Sibby Online

Schools gone anti-American

From Pat Boone:

But the strong likelihood today is that the majority of America's high school and college kids are being duped, misled and brainwashed – taught lies, by some of their teachers!

I know this is a strong charge, and I hate to make it against people I hold in such high esteem, but the facts back it up.

I'm a contributor to The Fund for American Studies, created by the venerable newsman Fred Barnes and his associate Roger Ream, and I strongly believe in their quest to hold our institutions of learning to a high and honorable standard. They see the obvious: If we don't teach our young the true history of our nation and its purposes, in just a generation we might no longer be that nation. We could just dissolve into the vast sea of passing time and be forgotten – a brave experiment that lost its way.

To try to save our future, literally, the FAS will be teaching more than 700 college students this summer about America's foundational principles of limited government and individual liberty. They've been doing this for some time and, hopefully, will continue this essential work for years to come.

Why? Isn't this stuff taught already in high school and college history and government classes?

No. Alarmingly, these days in most schools, the ideas of our Founding Fathers are rarely taught at all! They're seen by too many teachers as backward, as racist, sexist – and outright oppressive!

As FAS has authenticated, in the increasingly rare cases where our Founding Fathers' ideas are taught, it is often done with a hostile or ungrateful attitude, at times so extreme that it would shock most of us who not so long ago went to school in what now seems a much different time.

For instance, what appears to be the hottest new American history textbook, "Lies My Teacher Told Me," authored by James Loewen, tells students:

Perhaps we are all dupes, manipulated by elite white male capitalists who orchestrate how history is written as part of their scheme to perpetuate their own power and privilege at the expense of the rest of us.

What? This is a book meant to teach our kids about how America came into being? How this country became the greatest in history?

Loewen goes on: "… textbooks [others', not his, of course] misrepresent the U.S. government and omit its participation in state sponsored terrorism." Sometimes his scurrilous polemic is the only "textbook" used in an "American history" class!

…

If all this bothers you as much as it deeply concerns me, please go to the Fund for American Studies website and find out what your fellow citizens like Fred and Roger are doing about it. As they point out dramatically, Tomorrow matters today, and they're training young Americans to carry the torch of liberty and love of country to the next generation, and the next. And they are determined to challenge our teachers, on every level, to teach truth without bias and history without revision. I truly believe most of our educators – being at heart still the gallant sort I remember from my own school days – want to do that.

Blacks too 'emotional' to obey rules

I not saying that, I am just reporting this:

The moderator of Thursday's Democrat presidential debate said he did not ask the mostly black audience to refrain from applauding candidates' answers, because blacks are too "emotional" to obey such a rule.

Asked by C-Span host Brian Lamb why he didn't enforce a no-applause rule for his PBS-sponsored debate like other debate formats, moderator Tavis Smiley explained: "Because black people are an emotional people. I know it wouldn't have worked."

Smiley says the black audience attending the 90-minute session at Howard University would not have listened or complied with such a request for silence, suggesting African-Americans are unable to control themselves.

He made the remarks on Friday morning's Washington Journal program aired on C-Span.

The nationally televised debate featured eight Democrat candidates, including Sens. Hillary Clinton of New York and Barack Obama of Illinois.

Smiley, a black talk show host and liberal political activist, made the observation in the wake of widespread violence during Juneteenth celebrations across the nation.

Police reported stabbings, shootings and beatings – including the fatal mob beating of a Hispanic man – at festivals commemorating the black holiday in Milwaukee, Wis.; Austin, Texas; Syracuse, N.Y.; and other cities.

Gorilla refinery under fire

From the Argus Leader:

A group concerned about plans for an oil refinery north of Elk Point is planning the first in a series of community meetings.

The Save Union County Committee will hold a "public awareness workshop" at 3 p.m. Thursday. The meeting site will be announced soon, the group said.

Denny Larson, coordinator of the National Refinery Reform Campaign, will give a presentation, according to a statement.

"Refineries have traditionally been one of the nation's major sources of tons of toxic organic compounds, like cancer-causing benzene, and chemicals which cause asthma and childhood-development problems," according to the statement.

The San Francisco-based Refinery Reform Campaign wants to clean up America's oil refineries and reduce the nation's dependence on fossil fuels, according to its Web site.

