TAKING OVER THE CRA/NFRA AND THE CHALCEDON FOUNDATION - ARE WE BEING MANIPULATED?

[Chancellor Palpatine]

This California recall has enabled us to take a close look at the inner workings of California politics, and of some of the shadowy interests which manipulate teh GOP to serve the interests of a numerically small but very noisily ideological group of malcontents from within the party. I have taken the time to come up with links to articles and excerpts of what is contained within so as to provide FReepers with some of the connections which exist between various individuals and groups within the California Republican Party, as well as the beliefs espoused by each.

When reviewing these excerpts (and they are all fairly lenghty, be forewarned), keep this working set of names and definitions in mind:

Howard Ahmanson, Jr. - Heir to vast savings and loan fortune, a 20 year contributor and former board member of the Chalcedon Institute. Prolific donor to campaigns of CRA members, and a particular patron of Tom McClintock.

Mark Rushdoony - Dead pseudotheologian and proponent of doctrine of Christian Dominionism.

Chalcedon Foundation/Institute - "Think tank" which advances the cause of Christian Dominionism in America.

Christian Dominionism - an ideology that the United States shall be governed under a Christian moral code with heavy emphasis on Old Testament rules as a matter of civil and criminal law.

California Republican Assembly - an organization which claims to consist of grassroots California Republicans

John Stoos - Former Vice President of the California Republican Asssembly, long time Chalcedon contributing writer and staffer and now a political aide to Tom McClintock.

Rod Martin - Eastern Region Vice President of the NFRA, Editor-Director of the Vanguard.

NFRA - National Federation of Republican Assemblies, the umbrella organization set up by the founders of the CRA, which is to give the movement a nationwide focus.

Stoos describes how the Dominionists took over the CRA.

Writing in the February 1997 issue [of Chalcedon Magazine], Stoos described how "a small group of Christians" first began to take over the California Republican Assembly in 1988 and came to dominate the state Republican Party itself. Stoos said what happened with the CRA "may well be a good model" to export "to facilitate the same type of successes across the country."

"In recent issues, Chalcedon writers have considered how those who believe in the Lordship of Christ and dominion mandate should involve themselves in American politics," Stoos wrote. "We agreed that Christians should not approach politics as 'wanting a seat at the table' as if the Creator of the Universe or his vice regents need to ask permission to be involved."

Political involvement in a constitutional republic, he continued, "is a natural obligation" for Christians who want the freedom to "preach the Gospel and further God's Kingdom."

How ordinary Republicans see that takeover, and what it means to them, together with their organizational efforts to combat it. (this consists of several excerpts, if I err in splitting them up, accept my apologies in advance):

The CRP debacle began in 1988 when Pat Robertson challenged President Bush in the Republican Primary. Although Robertson lost, he energized the Christian Coalition nationwide. In California they joined with the large and powerful California Republican Assembly and ran an effective though losing grassroots campaign.

After Robertsons loss to Bush, the leaders of the two groups had a meeting to discuss starting a third party. (Well documented in the Chalcedon Magazine by John Stoos.) They decided that as a third party, they could have a lot to say about philosophy but little or nothing to say about governance. They decided instead to take over the California Republican Party, control the party platform and the $20 million budget during each election cycle. The CRA-dominated coalition ran a stealth campaign in County Central Committee elections and was successful at winning a majority. They elected a Chairman and Board of Directors that was so dominated by the radical-right that they did not invite Governor Wilson to the 1992 convention, would not let him attend and demonstrated against our sitting Republican U.S. Senator when he was the keynote speaker. The CRA continued to consolidate its control of the CRP to such an extent that by 1994, every office and board member of the CRP was a member of the CRA and no one else was allowed to run. During the six years they had absolute control, the party suffered the worst three defeats in its history. During that time, CRA members and even officers of the party attacked Republican candidates in General Elections, costing us several seats. Although there were many such attacks, including the CRP Chairman initiating lawsuits against Republican Assembly candidates, the ones that could be the most costly were the attacks by a CRA Unit President and his associates on Congressman Steve Kuykendall and candidate Jim Cuneen. While Republicans in the rest of the country were trying to save our Speakership in the House, they were trying to hand it to the Democrats.

________________________________________

While the CCR was busy getting started and growing to over 25 Chapters around the state by 1997, the CRA had completed its takeover of the CRP to the extent that they outnumbered Mainstream Republicans by about 1200 to 400, and the counties by about 50 to 8.

