Sibby Online

North American Parliament

The "New World Order" is more than just a theory:

A group supporting North American integration is holding its fourth annual "North American Model Parliament" for 100 university students from the U.S., Canada and Mexico.

The North American Forum on Integration, or NAFI, began is "Triumvirate" sessions Monday in Montreal’s City Hall with a plan to conclude Friday.

According to the NAFI website, "Triumvirate 2008" brings together the students "to participate in an international negotiation exercise in which they will simulate a parliamentary meeting between North American political actors."

Participants are assigned to play one of three roles: a legislator, representing a country other than their own; a journalist; or a lobbyist.

Four themes were selected as subjects of the mock parliament's debate: Fostering Renewable Electricity Markets (in English); Countering North American corporate outscourcing, (in French); Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative (in English); and NAFTA's Chapter 11 on investments (in English).

A major goal of the model parliament, according to the NAFI Triumvirate website, is to "develop the participants' sense of belonging to North America."

WND contacted the NAFI office in Montreal requesting comment but received no reply.

As WND previously reported, Raymond Chretien, the president of the Triumvirate and the former Canadian ambassador to both Mexico and the U.S., was quoted as claiming the exercise was intended to be more than academic.

"The creation of a North American parliament, such as the one being simulated by these young people, should be considered," Chretien told WND.

Among the NAFI board of directors are Robert A. Pastor, Ph.D., former director of the Center for North American Studies at American University; and M. Stephen Blank, Ph.D., director of the North American Center for Transborder Studies at Arizona State University.

Pastor has written extensively on his proposal for the creation of a "North American Community," while denying he has intended to form a North American Union modeled after the European Union."

In January, Pastor resigned his position at American University's Office of International Affairs amid a reorganization. Pastor announced he was taking a one-year sabbatical in which he planned to work as co-director of The Elders, a group of 13 world figures, including Nelson Mandela, Desmond Tutu, Kofi Annan and Jimmy Carter.

As WND previously reported, Pastor's 2001 book, "Toward a North American Community," presents an argument that North American integration should advance through the development of a "North American consciousness" by creating various institutions which include a North American customs union and a North American Development Fund for the economic development of Mexico.

Pastor also was vice chairman of the May 2005 Council on Foreign Relations task force report, "Building a North American Community," that presents itself as a blueprint for using bureaucratic action though trilateral "working groups" constituted within the executive branches of the U.S, Mexico and Canada to advance the North American integration agenda.

Obama vs. Clinton on the issues

Finally we have an analysis on the issues. Here is the issue of gun control:

Obama: Said he wants tougher background check but "will never take away the right of lawful gun owners to hunt, to engage in sport shooting, to protect their families."

Clinton: Also supports gun ownership rights but wants better background checks to keep guns away from criminals and the mentally ill.

Unfortunately, the media does not challenge phony politicians. Obama, Clinton, nor McCain can be trusted with gun rights. In fact, none can be trusted with fundamental American rights period. Their god is government.

All whites are racist

I went to Expelled last night and it was well done. And again, I have another source that argues worldview is the basic premise of our controversies. And as Ben Stein documented how the universities shape worldview with their one-sided propaganda, Bob Unruh has another example:

An indoctrination program that was shut down at the University of Delaware in 2007 after it was revealed the teachings included, "All whites are racist," now is being revived, and an organization monitoring such educational behavior is concerned there will be violations similar to those of a year ago.

Adam Kissell, a spokesman for The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, told WND his worry is that this year's "program" for incoming students at Delaware has the same "learning outcomes" as a year ago, the same administrators are running it, and components appear simply to have been renamed, instead of changed.

WND reported a year ago when a series of teachings mandated for all residence halls told students "all whites are racists." FIRE had written to University President Patrick Harker about its concerns, including its worries that, "somehow, the University of Delaware seems terrifyingly unaware that a state-sponsored institution of higher education in the United States does not have the legal right to engage in a program of systematic though reform."

