmental interference to uphold and enforce their own values and preferences, not only in matters pertaining to public morality, but in private morality as well. But their political tactics call their ethics into question. For example, Ralph Reed has defended the "stealth campaigns" of Christian Coalition candidates who have disguised their political agenda by campaigning on issues such as crime or taxes, but have revealed once in office that their real interests are in gay rights, abortion, and creationism.

Reed justifies such deception as a type of "guerrilla warfare." He flatters himself into thinking that his stealth campaigns are a matter of using the tactics of a guerrilla war against Satan. Those who paint their political opponents as the forces of evil and regard themselves as the defenders of good, are inclined to justify any means as necessary to defeat their opponents. The urgency of vanquishing the satanic forces, and the sheer immensity of the task, blinds them to the fact that such mendacious and duplicitous conduct is a blatant disregard of Christian virtue. (4)

Touché again!

Ralph Reed in the Great White North

On May 5, 1996; the Albion Monitor reported on a group of Canadians, who had made the trek to Washington in the fall of 1995, to attend a conference of The Christian Coalition.  Their visit resulted in the creation of the Canadian Christian Coalition, whose board members included Reform Party members, Ted and Link Byfield, and our own Jason Kenney.

... ominous for democratic rights in [British Columbia] is the recent hatching of the B.C. clone of Pat Robertson's Christian Coalition ... The B.C. chapter is headed up by Operation Rescue activist Don Spratt, and claims among its founding board members former B.C. Premier and ardent anti-choicer Bill Vander Zalm. In an opinion piece in the Vancouver Sun, Spratt insisted (somewhat oxymoronically) "We have no ties with our U.S. counterpart." However, according to news reports, The Christian Coalition of Canada materialized after dozens of conservative Christians in this country thronged to Washington, DC, last fall to attend a major convention of the U.S. organization.

"Advisors" to the new CCC reportedly include Ted and Link Byfield (owners of the ultra-conservative B.C. Report and Alberta Report magazines), Jason Kenny (head of the Canadian Taxpayers Association), and Alex Parachin (head of the Christian Broadcasting Associates in Toronto, the Canadian branch plant of Pat Robertson's Christian Broadcasting Network). ...While Don Spratt may be telling readers "Nobody has anything to fear from Christian Coalition," progressive activists and journalists will have to make sure the electorate knows better. (6)

Touché, touché. touché, dammit!

The B.C. branch was responsible for a ban on Planned Parenthood in Surrey.  Stephen Harper has since expanded that, by cancelling all funding for PP, domestic and international.  The Tea Party gang have also been instrumental in the organization's demise in the U.S.

We beat them.  Yeah for us. (sigh)

However, while Jason Kenney may have been among the first to transport Ralph Reed's "faith for profit and righteous indignation" to Canada, he was by no means the last.  Two members of Stockwell Day's team, Brian Rushfeldt and Roy Beyer ("Families for Day"), visited Reed to solicit his help in getting Day elected as Alliance leader in 2000.

Both men were graduates of Charles McVety's Canadian Christian College.

In 2005, McVety invited Reed to speak at that institution, making sure that his protégé was in attendance: Jim Flaherty.

His very attentive listeners were challenged by Reed to “get on your work boots and tennis shoes and go out there like it all depends on you, pray like it all depends on God and let’s usher in the greatest victory in the history of this country.” (7)

Mcvety had already worked with Flaherty in his bid for leadership of the Ontario conservatives, but ironically, Flaherty was considered to be too right wing.  It was probably just the company he kept.

A Christian Manifesto Revisited

Francis Schaeffer, whose book A Christian Manifesto became the blueprint for the Religious Right, apparently regretted his involvement with the movement that he grew to detest.  According to his son, Francis Jr. (Frank), in his book Crazy for God:

Falwell, Robertson, Dobson, and others would later use their power in ways that would have made my father throw up. Dad could hardly have imagined how they would help facilitate the instantly corrupted power-crazy new generation of evangelical public figures like Ralph Reed, who took money from the casino industry while allegedly playing both sides against the middle in events related to the Abramoff Washington lobbyist scandal.