Chalcedon's notion of religious life in its ideal society:

While belief could not be mandatory in a Biblical society, and unbelievers could live and work among the people of God, not all religious practices would be permitted. A Biblical society would have to restrain religions based on murder, aggressive revolution, or other civilization-destroying practices. Exodus 22:18, 20 and Deuteronomy 18:10-12 indicate that the practice of occultist religions or religions involving sacrifice to idols was a capital crime under the civil law given to Moses. I did not mention this fact in my reply because it would invite hysterics over witch trials rather than an understanding of my broader point — that the state, and therefore the idea of "crime," is necessarily religious. My correspondent evidently wants official state toleration for all religions, including outright paganism, Satanism, and witchcraft. I wanted her to see the impossibility of this pluralism.

Pagans and occultists should not be ignored by Christians as fringe groups of little significance. R. J. Rushdoony, in The Institutes of Biblical Law, pointed out the danger posed by such groups in the past:

At the end of the Middle Ages and in the early years of the modern era, a widespread outbreak and revival of pagan and anti-Christian occultism was responsible for a massive assault on Christianity, an attack on tithing, the mainstay of Christian society, a sexual revolution aimed at destroying the family, and a revival of cannibalism, human sacrifice, and related acts.

John Stoos, on Sacramento bargaining:

A conference committee drew up an agreed-on list of reforms, everyone shook on the deal and it appeared that conservatives had won an impressive victory. The conservative leadership still managed, however, to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

First, they sent liberal staff off to draft the details of the reforms, creating over four hundred pages of legal jargon to implement the few simple reforms. The final product actually moved California to the Left of the reforms signed by President Bill Clinton! When this was pointed out to the conservative leadership, they simply said it was the best they could get!

Next came their favorite legislative game: Announcing major reforms, while voting to do just the opposite. There were the obligatory debates, and when the dust had settled, only Senator Dick Mountjoy and Assemblyman Tom McClintock were willing to vote NO, after speaking against the phony reforms in the public debates.

More on Chalcedon's intentions:

Chalcedon and most other orthodox Christian reformers do not undertake to establish a national or state church (and thus do not deny the validity of the separation of church and state, properly understood); rather, we endorse and practice Christian establishmentarianism: the prevalence of historic, Biblical Christianity in all areas of modern life. We advocate a disestablished church but an established Faith.

All consistent Christians are thus intently disestablishmentarian and establishmentarian: To press the claims of Christ in all spheres is necessarily and simultaneously to disestablish Satan’s kingdom and establish Christ’s kingdom.

And it is the establishment of Christ’s kingdom which is destined to prevail.

Lest it be unclear what they believe:

Chalcedon supports only one form of "racism": God blesses, nourishes, and honors the Royal Race of the Redeemed, all of those of whatever physical race that have placed their faith and trust in Jesus Christ, and God curses the race of the First Adam, all of those who live in unbelief, rebellion, and work-righteousness (Rom. 5:12-21). This is the only "racial discrimination" the Bible knows anything about. God discriminates in favor of covenant-keepers, and discriminates against covenant-breakers (Dt. 28). Some may object that He favors the race of Israel in the Old Testament era, but it must be immediately noted that His choice was not fundamentally racial, but religious. For this reason, Gentiles could become a part of the Jewish race, and thus a part of the covenant people of God (Gen. 17:12-13). The non-racial aspect of Biblical Faith is clear from Ephesians 2:11-15:

Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands; That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world: But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ. For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us; Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace....

All converted Jews and Gentiles stand on the same plane of blessing in God's sight, just as all unconverted Jews and Gentiles stand on the same plane of judgment in God's sight. The race God favors is the race of the Second Adam; the race He disfavors is the race of the First Adam. And this has nothing to do with physical race.

John Stoos allows Mother Jones (!) to interview him:

Plan Ahead

From radical fringe to kingmakers in a decade — how did they do it? "Basically, there's two places you have influence: one is in the nominating process in the primaries, where you can elect people in ideological agreement with your views, and the other is in the party structure," says former CRA vice president John Stoos, a former gun lobbyist, member of the fundamentalist Christian Reconstructionist movement, and senior consultant to the State Assembly. "And who pays attention to this stuff? You literally have to plan months and years ahead to know where the openings are."

