However, it is the teaching under the heading "Extremist Ideologies" that I find almost unbelievable.
Our Founders certainly knew conflict and controversy and perhaps were considered "extreme" by tyrannical forces on the other side of the Atlantic---but our own Department of Defense?
Our Founders and the colonists began their Declaration of Independence with the words: "When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve political bonds...they should declare the causes..."
And they declared a long list of causes that included the King's disregard for the laws, oppressive taxation, interfering with the military efforts, harassing people, suppression of religious expression and about two dozen other causes.
Following the list of causes, they wrote, "In every stage of these Oppressions, We have petitioned for redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated petitions have been answered by repeated injury."
And they concluded that in declaring independence from a tyrant king, "We mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor."
In this teaching manual, the present leadership in the Defense Department is, in my opinion, casting a shadow on the colonists, including those who signed the Declaration of Independence and later gave us our Constitution, and they are attacking the "Sacred Honor" of those Founders.
What are we thinking?
And what is driving this bizarre behavior?
You may review the Defense Department teaching manual titled, "Equal Opportunity and Treatment Incidences."
You will notice under the section titled "Extremist Ideologies," the teaching material states, "In US history, there are many examples of extremist ideologies and movements. The colonists who sought to free themselves from British rule and the Confederate states who sought to secede from the Northern states are just two examples."
In our world, that has been changed forever by extreme Islamic terrorists who seek to kill Americans and destroy this nation, why does the United States Department of Defense feel compelled to use the colonists, which includes our Founding Fathers as examples of "extremist ideologies?"
Are they suggesting these people would not be welcome in today's US military? Or should they simply be kept under careful surveillance?
Are we so confused, we can no longer identify the enemy?
This teaching document says that, "Nowadays instead of dressing in sheets or publicly espousing hate messages, many extremists will talk of individual liberties, states' rights, and how to make the world a better place."
Who is advising the Defense Department on these matters?
We know the atheist Freedom from Religion Foundation is advising them in the quest to strip every Christian expression from the military and the DoD is standing at attention.
We also know Human Rights Campaign, the largest homosexual advocacy group in America, along with our own President is advancing the homosexual agenda in the military.
But who are they listening to in deciding who are extremists?
Judicial Watch has learned that it is the Southern Poverty Law Center, which has defined itself in recent years by identifying extremists in America. Their list is long, but it includes as "hate groups"; American Family Association, Concerned Women for America and Coral Ridge Ministries, among others.
Tom Fitton, president of Judicial Watch, said this in a press release a few days ago:
“The Obama administration has a nasty habit of equating basic conservative values with terrorism. And now, in a document full of claptrap, its Defense Department suggests that the Founding Fathers, and many conservative Americans, would not be welcome in today’s military,” And it is striking that some the language in this new document echoes the IRS targeting language of conservative and Tea Party investigations. After reviewing this document, one can’t help but worry for the future and morale of our nation’s armed forces.”
This is the result of "political correctness" in its ultimate and extreme form.
It's exactly what the creators of "political correctness" had in mind.
William S. Lind has written the following introduction to his booklet on the origins and history of political correctness:
As Russell Kirk wrote, one of conservatism’s most important insights is that all
ideologies are wrong. Ideology takes an intellectual system, a product of one or more
philosophers, and says, “This system must be true.” Inevitably, reality ends up
contradicting the system, usually on a growing number of points.
But the ideology, by its nature, cannot adjust to reality; to do so would be to abandon the system.
Therefore, reality must be suppressed. If the ideology has power, it uses its power
to undertake this suppression. It forbids writing or speaking certain facts. Its goal is to
prevent not only expression of thoughts that contradict what “must be true,” but thinking
In the end, the result is inevitably the concentration camp, the gulag and
While some Americans have believed in ideologies, America itself never had an
official, state ideology – up until now.
But what happens today to Americans who suggest that there are differences among ethnic groups, or that the traditional social roles of men and women reflect their different natures, or that homosexuality is morally wrong?
If they are public figures, they must grovel in the dirt in endless, canting apologies. If they are
university students, they face star chamber courts and possible expulsion. If they are
employees of private corporations, they may face loss of their jobs. What was their
crime? Contradicting America’s new state ideology of “Political Correctness.”
But what exactly is “Political Correctness?” Marxists have used the term for at
least 80 years, as a broad synonym for “the General Line of the Party.” It could be said
that Political Correctness is the General Line of the Establishment in America today; certainly, no one who dares contradict it can be a member of that Establishment.
I have linked the text of Lind's booklet here. I strongly recommend you read it. If at all possible, please invest in your child and read it with him or her. As they begin another school year in public school, they will again be immersed in "Political Correctness."
Lind says, "We need to understand what Political Correctness really is. As you will soon see,
(when you read the booklet) if we can expose the true origins and nature of Political Correctness, we will have taken a giant step to its overthrow.
Be Vigilant. Be Informed. Be Discerning. Be Prayerful. Be Blessed.