... Long before Ralph Reed and his ilk came on the scene, Dad got sick of "these idiots," as he often called people like [James] Dobson in private. They were "plastic," Dad said, and "power-hungry They were "Way too right-wing, really nuts!" and "They're using our issue to build their empires." (9)

Rick Salutin was fired as a columnist for the Globe and Mail, because he reminded Canadians of Harper's links to Leo Strauss.  His only error in the column was calling him the "last" Straussian.  Those guys breed like rabbits.

In March of 1995, former leader of the Reform Party, Preston Manning, was invited to speak to the editorial board of the Washington Post.  Newt Gingrich had been singing Manning's praises with the American media, as an important factor in his 1994 election victory.

Naturally they wanted to meet the Canadian neocon guru.

The late Dalton Camp, wrote a column about the visit, under the heading: Mr. Manning Goes to Washington.

"The Reform agenda includes a host of issues with American analogs—opposition to abortion rights, gun control and gay rights"—and lower taxes, less government, fewer rights for consumers, and "family values."

This does remind me once again of Senator James M. Inhofe* (R. Oklahoma), who has said he campaigned last fall, and won, on "God, gays, and guns."** No doubt Preston could arrange through Newt to meet with Inhofe, who is a great admirer of Jesse Helms who is a good friend of Al D'Amato who knows Dick Armey who needs no introduction to Ralph Reed of The Christian Coalition warmly supported by Pat Buchanan who knows Pat Robertson.

Knowing our man Manning has direct access to those guys makes you feel warm all over, doesn't it? (9)

The Canadian Manifesto: 2. "Signaling" For Good and Evil

Messaging and carefully crafted language, has always played a key role in the neoconservative movement. From Leo Strauss's hidden dialogue [Plato] to Preston Manning's calculated ambiguity, speech is used not to inspire, but to manipulate, obscure, galvanize and even incite.

Michael Lindsay, in his book Faith in the Halls of Power, refers to an element of this as "signaling", and says that it is an important tool used by Evangelicals to send a message to other Evangelicals, without spooking secular society.

Not usually nefarious and often comforting, "signaling" sends "implicit, subtle, and often disguised messages" (1) to fellow believers.

From VeggieTales to Airport Signs

Lindsay provides several examples, beginning with the producers of the Christian children's series, VeggieTales.  Shown on NBC, Phil Vischer and Michael Nawrocki, the show's creators, were upset to learn that the network's policy forbid any references to God.

However, Vischer said that  he understood NBC's wish to remain religiously neutral, so instead incorporated signals, the most prominent being the wink.  "We wink when we talk about God.... It's a way for us to say [to the evangelical audience] 'We know you're still with us and thanks."' (1)  Does this explain Sarah Palin's infamous wink?

Another example of signaling comes from the popular Irish group U2.

U2, the popular rock band from Ireland, excels at signaling. With a record twenty-two Grammy awards, the musicians have used their public platform to advocate for various Christian concerns, including the Make Poverty History campaign and lead singer Bono's DATA campaign, focused on debt, AIDS, and trade in Africa.

In 1987, U2 released The Joshua Tree, which featured the No. 1 hit single ‑ "I Still Haven't Found What I'm Looking For." In both Hebrew and Aramaic, "Joshua" and "Jesus" are closely related, and the album title directly alludes to the cross of Jesus Christ.  The cover for the 2000 album All That You Can't Leave Behind, features an airport sign with 'j33-3," which alludes to Jeremiah 33:3.   As Bono explains, "That's Jeremiah 33:3. The Scripture is 'Call unto me, and will answer you.' It's celestial telephony. (1)

An example of signaling for good.  As Lindsay says: " If an entertainer is trying to mobilize fellow evangelicals to watch his movie or listen to her song, signaling can be an effective way to indicate their shared identity without potentially turning off non‑evangelicals."

A Northern European Welfare State, Huh?

"Canada is a Northern European welfare state in the worst sense of the term..." Stephen Harper in 1997 speech to the Religious Right group, The Council for National Policy.

I've always been puzzled by that phrase in Harper's speech.  "Northern European welfare state".  Why "Northern European"  Most of us know that the welfare state refers to the social safety net, and is not exclusive to Northern Europe.

Francis Schaeffer, author of A Christian Manifesto, which has become the blueprint for the Religious Right movement, finally unlocks the mystery.

It is an example of signaling.

