Duckspeak 101 – Reshaping the American mind
By Alisa Craddock
web posted April 10, 2006
Shortly before the confirmation of Justice Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court, Senator John Kerry (who still apparently harbors presidential hopes) had warned ominously that Alito's confirmation would cause "irreversible damage to our country." Now the irony and sheer chutzpah of such hypocrisy never fails to gall me, though we are exposed to a constant barrage of similar perverse remarks that stream constantly from the mouths of liberals. That statement is so ironic because the determination of conservatives to get a bona fide Constitutional jurist on the bench (one who recognizes and respects the limits that are intended upon his authority) was specifically aimed at reversing the damage to our country that has been done by activist liberal judges who don't view the Constitution as an instrument that should be respected and adhered to. It is, to them, a relic of the past, written by dead white men, and must therefore be updated to correspond with the more enlightened thinking of the modern era. Those of us who see the seeds of our destruction in their "enlightened" rulings are simply ignorant bigots and religious fanatics who must be silenced, our judgments suppressed.
I have been distracted of late by some disturbing developments at my place of employment that concern a larger issue I have wished for some time to try and elucidate, but have not been able to until now. I shall endeavor to be clear, but I may come off as some raving, paranoid conspiracy theorist. Bear with me.
I am employed at a university that has recently proposed some new policies and regulations (to bring us in line, I am told in lawyerese, "with the current state of the law") that will soon be implemented. The changes instituted and the methods used are instructive for those who keep tabs on the New World Order and its progress in subsuming the culture and sovereignty of all the nations under its flag.
The new policies were delivered one at a time in a manner that likely went unnoticed by the university community. I'm sure you've all heard the analogy of the frog in the pot: If you throw a frog into a pot of boiling water, he'll move heaven and earth to get out, but if you put him in cold water, then turn the temperature up one degree at a time, he'll stay in the pot until he boils to death. This is how they are turning the temperature up one degree at a time: First a new "diversity statement" was added to the personnel handbook of the university, which highlights the university's desire to "recruit, hire and retain employees who bring a diversity of viewpoints, cultures and a broad range of human experiences to the university", and, of course, "it is expected that all in the university community will appreciate and respect the dignity, individuality, and the uniqueness of our individual community members. Sounds harmless, right? A bit heavily laden with liberal feel good words, but to the average person, it would sound reasonable and fair, almost…well, heck…almost Catholic. Except that this statement was preceded by a campus climate survey that focused on sexual orientation and whether or not gays felt "safe" on the campus. One didn't have to be clairvoyant to see where this was going.
Right after the diversity statement was issued, the committee on Equal Opportunity and Diversity for the campus asked for a volunteer to work on the Diversity Committee, whose responsibilities would include reviewing campus climate surveys, and recommending "ways in which the university can broaden opportunities for all members of the community to participate in institutional efforts to enhance the diversity among faculty, students, and staff," and to propose "programs that foster greater appreciation of and sensitivity to the importance of diversity within the university community."
Well, as anyone with a brain could anticipate, the next step was to add sexual orientation to the EEO regulations of the university, which automatically makes it fall under the campus "diversity statement" adding that to the individual differences and life experiences we are all supposed to appreciate, respect, and promote. Phase 3 was the kicker, though, as some vague and subjective language was added to the sexual harassment policy which virtually shut down any discussion outside of specific classes that pertains to the topic, lest someone be made to feel "unwelcome". (So much for the "diversity of viewpoints" the diversity statement claims to encourage.) So now "diversity" has become a euphemism for enforced ideological conformity.
Campus speech codes and other infringements on free speech, freedom of association, religious freedom and expression, and freedom of the press, are rampant on campuses and in corporate and government places of employment. By placing free discussion about a political and social issue of great concern to all under the threat of "sexual harassment" charges, they create a de facto "hate speech" law that does exactly what a real hate crimes law would do -- muzzle public dissent or any speech which opposes the homosexual political and social agenda. And the universities and corporations that institute such policies now hold the livelihood of their employees hostage to compel them to conform to that agenda. People have been fired, expelled, and disciplined for refusing to tow the line. If the university had simply added sexual orientation to the EEO regulations and applied the same objective US government definitions of sexual harassment to that as to everything else, it would probably not raise an eyebrow. Authentic harassment (sexual or emotional) could be dealt with in the same way for homosexuals as for heterosexuals without crossing the line between compelling civil conduct and speech (which an employer has the right to impose) and compelling ideological conformity (which violates the civil liberties of the employees). But the addition of a "diversity statement" reveals an agenda with broader implications than simply keeping the peace or trying to prevent lawsuits.
In an earlier column, I remarked about how grade schools had become early training grounds for secular humanist morality. The recent ruling by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals' against parental rights in determining what kinds of "education" the schools have the authority to expose children to also suggests an agenda at work. (A current bill in the California state legislature to add "gender" and "sexual orientation" to its antidiscrimination policies is a case in point. If the bill is signed into law, schools will now be forced to "teach school children as young as kindergarten to accept and embrace transsexuality, bisexuality and homosexuality in all its forms," according to the president of the Campaign for Children and Families in that state, Randy Thomasson.) There are increasing efforts to normalize and compel acceptance of what is clearly abnormal to any rational thinking person, and we are seeing it in sex education that includes a curriculum aimed at desensitization toward and acceptance of homosexuality (including homosexual marriage and adoption), transexualism, transgenderism, transvestitism, and adult-child sex.