So as the environmentalists have yet to weigh in on the TransCanada pipeline, they are taking aim at the proposed refinery. And one of the environmentalists’ favorite politicians is also taking interest:

Sen. Tim Johnson's economic development director, Matt Varilek, will be in the Elk Point, Vermillion, Yankton and North Sioux City areas today to meet with residents and get feedback.

"I want to hear more from the people of Union County, especially now that the 'Gorilla Project' has been unveiled," Johnson said in a statement announcing Varilek's trip.

If built, the $8 billion project would be the first oil refinery built in the U.S. since 1976. It would refine 400,000 barrels of oil into low-sulfur gasoline and diesel fuel each day.

The report does not state that the refinery is to use the same tarsand oil that TransCanada is pushing. During the PUC hearings, TransCanada admitted that there is room for a second pipeline within the 50 foot easement for the first pipeline. Even though they say there is no connection, one has to wonder.

And as I stated earlier, if refining oil from Canada is considered "public use", why not offer up the Badlands as a site for the refinery?

Sandlin weighs in on TransCanada

From the Argus Leader:

Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin weighed in on the eminent domain issue in her weekly phone conference with reporters Thursday.

She pointed out she is a strong proponent of private property rights and introduced a bill in Congress that would make it more difficult for local and state governments to condemn private property to aid private development. However, she noted public utilities, roadways and pipelines often are granted the use of eminent domain.

"I would hope TransCanada would be a good corporate partner and work with landowners who would be affected if the process goes through to avoid the need to exercise eminent domain in as many cases as possible," she said.

Before TransCanada can acquire land through condemnation, "the state PUC has to approve the project," she added.

But according to the report, the PUC has no authority over the issue of eminent domain:

Dusty Johnson, chairman of the South Dakota Public Utilities Commission, which is in the early stages of gathering facts and reviewing TransCanada's permit application, says the issue of eminent domain is not a factor in the PUC decision to issue a permit.

"There are a lot of sticky things we have to look at in this case," he said. "I am relieved this sticky eminent domain issue is not something the PUC has authority over."

Primarily, the PUC will look at the environmental effect of the pipeline, whether it affects the safety and well being of people, and whether it interferes with the orderly development of the region it passes through.

Instead of passing the buck to the PUC, who has no authority ofver the issue of eminent domain, Herseth Sandlin should take a stand on whether a Canadian firm can use eminent domain to take property owned from South Dakotans in order to feed refineries of petroleum products, which do not seem to fit the definition of a "public utility".

And it was also stated at the PUC public hearings that TransCanada avoids crossing National Parks. So if this pipeline is considered a "public use" project, then why not use "public land" as much as possible? Now that would fire up the environmentalists, as it would affect their backyard. If the federal government believes this project is needed, why not offer up the Badlands. I am sure the idea that the brown Badlands being turned into Badlands black would be upsetting to Badlands Blue.

Todd Epp the communist

Back in 2005, Todd Epp went on this full disclosure kick regarding bloggers. I disclosed that my family has land in the path of the TransCanada pipeline. So instead of respecting my full disclosure, Todd Epp immediately assumes that my position on this issue is only in regard to my family’s land and calls me a liberal NIMBY. If you read my "entire" post, you will see that I am approaching the issue of eminent domain from a property rights standpoint for "all" American landowners. And here is Todd Epp’s view on eminent domain:

Today, the WSJ has two articles looking at the second anniversary of the Kelo case that upheld the use of eminent domain statutes to comdemn land for economic development purposes, not just for public projects like roads, schools, and the like.

While I’m not a big "property rights" uber alles nut—I think people should have superior rights to property—I also don’t think the government—any governnment—should be in the business of using the law to help crony capitalists. In Kelo, the project that the Supremes upheld was essentially state sanctioned class warfare, with the rich getting their way over the poor.

So how can Todd Epp call my pro-property rights position against eminent domain "liberal", while his position against eminent domain is based on an anti-capitalist worldview, or in other words…a communist position. Funny how Todd Epp is now supporting "big oil" getting richer at the expense of South Dakota farmers. You would think that would raise his anti-capitalist hair. And in his words, "God, I love the irony of this." And i havn't even mentioned that American land is being sought by a Canadian company yet.

Big oil versus small farmer

Here is an Op-ed from the Mitchell Daily Republic regarding TransCanada’s threat of using eminent domain:

Eminent domain is a scary phrase.

Used in the past for sweeping projects, like laying railroad lines into the frontier, it’s a rather simple idea: Get on board or get out of the way, all in the name of what someone considers progress.