Larkin felt the wrath of the CRA when he ran for the California Assembly in 1996. In 1992 he had angered the CRA by launching a campaign to wrest control of the party's Ventura County Central Committee away from the conservatives. In reprisal, the CRA backed conservative Tom McClintock, who defeated Larkin in the 1996 primary and ultimately won the general election.

"They're organized and dedicated," says Larkin, "and mainstream Republicans are neither, so a very small group can take over."

Ahmanson's tentacles:

Ahmanson's patronage benefits several nonprofit think tanks, including the Claremont Institute, where McClintock worked for two years after losing his 1994 run for state controller, and the Chalcedon Foundation, which promotes a brand of Christianity known as Christian Reconstructionism. Chalcedon produces journals for which McClintock political aide John Stoos routinely writes.

In the 1980s and 1990s, Ahmanson served on Chalcedon's board of directors and was its largest benefactor, giving it at least $733,000. He remains a donor to the nonprofit organization, which was founded by Rousas John Rushdoony. Often called theologian to the religious right, Rushdoony, who died in 2001, advocated a nation ruled by Biblical law, a vision that assigned the death penalty for 18 sins, including murder, rape of a betrothed virgin, adultery and sodomy.

[hang on, this is my favorite part]

Ahmanson could not be reached for comment. But at a news conference this week, McClintock said he knew nothing about Ahmanson's theology, other than that he is a Christian. [compiler's note - take from that what you will]

An extract from a statement of the NFRA:

Our Founding Fathers firmly held to the conviction that religious freedom was fundamental to a free society. We also express the conviction that we are a God-fearing people, according one another the equal right of religious freedom and acknowledging with reverence the duty of obedience to the will of God.

Parents bear the final responsibility before God in the rearing of their children. Parents have been commanded by God to love their children and lead them in the paths of truth. Parents must be free to discipline their children in love and direct their education without government intrusion.

The CRA speaks:

We believe with the framers of that document when President Adams stated, "This Constitution will not work except with a religious people."

An official of the NFRA in a candid gleeful boast:

Even these numbers understate the case. In California, for instance, where the study rightly noted reverses, Christian conservatives in the powerful California Republican Assembly were nevertheless able to overturn the “foreordained” outcome of their party’s gubernatorial primary, badly upsetting left-wing Los Angeles mayor Richard Riordan with conservative underdog Bill Simon. A Simon win in November would guarantee their dominance in the party, and dramatically increase their influence in both state and nation.

[hchutch]

With regards to Point One - I think that Chancellor Palpatine has outlined their efforts to gain the influence in CRA/NFRA quite well. At the very least, they are *trying* to take that organization over. The question is, how far along are they?

Point Two: You might be right, however, I think that there is a way to minimize the effect of the smears. Part of it would be to warn the public (the way Arnold did in the recall) that they will do that sort of thing. Another part is to make damn sure you know about anything that your major supporters/fundraisers may have said/done that could reflect poorly on you.

Point Four: I need only to point out that the CRA's endrosement of McClintock was able to pull a number of conservative AND Republicans away from Arnold. Arnold got 78% of Republicans, and 66% of conservatives. The bulk of the votes he did not get on that front probably went to McClintock. Had the GOP front-runner been anybody but Arnold Schwarzenegger, I think that split would have been sufficient to make Cruz Bustamante governor of CA.

I, too, supported Bill Simon for governor in 2002. He did have a number of positives: Not only could he self-finance, he also had good positions on the issues. He also had the endorsement of Rudy Giuliani, which I think was also a plus - showing he could attract the support of moderates, and the Club for Growth liked him, which was a big plus, and an access to a lot of funds, too. Bill Simon just had a problem: He ran a crappy campaign. In retrospect, Bill Jones, who had run a successful statewide race, probably would have been a better choice in `02, with Simon as lieutenant governor. Problem for Jones was that his switch of endorsements was a slap in the face to Bush - and that didn't help his chances.

The other problem Simon had was that questionnaire incident, which caused a bit of a fuss with some purists. That may have been part of running a bad campaign. He should have won the `02 governor's race, and instead lost the thing.

[rwfromkansas]

Thanks for your post. By the way, on the Chalcedon site, they don't even sound theonomist, but follow the Scottish Covenanter line of thinking that Biblical civil laws should only be used if the people agree to do so; forcing it is wrong.