At that time, Samantha Harria, FIRE's director of legal and public advocacy, suggested, "The First Amendment protests the rights of freedom of conscience … the right to keep our innermost thoughts free from governmental intrusion."

She cited a school teaching that told students: "A RACIST: A racist is one who is both privileged and socialized on the basis of race by a white supremacist (racist) system. 'The term applies to all white people…'"

Students came forward "in droves" in 2007 to complain, FIRE said, also citing concerns over indoctrination about homosexuality and environmentalism.

Under the program documentation revealed then, student managers of residence halls were told to summon students for one-on-one questioning during which they were instructed to respond to questions such as: "When did you discover your sexual identity?"

"Students who express discomfort with this type of questioning often meet with disapproval from their RAs, who write reports on these one-on-one sessions and deliver these reports to their superiors. One student identified in a write-up as an RA's 'worst' one-on-one session was a young woman who stated that she was tired of having 'diversity shoved down her throat,'" FIRE said.

This particular student responded to the question, "When did you discover your sexual identity?" with the terse: "That is none of your damn business," FIRE said.

Kissell told WND today FIRE is concerned that some of the labels may have been changed in the program, but the underlying indoctrination plans remain.

"I think it's likely we'll need to do something more. We have every expectation that the Delaware office of residence life will continue to push its ideology onto students," he told WND.

He noted that Harker, in his announcement earlier about the controversial program, said it was being suspended and officials would work together on making changes.

This year's program proposes an "interactive bulletin board" for students on the subject "How do you define love?"

"This could be a great topic," Kissell noted in his analysis of the program. "I should note, however, that an earlier draft called this topic 'Gay Marriage & Civil Unions,' so we can predict what the RAs (residential hall assistants) will highlight first."

"Again, this may be a great discussion if treated honestly, but I have little trust that ResLife can handle even the most meritorious topics without coercion and without disrespect for the right of private conscience."

Officials at Delaware declined to allow WND to ask Harker any questions, and there was no answer at a "media" office to which WND was directed for comment on the program.

Kissell said the teaching program for new students "is all about indoctrination into a highly politicized agenda."

Specifically, its goal is to change students' "thoughts, values, beliefs, and action."

Expelled is real

From WorldNetDaily:

The Institute for Creation Research Graduate School has accused Texas officials of participating in illegal "viewpoint discrimination" for refusing it a Certificate of Authority to grant degrees.

The http://www.thecb.state.tx.us/Texas Higher Education Consulting Board recently rejected the formal application from the ICR graduate school program even though the organization now is approved to grant degrees by the state of California, and has been for decades.

The organization said today that it wants the education agency to reverse its rejection of the ICR plan to grant Master of Science degrees.

The petition paves the way for ICRGS to file a legal action against the state agency and its officials. Named in the action that cites the state's unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination are Commissioner Raymund Paredes, Assistant Commissioner Joseph Stafford, Academic Excellence Committee chairman Lyn Bracwell Phillips and other THECB board members.

According to ICR, they "denied the application of ICRGS because its program is based on a creationist interpretation of scientific data rather than an evolutionary interpretation, which is prevalent in public education."

The organization said its formal petition includes 26 evidentiary appendices that support the academic freedom and other legal rights of ICRGS to offer its 27-year-old graduate program to Texas residents. The petition also was delivered to Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott because of the alleged constitutional violations.

WND reported earlier when the state made its decision. It came despite the face the ICRGS faculty sports Ph.D.s from UCLA, Penn State, the University of Montana, Colorado State, Case Western and Indiana University, and has a few lowly Ed.D. degrees thrown in.

The rejection came on the recommendation of Paredes despite earlier approval recommendations from a site team dispatched by the state agency to evaluate the education offerings as well as the agency's advisory committee.

In a situation that appears to be an example of the academic censoring described in Ben Stein's movie "Expelled," state officials even read into the record for the agency's hearing a state statute regarding "fraudulent" education programs without giving supporters of the ICR program an opportunity to explain or respond.