Books such as Heather Has Two Mommies and Jim's Two Dads accomplish in grade school what "diversity statements" accomplish in colleges and corporations: Under the pretext of creating a "safe" environment for learning or working, what is really happening is people are being indoctrinated and opposition silenced, and the methods are sometimes coercive. At the same time, religious values are being treated as backward and bigoted, and requiring remedial "programming". Though it is no where stated in law, sexual orientation is being given status as a "civil right", possibly laying the groundwork for adding it to existing civil rights laws. The persistence of Democrats in Congress (led chiefly by Sen. Ted Kennedy) in trying to offer legal protection to homosexual behavior via hate crimes laws (which will be used to censor speech against the homosexual lifestyle), and the more successful efforts in Canada and many European nations to criminalize speech and to recognize sexual orientation in human rights laws makes it clear that this is what we are being groomed to accept. Sexual orientation will be a protected class as soon as society is made ready to accept it. This agenda seems so surreal. It is hard to believe that so many ordinary people oppose this, yet so many people in positions of power are implementing it. But the evidence is there that we are being indoctrinated in preparation for that day.
Have you ever taken a good hard look at the United Nations' "Universal Declaration of Human Rights"? Though at present there are no specific provisions for sexual orientation as a human right, nevertheless one has only to examine the relevant documents to see where we are headed with this:
THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY proclaims THIS UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction. (my emphasis.)
As I mentioned in my earlier column, former President Clinton while in office signed a large number of Executive Orders designed to do an end-run around Congress ("Stroke of the pen, law of the land. Pretty cool, huh?" as Clinton aide Paul Begala famously quipped.) Many of these EO's were rescinded by President Bush when he took office. One of the Executive Orders Clinton had signed was EO. 13107, "Implementation of Human Rights Treaties" by which the United States is "ordered" to fully implement the human rights treaties to which United States is a party, or might become a party in the future.
To that end, an Interagency Working Group on Human Rights Treaties was established for the purpose of providing "guidance, oversight, and coordination with respect to questions concerning the adherence to and implementation of human rights obligations and related matters" The part I want to point out is Sec. 4, Part C (vi and vii). Subset (vi) involves "developing plans for public outreach and education concerning the provisions of the ICCPR, CAT, CERD, and other relevant treaties, and human rights-related provisions of domestic law. Subset (vii) also charges the Working Group with "coordinating and directing an annual review of United States reservations, declarations, and understandings to human rights treaties" where there may be allegations against the U. S. of inconsistency with or breach of international human rights obligations "in order to determine whether there should be consideration of any modification…to human rights treaties, or United States practices or laws.
So the language is embedded for modification of our laws to comply with international human rights treaties, and the "education" of the public in preparation for that is underway. Here are some of the more subjective provisions of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that open the door for adding "sexual orientation" to human rights provisions:
Article 22. " Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality."
Article 26 (2) "Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace."
Article 7 . "All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination."
Article 28 . Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized. Article 29 of the Declaration deals with the enforcement of the rights and their limitations:
Article 29 . (1) Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.
(2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.(3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.
Article 29 (3) is the most troubling because it, in effect, nullifies any or all of the rights provided for in this document if it is deemed that the free exercise of those rights runs afoul of the designs of the United Nations. The implications for our freedom are staggering. Under our Constitution, it is understood that our rights are "natural" rights, our birthright from God, and the government may not (theoretically) violate those rights, but exists to protect them. Under the Declaration of Human Rights, the state gives us those rights, and the state has the power to nullify them if it is deemed they are a threat to the "purposes and principles" of the state. That's Soviet style freedom. Though the Declaration provides for religious faith, nowhere does it actually acknowledge or recognize Divine Providence as the source of these rights, and so does not recognize the moral foundations upon which civilization is built. In adopting a secular humanist idea of morality, they lay the groundwork for the very conflict the Declaration proposes to avoid. The Preamble to the Declaration states: "It is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law." But if the laws of state and the laws of God conflict with one another, then tyranny and oppression are the inevitable result. Is conflict not inevitable as well?
I might also mention, as an aside, two other provisions of the Declaration that are of current interest:
Article 15. (1) Everyone has the right to a nationality.
(2) No person shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality. America's current problems with illegal immigration and the militancy of those living illegally in this country may have its roots in the Declaration's provisions regarding nationality.
It is useful to look at the European Union to get a feel for how human rights are being redefined, and how member states are being pressured to get on board with the more "progressive" states in promoting, for example, "reproductive health services" and gay rights. The pressure is tremendous, and the economic penalties for resistance or refusal could be harsh, just as it might be against the lone individual who stands against an employer trying to indoctrinate him with secular humanist ideologies, just as perhaps it is for those employers and for universities who don't go along with the dictates of the Working Group (or other organs of the government) charged with bringing us into compliance with those international treaties. The failure, indeed the obstinate refusal, of the European Union to acknowledge the Christian roots of European civilization in its Constitution, and the kind of bullying now taking place to compel submission to the full spectrum of secular movements rings an ominous warning for the rest of the world. In the past, governments have found faith useful in controlling its populations, and so encouraged faith, sometimes enforcing it. But authentic faith recognizes the rule of law, and the duty to obey that law until the law comes in conflict with the laws of God. Then authentic faith must take a stand. It isn't popular, it's not the easy way. Thomas Jefferson famously wrote in another Declaration, the Declaration of Independence:
"Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."
We can still avoid that kind of conflict, but it's going to take fortitude, courage, and character, and a rebirth of manly virtue of the kind we glimpsed so briefly during the September 11 attack on our nation. Surely there are still enough heroes among us who will stand up for God, family and country. 
Alisa Craddock is a political columnist and activist in the culture war, a convert to Catholicism, and describes herself as a Christian Libertarian. In addition to Enter Stage Right, her columns have been published on Alain's Newsletter and Out2 News. She may be contacted at acrock43_j@yahoo.com.