According to D. Michael Lindsay:

When a speaker cites Francis Schaeffer, [those] who do not recognize the name miss it, but for those in the know, it signals the speaker's evangelical allegiances. The message is subtle, but strong for those who can hear it. (1)

Stephen Harper did not have to cite Schaeffer, but those in the know certainly got it. From Schaeffer himself: 'We of Northern Europe (and we must remember that the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and so on are extensions of Northern Europe) ...' (2) 

The Nordic countries of course.  Schaeffer's son, in his book Crazy for God, reveals that the movement is about race as much as religion.  Sarah Palin plays the race card in her new book and the Reform Party was notorious for racial slurs, or what former Reform MP, Jan Brown, called "The rampant racism of the God squad." (3)

The following picture is quite telling:

Christians against people from Kenya, aka: black people.  However, the sign also speaks to something else.  Ignorance.  Look at how he spells 'forefathers'.

Schaeffer's Manifesto actually inspired the creation of the Council for National Policy (where Harper spoke), along with many other activist groups, including Focus on the Family, founded by James Dobson.  According to Schaeffer's son Frank, Dobson bought 100,000 copies of the Manifesto to distribute to his flock. (A Time for Anger)

FoF is a good one to focus on (pardon the pun), since it helps to merge us all into this Northern European enclave.  In 2005, the Montreal Gazette, using the financial reports of the parent company, discovered that Dobson had contributed 1.6 million dollars to the Canadian spin-off, once headed up by Stephen Harper's former chief of staff, Darrel Reid. (Reid is now with the Manning Centre)

Dobson also spent thousands of dollars, placing radio ads, with more than one hundred Canadian stations, against same-sex marriage, bolstering Stephen Harper, who was running on the same thing.

This isn't about their religious beliefs, which they are allowed to have, but the fact that powerful American organizations are interfering in our politics.

Turning to my bothers and sisters across the pond, (me signaling to my "comrades".  Wink, wink), they too are concerned with Dobson's meddling.

In Australia, the group was started by Glenn Williams, a fire and brimstone preacher, turned political activist.  Through Dobson, FofF is trying to establish censorship laws, along with the usual anti-abortion, anti-divorce, anti-gay rights, anti-evolution .... yada, yada, yada.

Heading up the censorship campaign in Australia, is Focus's Bill Muehlenberg. (In Canada, it's Charles McVety).  As Australian journalist  Peter Johnson points out (November 1, 2003), while FoF Australia poses as a family friendly organization, their goals are far more political.

Scratch the surface of FOFA, however, and a fully-developed Religious Right ideology is immediately laid bare. This becomes especially clear when we look at the question of censorship. FOFA publications regularly emphasise the addictive nature of pornography, comparing its effects to those of nicotine or alcohol (Family Forum, Feb. 1997, 1). They retail a range of myths and urban legends on the topic, such as the claim that the media were ultimately responsible for the Port Arthur massacre of 1996:  Should the music industry be allowed to promote music which upholds violence, rape, narcissism, murder and unsolicited drug-taking? Surely we cannot continue to separate a screen culture that celebrates evil from the level of violence and crime we are witnessing?!

Muehlenberg launched a campaign against a cereal manufacturer (Uncle Toby's), because they gave away as premiums, photos of Baywatch stars, including Pamela Sue Anderson.

In New Zealand, Dobson, as he did with Stephen Harper's campaign, directly funded opposition to a referendum that would have made beating your children a crime.

A group behind the "Vote No" bloc in the smacking referendum received around $1m over six years from a conservative American religious group.  That US organisation advocates a return to "Biblical values" and its founder says "a little bit of pain goes a long way" for children.

The disclosure comes as one of the country's top Anglican clergy has condemned the attitude of Christians who claim a "God-given right" to use corporal punishment against their children.  "I am concerned that a particular stance on child discipline has too often been characterised as 'the' Christian view," said the Very Rev Ross Day, Dean of Auckland's Cathedral of the Holy Trinity.

.... On the strength of the referendum vote, Focus on the Family is demanding that the so-called "smacking ban" be repealed. (4)

Don't forget Harper's speech to the Civitas Society, Canada's arm of the Council for National Policy:

"Even foreign policy had become a theo-con issue", he pointed out, driven by moral and religious convictions. “The truth of the matter is that the real agenda and the defining issues have shifted from economic issues to social values,” he said, “so conservatives must do the same. "  Arguing that the party "had to come up with tough, principled stands on everything from parents’ right to spank their children to putting 'hard power' behind the country’s foreign-policy commitments ... " (5)

A 'principled stand' in favour of child abuse.  If you read Dobson's work, he doesn't stop at a simple spanking.  He believes that Christian males must take dominion over all living things, including their wives and children.