The totalitarian governor

Now this should get South Dakota taxpayers riled:

Key state lawmakers are upset that Gov. Mike Rounds extended a controversial plan to put laptop computers in schools after the Legislature decided earlier this year not to pay for the program.

The Rounds administration announced last week that it would use $770,000 left over from a settlement with Citibank to expand the Classroom Connections initiative to 15 more schools. But administration officials in January - during the Education Department's budget hearing - said the Citibank fund was out of money.

Now lawmakers from both sides of the political aisle want to know how money is shifting around. They also are disturbed by the appearance that the governor is ignoring the will of the Legislature.

"The Legislature again said it was not a priority with us," said Sen. Brock Greenfield, R-Clark. "We spoke with a voluminous voice."

Clearly, there is a huge need to have the state’s financial books open to the public for scrutiny, but that doesn’t sound like the issue that the legislators are putting forward during this controversy:

However, there are questions about how the fund that was empty in January had $770,000 in May.

Sen. Jean Hunhoff, R-Yankton, said the governor has the authority to spend private money sometimes, but she is troubled by the incident.

"I am not comfortable with this," said Hunhoff, vice chairwoman of the Senate Appropriations Committee. "There was no communication after session. There should have been communication when they found they had funds remaining. ... A heads-up would have been nice."

Hunhoff and Sen. Julie Bartling, D-Burke, compared the issue to the ethanol tax.

"I support the laptops, but as with the ethanol tax fight, the Legislature said one thing, and the governor went ahead and did something else," Bartling said. "It's time we quit shrugging these things off."

Senate Democratic leader Scott Heidepriem of Sioux Falls said the laptop issue, the ethanol tax debate and a previous conflict over money for the Highway Patrol erode the ability of the Legislature and governor to work together.

"It seems like he's determined to ignore an entire branch of government," Heidepriem said. "It's not too late to put this relationship back together for the remainder of his term, and I hope we can do that. I'm willing to work toward that, but we really need to see a sign of good faith on his part."

Why should there be a "relationship", clearly the branches should be "separate". Conservatives need to step up and take the leadership in restoring traditional American principles that will not just stop the expansion of government, but to reduce it from its current status. We need to demand the right to see exactly how, where, and to whom our taxpayers’ dollars are being spent.

Does big government mean mandates?

Pat Powers sent this comment in response to a post regarding his position on the preschool issue:

"I'll" let him explain. Not "I," which sounds like pidgin english.

I think my position has been unwavering on the topic at hand. I disagree with and will oppose mandating pre-K. We can't pay for k-12 now, so why would we try to expand it.

However, if someone is going to have a pre-K program, they should meet some level of standards. Otherwise, you could have kids watching videos all day, and call it a preschool.

And as for retaliation? I certainly didn't start this.

That was his explanation for answering "no" to this South Dakota Family Policy Council survey question:

Do you support the expansion of public education to offer Universal Pre-Kindergarten for all three and four year olds?

Certainly the question does not mention mandating. It simple asked about "expanding" pre-K, and state mandated standards is expanding the role of government.

A pro-family conservative would hold that the parents reserve the right to set standards for their children’s care and education. A pro-government liberal would give that right to the government. It is a "Nanny statist" who would think that parents are not capable of determing what their children are up to and not capable of picking a quality daycare. All it takes is a little communication by just asking.

Pat Powers is a typical phony politician who says one thing to get conservatives to vote for him, and then promote policies that expand the role of government. Government does not need mandates to expand its control over our lives. They cam simply use our own tax dollars.

America’s founding, Religion and politics inseparable

Before I get into this Chuck Norris column I need to point out that I have a comment regarding America’s founding that I will be posting and responding to. This is just a little teaser:

Apparently 13 members of the Western Colorado Atheists asked the Grand Junction city council to eliminate prayer from the beginning of their meetings. Why? You know their reasoning. It's the same old song and dance: It's a violation of the First Amendment and the separation of church and state.

But these atheists make the same classic blunder about the First Amendment that the ACLU and others have been making for years. They reinterpret it in ways it was never intended to be understood. They actually use the very amendment that is intended to protect our religious and speech rights and liberties and turn it on its head and make it a law of prohibition against prayer. And in so doing, they bastardize America's founding documents and founders.