Eminent domain was brought up at a recent meeting in Alexandria to discuss a proposed pipeline project through eastern South Dakota. TransCanada wants to run a pipe from Canada to Illinois, which it will use to pump crude oil.

The problem is that landowners along the proposed route aren’t so sure they want the pipe across their property. The meetings were designed for landowners to learn more about the project and, we hoped, to ease their concerns about the confusing contracts they were being asked to sign.

Then came talk of eminent domain, or the power to take private property for public use, in exchange for just compensation to landowners. State law allows it, provided the pipeline meets certain criteria; TransCanada’s lawyers believe it does.

"Buster" Gray, an independent contractor working with TransCanada on the project, told The Daily Republic after the meeting that even if the company begins the eminent domain process, it still will try to negotiate agreements with the landowners who stand in the way.

That’s good news, but we still hope it doesn’t come to that.

We can’t blame landowners in the pipeline’s path for being suspicious. Whereas the pipeline is expected to produce jobs, a boost in property tax for counties and cash in the form of landowner contracts, it is a scary proposition.

Contracts presented to landowners aren’t easy to understand, many are saying. That doesn’t help the situation.

We realize that not everyone will be in agreement with the pipeline and especially its proposed route. We just don’t like the possibility of a large corporation simply taking the land it covets.

It’s important to keep in mind that eminent domain actually could be a good thing for some landowners. A jury in an eminent domain case could award a higher land price than TransCanada is offering. Also, if eminent domain is used, it could be better for landowners in the future, especially if there are serious problems with the pipeline, such as a major spill.

But considering TransCanada has billions of dollars and plenty of lawyers to help its cause, eminent domain in this case certainly is a David vs. Goliath proposition.

It’s hard not to side with the little guy.

Oil spill concerns regarding water supply

This just up from Seward, Nebraska:

Representatives of the Seward Citizens Committee on Pipeline Route shared their concerns about the proposed TransCanada Pipeline during the June 19 Seward City Council meeting.

The proposed pipeline route is west of Seward and runs within 1.5 miles of the city's wellfield and water treatment plant. Jon Kruse and Richard Zwick, both of Seward, asked the council to consider an alternate route for the pipeline around Seward.

One of their primary concerns is protecting the city's water supply in the event of a leak along the pipeline. According to A Spill Frequency Volume Study, Kruse said, a spill of between 50 and 1,000 barrels or up to 42,000 gallons may happen anywhere along the pipeline once in 12 years. A spill of more than 10,000 barrels might happen once in 50 years.

In addition to the oil that would leach into the groundwater, Kruse reviewed the chemicals that are included in crude oil, among them benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylene.

"These compounds are more water soluble and can disperse further and more rapidly in both surface and ground waters than other crude oil substances," Kruse said. "These compounds pose a significant threat to water quality."

For example, the Environmental Protection Agency allows just 5/1,000th part per million of benzene in drinking water. In addition, Kruse said, a study conducted by Iowa State University found that petroleum and crude oil products may leach through PVC pipe, which is what the city's water system uses, and contaminate the water.

Christian worldview conference

From WorldNetDaily:

How about the West-Coast Christian Worldview Conference, which immerses high school students 10th grade or older and college students in hours of daily instruction during a summertime intensive.

"Our conference is for five days, holds up to 25 sessions with break outs, Q&As, and great personal fellowship with fellow students and speakers during break times. We try to reach the serious Christians who want to grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ," a spokesman for the conference scheduled July 30-Aug. 4 at the University of Santa Cruz told WND.

"The purpose of the conference is to train the attendees and fellowship with them so that they are able to meet the different worldviews they face at school, work, and in their neighborhoods with the truth of the Biblical gospel. Our goal is to equip Christians to understand and apply the Christian faith to politics, history, education, family, science, entertainment, business, and other areas of our culture, and provide fellowship and opportunities to form great," he said.

Speakers will include Brian Abshire, who has written "Get More from Your Bible," "Discipleship and Biblical Counseling," and "The Church as God's Armory;" Mark Rushdoony, president of Ross House Books; Joe Morecraft, former chaplain for the Atlanta state legislature; John Hodges, a conductor, composer and lecturer; Chris Strevel, a minister; and Charles Robidart, chairman of Robidart and Associates.

Session titles will include American History, Holy Living, Canonization, Our Real Enemies, Overcoming the world, Music, Prayer and others.

