More examples (and a name: LTC Jack Rich @ Ft Campbell) here:
Military Training Document: Anti-Christian SPLC a Trusted Source to Define 'Extremism'
Posted on 10/25/2013 3:16:59 AM PDT by markomalley
Don’t donate to the tea party or to evangelical Christian groups — that was the message soldiers at a pre-deployment briefing at Fort Hood said they received from a counter-intelligence agent who headed up the meeting.
If you do, you could face punishment — that was the other half of the message, as reported by Fox News.
The briefing was Oct. 17, and about a half-hour of it was devoted to discussion about how perceived radical groups — like tea party organizations and the Christian-based American Family Association — were "tearing the country apart," one unnamed soldier said, to Fox News.
Among the remarks the agent allegedly made: Military members who donate to these groups would be subject to discipline under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, the soldier reported.
Liberty Institute has stepped in to investigate. Michael Berry, one of the nonprofit's attorneys, said he has been advising the soldier about his options — but that in the meanwhile, he said the American public should be on guard.
"The American public should be outraged that the U.S. Army is teaching our troops that evangelical Christians and tea party members are enemies of America and that they can be punished for supporting or participating in those groups," Mr. Berry said, in Fox News. "These statements about evangelicals being domestic enemies are a serious charge."
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
You might want to check out this link and the pictures on it from the presentation in question:
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/10/14/us-army-defines-christian-ministry-as-domestic-hate-group/
I’d also remind you of the US District Attorney who gave a presentation indicating that derogatory speech against Muslims may be considered hate speech and action taken by his office in regards to civil rights:
http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2013/05/feds-suggest-antimuslim-speech-can-be-punished-165163.html
There have been other postings on FR showing material from DOD instructing civilian employees that even silence, non-confrontation with gay-rights agenda is considered as grounds for possible disciplinary action; that is, employees have to accept the propaganda. The NJ courts now have an employee training with the goal of moving from tolerance of diversity to admiration of it (admiration is part of the title of the course).
Now if the argument is that there is a spiritual slide in the Armed Forces, and more people are becoming hostile to Christians, that is true. I don't have to look too far to see that. But I'm not seeing systematic persecution, and certainly, not US Army sponsored. There are too many Christians in the Army, and that wouldn't fly. When I see "US Army Teaches", I expect to see Department of the Army Policy. Not some soldier in Camp Shelby with no further attribution.
The most interesting part of this article is the shame by the PAO; it tells me that they are in a difficult position: they cannot tell the difference between the Westboro Baptists, and everyone else. But the days of systematic persecution are coming, as we know because the Lord told us.
I pray for our country, 444. Our world is upside down. We were fortold things would come about, only I never thought it could happen so fast.
The downward spiral has become a straight down death dive
It’s probably not reported because people are afraid to make waves. They are being condition by intimidation. We have seen ‘examples’ in the media, tax payers, whistle blowers. There are people like Joe the plumber who couldn’t give an opinion without being harassed. I’ve seen it personally. It’s getting ugly
It seems likely someone or some people require severe punishment for one or more treasonous acts.
HF
Sir, I am not open to your personal attack on me. You do not know who I am, what I do, nor where my loyalties lay.
I gave my opinion based on 20 years military experience, and my technical expertise on how training is done. We can disagree on the interpretation of data, that's fine. I disagree with pretty much everything you said, because what you describe isn't the reality of how the Army, intelligence, or CI works; but I'm not going to attack you for your opinion. I expect the same.
While I believe they are loners to an extent, I also believe what they are teaching is being allowed and possibly even condoned or it would not keep happening... I don’t think it is policy, but just that attitude is being tolerated and somewhat rewarded or would not have happened but once...
Do not forget the watch list the Department of Homeland Security had that included Christians and others that in no way should have been included on a list like that.
It may not be governmental or military policy but done with wink and nod or even verbal approval from above.
At what point does hyperbole become reality? With this administration it is easy to believe there is more to most things than what we are told and especially more than is being documented.
ping
I think you misunderstood what I was saying. I was not saying that you are in any way involved with deception. I’m saying they hire the people to do the legitimate thing but leave the determinations of exactly WHO is a terrorist to the Southern Poverty Law Center. There is nothing illegitimate about what you’re doing; the problem is that they are leaving the determination of who is a likely terrorist up to the SPLC, which is a political hack group. Doing that lets them point to people like you, who are doing the right things, and say that the military as a whole is doing the right stuff. It’s just the SPLC (which they gave approval to as a source for determining who is likely terrorist...) who is screwing up. But the military will keep SPLC as the expert that the people in the field are supposed to refer to and they will keep using your material alongside the SPLC labels for who is terrorist and get the same result over and over again. The problem is that they are NOT making lists of their own; they are farming that out to a leftist political hack group, in order to give themselves plausible deniability.