America needs retraining in constitutional education! The First Amendment wasn't written to exclude religion from public places but to prohibit government from restricting our rights to exercise freely our religious convictions and speech – including the combination of both in prayer! As Thomas Jefferson explained, "A Bill of Rights is what the people are entitled to against every government, and what no just government should refuse, or rest on inference." Religious and speech paralysis was not the founders' intent. Could it be any clearer in the First Amendment?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Notice the wording does not even include the phrase, "the separation of Church and State." Those words came much later in 1802 from Thomas Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists, to whom he asserted that no particular Christian denomination was going to have a monopoly in government. Even then his words, "a wall of separation between Church and State," were not written to remove all religious practice from government or civic settings, but to prohibit the domination and even legislation of religious sectarianism, as it reigned back in England.

Proof that Jefferson was not trying to rid government of religious (even Christian) influence comes from the fact that he once proposed biblical imagery for the U.S. seal, endorsed using government buildings for church meetings, signed treaties as president for federal monies to be used to support priests, missionaries and build churches on the western frontier, and likely even approved the Bible being taught in public school districts when he was president of the Washington, D.C., school board.

Some might be completely surprised to discover that just two days after Jefferson wrote his famous letter citing the "wall of separation between Church and State," he attended church in the place where he always had as president: the U.S. capitol. The very seat of our nation's government was used for sacred purposes. As the Library of Congress website notes, "It is no exaggeration to say that on Sundays in Washington during the administrations of Thomas Jefferson (1801-1809) and of James Madison (1809-1817) the state became the church."

It is no coincidence that the Declaration of Independence begins with an emphasis on the Creator:

When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume, among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them. … that they are endowed by their Creator …

For the founders, God and government were intricately linked. As Thomas Paine echoed one year earlier in 1775, "Spiritual freedom is the root of political freedom. … As the union between spiritual freedom and political liberty seems nearly inseparable, it is our duty to defend both."

What atheists need to know is that atheism was virtually non-existent in the early days of America. As Ben Franklin's 1787 pamphlet for those in Europe thinking of relocating to America highlighted:

To this may be truly added, that serious religion, under its various denominations, is not only tolerated, but respected and practiced. Atheism is unknown there; Infidelity rare and secret; so that persons may live to a great age in that country without having their piety shocked by meeting with either an Atheist or an Infidel. And the Divine Being seems to have manifested his approbation of the mutual forbearance and kindness with which the different sects treat each other; by the remarkable prosperity with which he has been pleased to favor the whole country.

The founders believed and relied upon God's power to help them. That is why Ben Franklin fought for prayer in the constitutional Congress and even testified about its former influence in the struggle for America's independence:

In the beginning of the contest with Britain, when we were sensible of danger, we had daily prayers in this room for the divine protection. Our prayers, Sir, were heard; and they were graciously answered. All of us, who were engaged in the struggle, must have observed frequent instances of a superintending Providence in our favor. To that kind Providence we owe this happy opportunity of consulting in peace on the means of establishing our future national felicity. And have we now forgotten that powerful friend? Or do we imagine we no longer need its assistance? I have lived, Sir, a long time; and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, That God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid?

Let us also not forget even today that our sessions of Congress still begin with prayer, as it has ever since it convened in 1789. And the U.S. Supreme Court still begins with the words, "God save the United States and this Honorable court!

Property rights being railroaded in SD

From the Council For Citizens Against Government Waste:

In March, the South Dakota legislature passed, and Governor Michael Rounds signed into law, Senate Bill 174 (SB 174), legislation that dramatically expands the eminent domain powers of railroads at the expense of private property owners. SB 174 makes a series of technical changes to existing railroad eminent domain laws that will make the process for seizing private property for commercial use easier for railroad companies, such as the Dakota, Minnesota & Eastern Railroad, which wants to lay new track across privately owned property to access coal fields in Wyoming’s Powder River Basin.