In his book, The Strong-Willed Child, Dobson relates how he took dominion over his dog, a pet dachshund named Siggie, when the animal refused to get off the furry toilet seat and get into his bed.

"When I told Sigmund to leave his warm seat and go to bed, he flattened his ears and slowly turned his head toward me. He deliberately braced himself by placing one paw on the edge of the furry lid, then hunched his shoulders, raised his lips to reveal the molars on both sides, and uttered his most threatening growl. That was Siggie's way of saying. "Get lost!"  I had seen this defiant mood before, and knew there was only one way to deal with it. The ONLY way to make Siggie obey is to threaten him with destruction. Nothing else works. I turned and went to my closet and got a small belt to help me 'reason' with Mr. Freud." 

He goes on:

"What developed next is impossible to describe. That tiny dog and I had the most vicious fight ever staged between man and beast. I fought him up one wall and down the other, with both of us scratching and clawing and growling and swinging the belt. I am embarrassed by the memory of the entire scene. Inch by inch I moved him toward the family room and his bed. As a final desperate maneuver, Siggie backed into the corner for one last snarling stand. I eventually got him to bed, only because I outweighed him 200 to 12!"

A 200 pound man can take dominion over a 12 pound dog.  Isn't 'he the man'.  Fitting this horrendous tale to the discipline of children, Dobson explains:

"But this is not a book about the discipline of dogs; there is an important moral to my story that is highly relevant to the world of children. JUST AS SURELY AS A DOG WILL OCCASIONALLY CHALLENGE THE AUTHORITY OF HIS LEADERS, SO WILL A LITTLE CHILD -- ONLY MORE SO." (emphasis Dobson's)

All of us in 'Northern Europe' have reason to be alarmed.  Where Canada stands alone, is that we are the only country in this little group, whose media refuses to discuss Harper's involvement with this movement.

Australia, New Zealand and the U.S. speak of it as naturally as reporting the weather.

Here, just calling Harper a Straussian will get you fired.  Maybe Salutin should have winked when he said it.

Sources:

1. Faith in the Halls of Power: How Evangelicals Joined the American Elite, By D. Michael Lindsay, Oxford University Press, 2007, ISBN: 978-0-19-532666-6, p. 152-153

2. A Christian Manifesto, By Francis Schaeffer, Crossway Books, 1981, ISBN: 0-89107-233-0, p. 24-25

3. Hard Right Turn: The New Face of Neo-Conservatism in Canada, By Brooke Jeffrey, Harper-Collins, 1999, ISBN: 0-00 255762-2

4. US Funding for 'no' vote, By Matt Nippert, New Zealand Herald, August 23, 2009

5. Stephen Harper and the Theo-cons: The rising clout of Canada's religious right, By Marci McDonald, The Walrus, October

The Canadian Manifesto: 1. The Centre of the Universe

In 1933, a small group of religious leaders got together, via the post office, to establish a Humanist doctrine. According to Time Magazine (May 15, 1933):

Humanism used to be a good subject for parlor and dinner table discussions. Few people knew what it actually was or ' where literary Humanism left off and religious Humanism began. Nor did Humanism's expounders get together and codify their beliefs for popular enlightenment.(1)

Key leaders were often at odds over how to define the movement and what its key goals should be.

But that was about to change.

Last week, for the first time, the religious Humanists were on common ground. After discussing many questions (by letter) they had drawn up, signed and circulated a manifesto containing their articles of faith. More & more Humanists are to read the manifesto, sign it, make suggestions which may perhaps be incorporated after due consideration.(1)

Key elements included:

- The universe is self-existing, not created.

- Man is part of nature, product of his culture, his environment, his social heritage. The traditional dualism of mind and body must be rejected.

- Humanism also rejects cosmic and supernatural "guarantees." The Humanist eschews theism, deism, modernism, "new thought'' and instead of feeling religious emotions concentrates on human life—labor, art, science, philosophy, love, friendship, recreation.