I did not intend to cast any aspersions on what you are doing. It’s not your fault that they are using you as proof of their integrity while leaving the decisions of who is a terrorist to a hack political group - effectively passing the buck for those sheerly political determinations because they are outsourced to political hacks. They’re having you do the right stuff on their right hand, but on the left hand they are telling people to get their list of terrorists from SPLC, knowing that SPLC is calling Tea Party and AFA terrorists. The military can say “In our training materials we never said these people are terrorists!” And that’s true; they have NO list of terrorists. But they told their people to look to SPLC’s terrorist list to find out who is a terrorist. So when the military advisors on the ground look at your curriculum and see that they need to counsel people against fraternizing with terrorists (for instance) and then they look at the recommended/military-endorsed SPLC website saying that Tea Party is terrorist, they end up telling people not to fraternize with Tea Party - based not on what the military explicitly told them, nor on what you put in the curriculum, but based on their approval of SPLC on the list of experts who can identify terrorist-leaning groups.
And when that happens they will say that these instructors got the info off of websites. Well, duh. SPLC’s terrorist list is probably on a website - a website that the military APPROVED for the purpose of finding out who is a terrorist.
See how the CYA works? It gives plausible deniability, when in fact the military is responsible for what the soldiers are being told even though they have a good, solid curriculum - because they APPROVED SPLC as experts in determining who is a terrorist.
I apologize for any hurt feelings I may have caused you by not making it clear that what you do is legitimate even though the military itself is using it as CYA for the real problem: their approval of the political hack organization, SPLC, as experts in identifying terrorist-leaning groups.
IIRC, there was at least one shooting that was sparked by the SPLC’s rhetoric against conservative groups. It may even have been the AFA office that was targeted, because SPLC had declared them to be terrorists because AFA believes that marriage is between one one man and one woman (like a large portion of the American public believes). Why the military trusts a group that is fomenting terrorism is beyond me, and the military needs to answer for that, IMHO.
It was the Family Research Council, where the shooting was carried out by a pro-gay activist responding to SPLC’s designation of FRC as a “hate group”. See http://www.charismanews.com/us/33980-frc-shooter-carried-15-chick-fil-a-sandwiches
Why is the US military recommending that the SPLC be viewed as a credible source of who is terrorist?
Actually, the Boston Tea Party was on Dec. 16, 1773. The British government’s reaction (the so-called Intolerable Acts) happened early in 1774, and the First Continental Congress met later in 1774.
Since when can you not donate to whatever group you want to? Someone should file suit against the guy spouting that nonsense to our soldiers, to whomever told him to.
So well stated but didn’t you mean “accept” and not “except?”
“So well stated but didn’t you mean “accept” and not “except?”
Yep, thanks..
So under that backdrop, it isn't (or shouldn't) be surprising that when speaking on the topic of INSIDER THREATS (that is the correct technical term that is being used right now) in the military, the biblically-challenged can't distinguish who's-who-in-the-zoo. Thus, it manifests itself in what we are seeing. And I will go a further and state there are some in the military will go to great lengths to deride Christians because it assuages their guilt and innate sense of a pending judgment. Those are in the vast minority, but they seem to get a lot of mileage in the press.
But I don't see, and we have not arrived at the point, where the Department of the Army, or any other service is winking and nodding, or putting together curriculum that would include Christians as targets of concern. So I must reject that notion. The evidence just isn't there.
Don't get me wrong, we've lost a lot of philosophical arguments because we are lazy, and we don't flex out political muscles. I guarantee you that had the churches unified in specific districts and states, and moved this issue to front of the line: there would be a Congressional hearing and subsequent investigation by the respective Inspector Generals from each service. Particularly in light of the upcoming November elections.
But that didn't happen. We do a lot of whining here on FR. What we should be doing is marshalling for a fight, and put our elective representatives on notice that we hold the keys to their political success or failure.
The church needs to dress-right-dress, and learn how to fight once more with Christian rhetoric. But that is another discussion altogether.
I do not think (wait for it, here's the big finale) that this will be achieved by any other method short of what we saw in 1978, the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerancy (1978). The biblical principal is this: unification. Paul wrote extensively on it. We are not unified, so we shouldn't be shocked that our influence is dissipating.
They certainly are laying the ideological ground work to purge the military as if to prepare them to be used against us.
I’m not sure if we have enough strength left to do anything about this one insolent but I suspect it may not matter. I think this is just the tip of the iceberg.
no, Bush and republicans were being called Fascist for non-fascist acts.
Obama seemed to preside over blatenly activist acts left and right and still gets a pass. This ‘country’ is going to hell and Obama is somehow still portrayed as ‘above it all’.
I wonder if this man will ever become responsible for what happens during his presidency by the hand of people UNDER his command.
More examples (and a name: LTC Jack Rich @ Ft Campbell) here:
Military Training Document: Anti-Christian SPLC a Trusted Source to Define 'Extremism'
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.