For example, SB 174 requires state officials to make a final decision on an application for eminent domain authority within 90 days - no matter how complex the case and regardless of whether landowner due process rights are considered or protected. Recently, the South Dakota Public Utilities Commission deliberated for 10 months on whether to allow the TransCanada pipeline to cross the state. Under SB 174, farmers, ranchers, small business operators, and homeowners will get only 90 days to build a case against having their property seized by a deep-pocketed railroad backed by its bevy of attorneys.

Even worse, SB 174 gives a railroad the right to seize landowners’ property even before completion of the administrative process. In other words, if a railroad makes you an offer for your property and you reject it, the railroad can file a condemnation lawsuit against you, and as long as the railroad then posts a bond with the court, it can seize your property immediately and begin construction on it before you receive even one penny in compensation!

A group of outraged South Dakotans, Protect Private Property (P3), has launched a petition drive to gain a statewide referendum on SB 174 in November. They need "boots on the ground" to secure the 16,776 signatures from registered voters required by June 16 to place the referendum on the November ballot. If they fail, SB 174 will become law on July 1, 2008.

To find out where to sign a petition or to join P3 in collecting the signatures necessary to let the voters of South Dakota weigh in on this issue, contact P3 at [email protected]!

Truth versus deception

Pat Powers is wondering what set me off in regard to calling him a phony politician. The answer is his response to the South Dakota Policy Council’s survey question regarding preschools. Pat Powers position has been clear on his web site, but his answer gives the opposite impression. His retaliation includes this:

Speaking of the donation, the note I received indicated that the donation made in Steve’s name went towards playground equipment for the kids enrolled in the program that Steve calls a Marxist indoctrination camp. And they greatly appreciated it.

God’s truth is that giving in secret is a blessed act, but Pat Powers has a problem with anonymous contributions. But Pat has no problem giving a donation and putting someone else’s name on it. That  would seem to violate God’s Law in regard to false witness.

Pat Powers does not understand the difference between truth and deception, or he does not care about the difference. I let him explain which is true.

John Locke and the Enlightenment

Trent Dluglosh left this comment on a previous post regarding the Renaissance and the Reformation:

Sibby,

You and the book you quote are way off base. Thomas Jefferson basically plagiarized the enlightenment philosopher John Locke when he wrote the Declaration of Independence. Locke wrote 1689 that people have certain "inalienable rights" and then listed "Life, liberty and property" Then the framers basically plagiarized the enlightenment philospher Mintesquieu when they incorporated separation of powers into the Constitution. You're entitled to your opinion but you're not entitled to make up facts. I can't believe that book you quoted even got published. But I guess when one can find a publisher for a book that puts forth the theory that Facism is a left wing ideology nothing should surprise me.

I thank Trent for bringing forward the above points. There is some truth in regard to the influence of Enlightenment philosophers. This is from page 70 of the book "A Patriot’s History of the United States":

Three major Enlightenment thinkers deeply affected the concepts of liberty and government held by the majority of the American Revolutionary leaders. Certainly, all writers had not read the same European authors, and certainly all were affected by different ideas to different degrees, often depending on the relationship any given writer placed on the role of God in human affairs. Nevertheless, the overall molding of America’s Revolution in the ideological sense can be traced to the theories of Thomas Hobbs, John Locke, and the Baron Charles de Montesquieu.

And the book goes on to say that Montesquieu did bring forward the separation of powers. The book said this about John Locke:

Locke’s state of nature was beautiful and virtually sinless, and to protect his rights entered into a social compact, or a civil government. It is significant that both Hobbes and Locke departed substantially from the classical Greek and Roman thinkers, including Aristotle, who held that government was a natural condidti0on of humans. Both Hobbes and Locke saw government as artificial-created by humans.

Now contrast that to this comment left by Bill Fleming:

Sibby, the founding fathers were neo-classicists. That's why all the government buildings are designed to resemble classic Greek, Roman, and Renaissance architecture. They were decidedly not Medieval but rather were inspired by Greek Democracy, the Roman Republic, the Magna Carta and the Guilds (such as the Freemasons) which were basically early trade unions.