- Humanism is for "a socialized and co-operative economic order—a shared life in a shared world."

Its adherents say that it will: "Affirm life rather than deny it ... seek to elicit the possibilities of life, not flee from it ... establish the conditions of a satisfactory life for all, not merely for the few." (1)

How could you argue against this set of principles?

Yet argue they did. When the Humanist Manifesto, written primarily by Raymond Bragg (shown above) appeared, it created quite a sensation, because it challenged the principle of God being the centre of the universe.

Instead they embraced science, human compassion, and equality in a shared world.

The late Francis Schaeffer, author of A Christian Manifesto, that prompted the creation of the Religious Right/Moral Majority, has built a career challenging, what he refers to as "secular Humanism". He believed that all of our current problems are the result of not embracing God as the center of the universe.

He felt that if all law and governance was based on the Old Testament, all of our problems would disappear. He encouraged Christians to become confrontational, and did not rule out violence as a means to an end.

There does come a time when force, even physical force, is appropriate. The Christian is not to take the law into his own hands and become a law unto him­self. But when all avenues to flight and protest have closed, force in the defensive posture is appropriate. This was the situation of the American Revolution. The colonists used force in defending themselves. Great Britain, because of its policy toward the col­onies, was seen as a foreign power invading America. The colonists defended their homeland. As such, the American Revolution was a conservative counter­revolution. The colonists saw the British as the revo­lutionaries trying to overthrow the legitimate colonial governments. (2)

This certainly helps to explain the Tea Party and the Religious Right's obsession with guns.

When Stephen Harper's former Chief of Staff, Darrel Reid, suggested that our laws should be changed to reflect those in the Bible, the story pretty much ended there.

Reid is now with the Manning Centre, but continues his work with several current Harper MPs, toward Reconstructionism.

The media is doing us a grave injustice by not staying on top of this story. In the United States, after learning that Presidential hopeful, Michelle Bachmann, is a follower of Francis Schaeffer, their media is all over it.

Ryan Lizza wrote an in depth article for the New Yorker, under the heading Leap of Faith. In it he refers to Bachmann as "an ideologue of the Christian-conservative movement." A term once used to describe Stephen Harper, before he took the happy pills and became a "Tory".

Lizza reveals how the Bachmanns (Michelle and Marcus), experienced a "life-altering event" after watching Schaeffer's film series “How Should We Then Live?”

Schaeffer’s film series consists of ten episodes tracing the influence of Christianity on Western art and culture, from ancient Rome to Roe v. Wade. In the films, Schaeffer—who has a white goatee and is dressed in a shearling coat and mountain climber’s knickers—condemns the influence of the Italian Renaissance, the Enlightenment, Darwin, secular humanism, and postmodernism. He repeatedly reminds viewers of the “inerrancy” of the Bible and the necessity of a Biblical world view. “There is only one real solution, and that’s right back where the early church was,” Schaeffer tells his audience. “The early church believed that only the Bible was the final authority. What these people really believed and what gave them their whole strength was in the truth of the Bible as the absolute infallible word of God.” (3)

I've been watching the series and reading the book, and was surprised to find that chunks of his speeches have found their way into the vernacular of many members of the Harper government.

Including Harper himself, but I'm getting into that later.

The rise of Michelle Bachmann, has given the Americans an opportunity to discuss this movement and what it could mean to their future. Schaeffer is very clear on what fundamentalist Christians need to do.

And in his Christian Manifesto, he states that the movement must include Canada, Australia and New Zealand (p.24), if it has any hope of succeeding.

We're probably going to hear a lot more as the U.S. election campaign heats up, so I thought this a perfect time to put together an essay on Canada's Religious Right movement, that is being allowed to operate in almost total secrecy, simply because we are too squeamish to talk about religion.

But we have to remember, that this is a political movement, and one that could have a profound affect on who we are as Canadians.

We need to become part of the conversation since clearly we are to play an important role.

Marci McDonald had spent several years as a Washington correspondent, where she covered the rise of the Christian Right.

When she returned to Canada, she was shocked to discover that the same movement had embedded itself here. Like Ronald Reagan, Stephen Harper has moved these fundamentalists into the courts, the civil service and even the foreign service, creating a new office of religious freedom.