[Chancellor Palpatine]

ping

[RGSpincich]

Vice-Regents

It's not just our imagination.

You blow off the point that these kooks make us target rich for our enemies. I'm glad the country clubbers have more sense than you.

[B Knotts]

Scottish Covenanter

Ah HA!

I knew Arlen Specter was involved in this somehow...

:-)

[Hillary's Lovely Legs]

Thank you for posting this. It clears up a lot of questions.

[B Knotts]

I'm glad the country clubbers have more sense than you.

They don't. They're just as bad as the fundies. That's what you need to realize.

[rwfromkansas]

Romans says the government is to be the sword of God.

[Chancellor Palpatine]

When you read those statements, you're unconcerned. When i read those statements, I'm very concerned. When Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, etc. read those statements, they're rightly very spooked.

Why would Stoos say that Jews wouldn't be comfortable here and be happier in Israel, a comment heard by many, and which cost him his post with the Christian Coalition, not to mention some other lobby spots, something which McClintock was clearly warned about by a number of people? Also, keep in mind that when we talk about Stoos, we're talking about a former CRA VP and Chalcedon regular.

[rwfromkansas]

As for the adulterer being let go by Jesus, if you actually read the whole passage, you will see he let her go because he asked her if she was condemned legally and she said no.

There are issues of hypocrisy as well, but that is not why he let her go.

[B Knotts]

BTW, citing Mother Jones is rather bad form, wouldn't you say?

[rwfromkansas]

Chalcedon countering the made-up allegations against them created by anti-Christian forces:

"Chalcedon is often the object of these attacks, both clearly malevolent as well as simply misinformed. Christians suckled on a pietistic view of the Faith and life simply cannot conceive of a world-conquering Christianity; because they cannot grasp this premise, they dismiss its defenders and spread misinformation about its position. Some are simply too irresponsible (or lazy) to acquaint themselves with our position and, failing to understand it, impute to Chalcedon positions and statements we do not espouse, and, in some cases, just the opposite of what we espouse. The malevolent detractors, on the other hand, know fully well what we believe and teach; their objective is to erect straw men, paint Chalcedon in the poorest possible light, and assassinate our position and character."

"Misconception 2: Political Dominion

Because we believe that the Bible should apply to all of life, including the state; and because we believe that the Christian state should enforce Biblical civil law; and finally, because we believe that the responsibility of Christians is to exercise dominion in the earth for God's glory, it is sometimes assumed that we believe that capturing state apparatus and enforcing Biblical law on a pervasively unbelieving populace is one of our hidden objectives. Our critics sometimes imply or state outright that we are engaged in a subtle, covert attempt to capture conservative, right-wing politics in order to gain political power, which we will then use to "spring" Biblical law on our nation. This is flatly false. We do not believe that politics or the state are a chief sphere of dominion.

It is understandable why many people assume that we do hold this position, however. We believe firmly in social change. Liberals believe firmly in social change. Liberals believe that social change is the effect almost exclusively of politics and state coercion. For example, they believe that we can change society by means of state-financed and governed "public education"; health, education, and welfare programs; and speech codes. In other words, they believe, like communists, that man is essentially a plastic being that can be fundamentally reshaped by external means -- education, wealth, health, penitentiaries, and so forth. Since no later than the French Revolution, most civil governments in the West have believed that social change occurs by revolution, not by regeneration. When, therefore, liberals (and even some alleged Christians) see us supporting and working toward social change, they presume that we are interested in political power. In simpler words, because they believe in social change exclusively by means of politics, they assume that anyone who supports social change or gets involved in politics is attempting to gain state power in order to further a social agenda.

This is a serious miscalculation. We believe in regeneration, not in revolution. Men are not changed fundamentally by politics, but by the power of God. Men's hearts are changed by regeneration (Jn. 3:3). They are translated from the kingdom of darkness to the kingdom of God's dear Son (Col. 1:13). From that point, they progressively work to reorient their lives and every sphere they touch in terms of God's holy, infallible Word. Long-term, pervasive social change is the result of extensive regeneration and obedience by the people of God. This means, of course, that there can be no Christian society of any significance or longevity unless a large number of its members are Christians.