TransCanada to use eminent domain

My blogging has been slow lately as I attended two PUC public hearings on the Keystone pipeline issue. I have also started a list of links regarding the TransCanada pipeline on my sidebar. My family’s land is in the path of the proposed pipeline, so my coverage will be biased. But I do have to admit that after attending the two PUC meetings, TransCanada employees seem like a bunch of well-intended professionals. Still the risk of oil spills is there.

I think there should be general interest in this issue as eminent domain has now entered the picture. This is from yesterday’s Mitchell Daily Republic:

TransCanada will consider beginning eminent domain proceedings this fall to acquire right-of-way for its crude oil pipeline if private negotiations with landowners have not been wrapped up, a project official said Tuesday.

L.A. "Buster" Gray, an independent contractor working with TransCanada on the pipeline project, spoke to The Daily Republic by phone Tuesday while he was en route to a Public Utilities Commission hearing in Clark. He said the company will continue negotiating with landowners as long as possible but would consider invoking its right of eminent domain "somewhere toward the fourth quarter," which begins in October.

Gray added that private negotiations with landowners would not have to end with the filing of eminent domain paperwork.

The report adds the big corporation versus the small individual battle associated with eminent domain:

On the other hand, the eminent domain process would consist of TransCanada, a corporate giant with billions in revenues, filing petitions in South Dakota circuit court against individual landowners. Those landowners would need lawyers and money to wage legal battles that, according to TransCanada lawyer Brett Koenecke of Pierre, would probably take five to eight months.

Assuming a judge agrees that TransCanada is a "common carrier" with the right of eminent domain, court proceedings could progress to a jury trial to determine the amount of compensation TransCanada must pay for the land it wants to take. The verdict could be appealed to the state Supreme Court.

In the meantime, TransCanada officials say they are trying to secure fair easements and avoid going to court.

"We hope we don’t have to do it at all," Koenecke said. "It’s certainly the company’s policy to negotiate with landowners and achieve arm’s length bargains with them that are satisfactory."

Even though TransCanada is putting forward a plan that should minimize the possibility of a leak, and agrees that they are responsible for all damages, they may not be around forever, whereas the easements do, as they are perpetual. So what happens when the pipeline is no longer needed, and TransCanada or any future owners of the pipeline are insolvent? Will the line be abandoned and residual hazardous material remains four foot below the surface of the landowner’s property? These questions have been asked, but not adequately answered during the two sessions I attended.

By voluntarily signing the easements, the landowners may be held accountable for not only agreeing to a hazardous material to be in their land, but receiving compensation for it. They may indeed be held culpable if there is a major problem. And the easement is filed with the court house and stays with the land. It goes with the land when it is sold. Certainly potential buyers may balk. Even though TransCanada is offering full vale for the 50 foot permanent easement, the entire property may suffer a decrease in value. Especially if there has been problems with leaks. And TransCanada documentation filed with the PUC state that the like number of leaks over a ten year period to be 1.4. And that probability assumes no earthquakes. My family experienced an earthquake in 2005 in the area in the path of the proposed pipeline. There have been recorded earthquakes over the years along the path of this pipeline. Another issue that has not been adequately answered during the public hearing at Alexandria, SD.

Stay tuned for more updates.

Supreme Court sides with free speech

The Rapid City Journal has a report that ties a Supreme Court ruling to the Roger Hunt controversy regarding campaign financing:

A new U.S. Supreme Court ruling could derail the state's attempt to make state Rep. Roger Hunt disclose the identity of a donor who gave $750,000 to a failed effort to ban most abortions in South Dakota, Hunt's lawyer said Monday.

"At first blush, it seems like it should end this case," Sioux Falls lawyer Steve Sanford said of the 5-4 ruling in a Wisconsin case.

Sanford said Monday he was still studying the lengthy ruling and plans to discuss it with state lawyers this week.

Attorney General Larry Long said Monday he could not comment because he had not had time to read the decision.

"Of course, whenever the Supreme Court says something, a person ought to always keep it in mind, particularly on First Amendment issues," Long said.

The ruling is a victory for protecting the First Amendment:

Monday's U.S. Supreme Court decision weakened a part of a campaign finance law passed by Congress in 2002. The ruling said a Wisconsin anti-abortion group should have been allowed to air ads during the final two months before the 2004 elections. The law unreasonably limits speech and violates the group's First Amendment rights, the 5-4 ruling said.

The ruling should have been 9-0. This shows we still have work to do. American needs its traditional principles completely restored.