From her piece for Walrus Magazine: Stephen Harper and the Theo-cons: The rising clout of Canada's religious right:

"For Harper, the courtship of the Christian right is unlikely to prove an electoral one-night stand. Three years ago, in a speech to the annual Conservative think-fest, Civitas, he outlined plans for a broad new party coalition that would ensure a lasting hold on power. The only route, he argued, was to focus not on the tired wish list of economic conservatives or “neo-cons,” as they’d become known, but on what he called “theo-cons”—those social conservatives who care passionately about hot-button issues that turn on family, crime, and defence.

"Even foreign policy had become a theo-con issue, he pointed out, driven by moral and religious convictions. “The truth of the matter is that the real agenda and the defining issues have shifted from economic issues to social values,” he said, “so conservatives must do the same.

"Arguing that the party had to come up with tough, principled stands on everything from parents’ right to spank their children to putting “hard power” behind the country’s foreign-policy commitments ... " (4)

McDonald would turn her piece into her best seller: The Armageddon Factor

However, the Canadian Manifesto, is about more than religion, but is intended to show how the American Neoconservative movement as a whole, is dictating how our country does business.

There are many questions that we need to ask ourselves, including:

Why did top Republican pollster, John Mclaughlin, personally handle Stephen Harper's political career?

Why did the National Citizens Coalition meet with Republican politicians to help draft strategy?

Why did Richard Nixon's magician, Art Finkelstein, work with the NCC for 16 years, guiding Stephen Harper in the art of destroying liberal democracy?

Milton Friedman from the Chicago School, spent a lifetime engineering the takeover of the economies of foreign nations. Why was he so interested in Canada, becoming a regular speaker at the Fraser Institute?

Why was Religious Right leader, Paul Weyrich, so keen to have Stephen Harper on the throne?

Why is a Goldman Sachs' executive, now the head of the Bank of Canada?

It's not hard to see that there is a plan for us, but unfortunately, we are not in the loop.

So maybe if I can create a Canadian Manifesto, as it might look if there is one locked away in the Republican Party HQs, we can at least talk about it.

Is this what we want for Canada?

Sources:

1. Religion: Humanism on Paper, Time Magazine, May 15, 1933

2. A Christian Manifesto, By Francis Schaeffer, Crossway Books, 1981, ISBN: 0-89107-233-0, p. 117

3. Leap of Faith: The making of a Republican front-runner, By Ryan Lizza, The New Yorker, August 15, 2011

4. Stephen Harper and the Theo-cons: The rising clout of Canada's religious right, By Marci McDonald, The Walrus, October 2006

The Canadian Manifesto: How the American Neocons Stole my Country

Maurice Vellacott's administrative assistant, Timothy Bloedow, once accused me of hating Christians. This was in response to my criticism of his critique of Dr. John Stackhouse's review of Marci McDonald's book: The Armageddon Factor.

(Did you get all that?)

Though Prof. Stackhouse was critical of McDonald for focusing too much on the Apocalyptic nature of some religious groups, he agreed with her concern for reconstructionism. "There are Christians about whom even other Christians should be wary, especially those who talk about things like theocracy and Christian government."

Bloedow runs a website called christiangovernance.ca, promoting just those things that we should be wary of.

In his new book Faith in the Halls of Power, D. Michael Lindsay reveals that the Moral Majority/Christian Right, was inspired by Francis Schaeffer, who ran a commune in Switzerland, promoting a second American revolution. This time they would not be taking on the British, but the Humanists, reclaiming the United States for Christianity.

Their brand of Christianity, where the Bible is not just the Truth, but the only Truth. Schaeffer writes that 'If we accept part of the Bible as a myth, we might as well be consequent and accept the whole Bible as a myth. Why, I can have more respect for a Teddy boy who tells me that killing a friend with a bicycle chain is all right. He at least has a philosophy.'

There is no compromise.

Schaeffer's commune became the launching pad for the Moral Majority/Christian Right. He encouraged his followers to become active, starting the anti-abortion movement, as a test for the power of pugnaciousness. Presidential hopeful (I hope not), Michelle Bachmann, claims that Schaeffer influenced her own views on abortion.