We do encourage Christian political involvement, but not for the reason that many people suppose. In fact, we believe it is important for Christians to get involved in politics because we do not believe politics is too important. The great problem with modern politics is that it is used as an instrument of social change. We at Chalcedon passionately oppose this. The role of the state is in essence to defend and protect, in the words of the early American Republic, life, liberty, and property. It is to reward the externally obedient by protecting them from the externally disobedient (Rom. 13:1-7). Its role is not to make men virtuous; we have a name for civil governments that attempt to create a virtuous society: totalitarian. Biblically, the role of the state is to suppress external evil: murder, theft, rape, and so forth. Its role is not to redistribute wealth, furnish medical care, or educate its citizens' children.

We do believe that the state one day will be Christian, but this no way implies that the role of the state is to Christianize its citizens. The Christian state is highly decentralized (localized). Our objective, therefore, in supporting Christian political involvement is to scale down the massive state in Western democracies, reducing it to its Biblical limits. We do not believe in political salvation of any kind."


"Misconception 5: Persecution for Religious Beliefs

Because we believe that the state is an inherently religious institution, and because we believe that a Christian state should enforce the law of God appropriate to the civil sphere, some have accused us of endorsing state persecution for religious beliefs. This is wrong. Biblical law does require criminalization of a few sins like murder, kidnapping, theft, and child sacrifice; but these are not religious beliefs; they are violent practices that assault the fabric of society. The Bible does not permit the state to persecute or suppress any religious belief, only certain dangerous, socially destructive practices.

Further, Biblical civil law is designed for a covenanted society, just as Biblical ecclesiastical and familial law are: Paul's epistles, for example, are written to Christian churches, not to Satanic synagogues. Biblical law governing the family is designed for Christian families. Likewise, Biblical civil law is created for a covenanted, Christian society. This is why God dictated His legislation (including civic legislation) to ancient Israel after He had entered into covenant with her (Ex. 19). Biblical civil legislation is for a covenanted nation, not for modern, secular Western democracies at war with God. Our first objective is to work to Christianize them."

From: http://www.chalcedon.edu/desk/what_we_believe.shtml

[hchutch]

Indeed, almost as if there was something to hide...

Did he ever explain those donations from the Indian tribes who also donated to Bustamante?

[B Knotts]

I don't think you're going to convince them. They hold hatred in their hearts toward McClintock because he would not drop out in favor of their celebrity candidate, so they will not listen.

This thread belongs on DU.

[Chancellor Palpatine]

The interesting thing about Mother Jones is that while their editorial bias and interpretation is obviously hard left, they're utterly rigid about their factual reporting. Thats something I've known for years. Considering that the Mother Jones article is consistent with everything else that has been posted here, I'd suggest that it would be hard to refute - we've got info from newsmax, Newsday,, TV stations, Pew, a GOP organization, as well as quotes from the various players themselves.

[rwfromkansas]

lol......not quite....those Scottish covenanters were the good scots.....:)

funny stuff though

[William McKinley]

I need only to point out that the CRA's endrosement of McClintock was able to pull a number of conservative AND Republicans away from Arnold.

I look at this a different way. Those who supported McClintock right to the end (all the way to the voting booth) were pretty committed, wouldn't you agree?

If those 12% didn't have their guy there, would they have voted at all?

The recall would have still passed in all liklihood, since some portion of them would still have voted. But I think in all liklihood, had McClintock not been in there, the recall would have had a much harder time passing. Plus, McClintock did well in the debates, showing that Republican positions could easily be defended intellectually. He didn't attack Arnold during the debates. I think he helped Arnold during the debates.

If they were looking for a spoiler, it didn't work out for them.

[William McKinley]

Simon ran a crap campaign, no doubt. What ticks me off is that some people will never back him again because of it. One strike and you're out.

[William McKinley]

What was he saying/writing/doing when he was the VP of the CRA?

Were his comments before, during, or after?

[E Rocc]

We do believe that the state one day will be Christian, but this no way implies that the role of the state is to Christianize its citizens.

Yet.

Reading between the lines, it becomes clear that that is their eventual goal, and they come very close to admitting it here. Most of us on the right are familiar with gradualism from our dealings with environmentalists, "labor" activists, the "children's rights" crowd and others on the left who clearly favor big government socialism but know that to actively espouse it is to condemn oneself to the extreme fringes of American politics.

Ironically, Christianity was not meant to be a governing religion. Not even Paul of Tarsus ever attempted to make it one. It was not until 312 AD, when Emperor Constantine saw a meteor and attributed it to God, that Christianity ever became part of a government.

-Eric