Lindsay tells us that while many Evangelical leaders initially agreed with the necessity for such a movement, others soon lost the taste:

Even though the Moral Majority succeeded in galvanizing evangelicals in the 1980s, as early as 1985, leaders within the group were growing uneasy about the alliance between religion and politics. Moral Majority vice president Cal Thomas resigned from the organization to pursue a career as a columnist. When I interviewed Thomas, he told me that evangelical political action at the time was — and according to him still is — "operating in the flesh and attaching God's name to it.... It's doomed to futility."

In 1996, Thomas and evangelical pastor Ed Dobson (no relation to Focus on the Family's James Dobson) wrote Blinded by Might, in which they asked, "How can [evangelicals] impose a morality on people that you can't impose on yourself?" Citing rampant materialism, sexual promiscuity, and evangelical hubris, Thomas and Dobson renounced their involvement with the Religious Right. (Lindsay p.56)

But the worst of them kept going, amassing fortunes, feeding off people's fears and prejudices.

Surprisingly, however, the most scathing denunciation came from Schaeffer's own son, Francis Jr.

In his book Crazy for God, he suggests that the movement is one of rampant racism, ignorance, perversion and greed.

Most of us would agree, but as expected, the right-wing noise machine sprung into action, launching attacks on their guru's son.

Everyone Has a Manifesto

Geert Wilders has a manifesto. Anders Behring Breivik, the Norwegian terrorist, has a manifesto (which is not unlike that of Wilders).

Francis Schaeffer himself, argued that the Communists had a manifesto and the Humanists had a manifesto, so the Christians should also have a manifesto.

A written statement declaring their intentions, motives, and views. So he wrote one, which became the guide for the Moral Majority/Religious Right.

After researching this movement for several years now, I've determined that somewhere there is a Canadian Manifesto. There has to be.

The connections between the Conservative-Reform-Alliance Party and the American Neoconservative/Religious Right movement, are too profound to be random.

So I've decided to make that the title of this particular body of research, as I organize my writings and thoughts. (Is that possible?)

The Canadian Manifesto will lay bare the war on women, gays and ethnics, and the attempts to turn Canada into a theocracy. It will also reveal how the real power in Canada has been sent South. The final chapter of Naomi Klein's Shock Doctrine.

Not a conspiracy theory, but in the words of Joe Friday, "just the facts". However, I will not change the names to protect anyone, since none are innocent.

The New anti-Abortionists: Young Political Activists or Youthful Vigilantes?

I Burned my Bra For This? REAL Women of Canada and the Men Behind Them

The inspiration for the Moral Majority/Religious Right, in the United States, was the central government's passing of anti-segregation laws. However, the art of political activism by the movement, came from a man by the name of Francis Schaeffer.

If we are to understand the Harper government, we have to accept that everything they do or have done, comes from the U.S. Republican/Tea Party/Religious Right.

I could stop searching for these links, and instead focus on their truly Canadian-based actions, since it would be a much shorter list. The only problem is, that I haven't found any.

The election of Ronald Reagan in the U.S., gave the evangelical activists an "in". The election of Stephen Harper has done the same in Canada, and as Marci McDonald reminds us in The Armageddon Factor, they will now be a permanent fixture on Parliament Hill.

Francis Schaeffer and How the Evangelicals Stormed the Bastille

Reagan's 1980 victory, gave rise to many quasi-religious organizations, like Focus on the Family, who helped to finance Harper's 2006 victory, by placing radio ads on over 100 Canadian stations, against same-sex marriage. Harper's rallying cry.

The Canadian chapter of Focus on Family, was started by Stephen Harper's former chief of staff, Darrel Reid. The executive included two top ranking officials from their American parent organization, and $1.6 million from Dobson himself (Armageddon Factor, p.86), who claimed to be concerned with Canada's moral decay.

However, the notion that evangelicals should play a more active role in politics, came from Francis Schaeffer, the man who coined the term, or at least made popular the term, "secular humanism".

He believed that putting people above religion was wrong, and he was determined to do something about it. So he established a commune in Switzerland, L'Abri (shelter), devoted to Christian thought and activism. (There is a Canadian chapter on Bowen Island in B.C.)

When Michael Lindsay was researching his book: Faith in the Halls of Power, he found that many Religious Right leaders that he interviewed, had either visited the commune or had been heavily influenced by Schaeffer's writings.

One of the first campaigns that Schaeffer ignited, was the anti-abortion movement, that mobilized his followers to take action. It was perhaps the first time that orthodox Catholics and Protestants united for a common cause.

Gwen Lanholt, now president of REAL Women of Canada, was part of that movement.

And as a founding director of the Civitas Society*, the policy arm of the Harper government, she has a great deal of influence with the powers that be.

Youthful Vigilantes

Brian Lilley recently interviewed a young woman, named Alissa Golob, on his Fox News North/Sun TV Byline.

Golob is an anti-abortion activist, involved in a campaign to "shock" people into joining her cause, by posting images of aborted fetuses (emblazoned with a swastika). I've mentioned this in another post, because of yet another American inspired group, the Canadian Constitution Foundation, who had taken up the cause.



Golob believes that the graphic image campaign will work the same as MADD's (Mothers Against Drunk Driving) images of car wrecks and the police's of gang violence. However, they are about self-preservation.

No doubt the signs will impact some, but most of us have an idea of what an aborted fetus looks like.

However, this isn't really about the abortion debate, but the modus operandi of this new youth movement, attached to the broader neoconservative movement.

Golob brings up the work of her American counterpart, Lila Rose, a young woman who believes that abortions should be performed in the public square, so people can see how gross they are.

That may sound a little nuts, but Rose's involvement draws attention to a larger issue.

The benefactors.

Lila Rose is a graduate of Morton Blackwell's Leadership Institute, (so is Rob Anders and Karl Rove) and friend of James O'Keefe. O'Keefe was involved in the demise of ACORN, an organization that worked for the poor, especially African-Americans. The Neocons wanted it gone.

So two young activists, O'Keefe and Hannah Giles, went undercover to discredit the organization, and though their videos were later determined to be "highly edited", they were able to paint the non-profit group as "pimps".

But they couldn't have pulled it off without the help of Fox News and Andrew J. Breitbart. You might remember Breitbart as the one responsible for destroying the career of Anthony Weiner.

This has gone from political activism to dangerous vigilante justice against their perceived enemies. They want to destroy anyone and everything associated with a progressive and just society.

For Lila Rose, it's Planned Parenthood. She helped to perpetrate a hoax against PP, to "prove" that they were sex traffickers.

Where Does Alissa Golob Fit in to All This?

At the beginning I mentioned Francis Schaeffer, who inspired the Moral Majority/Christian Right. Schaeffer was a dominionist, who believed that before the Second Coming of Christ, the U.S. must be returned to a Christian nation.

Canada's dominionism, aka reconstructionism, is championed by people like Darrel Reid and David Sweet (amoung many, many others), both involved in the Work Research Foundation, and Redeemer University. (Sweet also Canadian founder of Promise Keepers)

Redeemer University, a private for-profit school, received three million from the Harper government as part of the Canada Action Plan.

Alissa Golob is a graduate of Redeemer, one of many of her fellow students, turned activists for the movement. And while she claims to be pro-life, it's pretty clear that she is just anti-abortion. She does not encourage birth control or "safe sex".

Because those are some of the best defenses against abortion.

Better access to contraception, higher quality sex education and shifting social norms have contributed to a 36.9 per cent decline in Canada’s teen birth and abortion rate between 1996 and 2006, according to a report released today by the Sex Information and Education Council of Canada.

Other initiatives that Golob could adopt would be eradicating poverty and improving health care.

But that will never happen.

The group that Golob works for, Campaign Life Coalition, also has Planned Parenthood in their crosshairs.

The Harper government has already defunded them at home and abroad.

The Campaign Life Coalition also had a hand in the success of Stockwell Day, by selling 130,000 memberships to the Alliance Party, on his behalf.

So do you see what we're up against?

Fox News, the American Religious Right and Stephen Harper. Jagged lightening, rumbling thunder and gale-force winds.

Batten down the hatches, because it's going to be one hell of a storm.

Footnotes:

* Civitas Society: Founding President: William Gairdner (Reform Party)

Other Past Presidents: Tom Flanagan (Reform Party and Calgary School), William Robson, and Lorne Gunter

Founding Directors: Janet Ajzenstat, Ted Byfield (Reform Party), Michel Coren, Jacques Dufresne, Tom Flanagan, David Frum, William Gairdner, Jason Kenney, Gwen Landolt, Ezra Levant, Tom Long, Mark Magner, William Robson, David E. Somerville (National Citizens Coalition), Michael Walker (Fraser Institute)