Looks like Fleming may not have it all straight. And in regard to Locke, his worldview was indeed based on the humanist worldview. On page 91 from the book, "A Patriot’s History" we have this point in regard to worldview:

Such priorities also underscored another important point, that despite enthusiastically accepting the end product of the Lockean view of rights, American political theorists had rejected the underlying assumptions of both Hobbs and Locke that government was artificial. Jefferson said so himself in the Declaration, insisting that even when people abolish a tyrannical government, they had to replace it with a just and benign one. At its origin, therefore, the American idea had certain tensions between civil rights that emanated from a worldview and the basis of the worldview itself.

Now I return to page 71 to detail which worldview the Founding Fathers choose to replace the humanist worldview from which the Enlightenment was based on:

It goes without saying, of course, that most of these men were steeped in the traditions and teachings of Christianity-—almost half of the signers of the Declaration of Independence had some form of seminary training or degree. John Adams, certainly and somewhat derogatorily viewed by his contemporaries as the most pious of the early Revolutionaires, claimed that the Revolution "connect, in one indissolubable bond, the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity. John’s cousin Sam cited passage of the Declaration as the day that the colonists "restored the Sovereign to Whom alone men ought to be obedient." John Witherspoon’s influence before and after the adoption of the Declaration was obvious, but other well-known patriots such as John Hancock did not hesitate to echo the reliance on God. In short, any reading of the American Revolution from a purely secular viewpoint ignores a fundamentally Christian component of the Revolut6ionary ideology.

So it is Trent Dluglosh that is off base by ignoring facts, such as inalienable rights "come form our Creator". And if Trent was open minded and tolerant, he would have read Francis Schaeffer’s book, "How Should We Then Live?" before attacking it. Schaffer did address John Locke. This is from page 109 (be sure to note the previously mentioned John Witherspoon):

Samuel Rutherford’s work and the tradition it embodied had a gret influence on the United States Constitution, even though Anglo-Saxons have largely forgotten him. This infuence was mediated through two sources. The first was John Witherspoon (1723-1794), a Presbyterian who followed Rutherford’s Lex Rex directly and brought its principles to bear on the writing of the Constitution and the laying down of forms and freedoms. Witherspoon, educated at Edinburgh University, became president of the College of New Jersey (now Princeton University) in 1768. He was a member of the Continental Congress from 1776 to 1779 and from 1780 to 1782. The only clergyman to sign the Declaration of Independence, he played an important role on a number of committees of the Congress.

The second mediator of Rutherford’s influence was John Locke (1632-1704), who, though secularizing the Presbyterian tradition, nevertheless drew heavily from it. He stress inalienable rights, government by consent, separation of powers, and the right of revolution. But the biblical base for these is discovered in Rutherford’s work. Without this biblical background, the whole system would be without a foundation. This is seen by the fact that Locke’s own work has an inherent contradiction. His empiricism, as revealed in his Essay Concerning Human Understanding (1690), really leaves no place for "natural rights." Empiricism would rest everything on experience. But "natural rights" must either be innate to the nature of man and not based on experience (thereby conflicting with the concept of empiricism) or they must have an adequate base other than man’s experience. Locke’s difficulty was that he did not have Samuel Rutherford’s Christian base. He stated the results which come from biblical Christianity without having the base which produced them. That is, he secularized Christian teaching.

So this should clear things up. If Dluglosh wants to attack Jefferson for using the work of Locke, he should also attack Locke for using the work of Rutherford. But more importantly, we need to understand that Locke used Rutherford’s work, but left out the most important fact, the biblical Christian base to the work.

What Republicans and Democrats want, what conservatives and liberals what, what the left and the right want, is the same thing…freedom. But how we achieve that depends on the worldview base that we use. Do we use the secular humanist base, or do we use the biblical Christian base?

Another point that needs to be understood to answer that question is that the ebb an flow of history since the days of Jesus Christ has been between the worldviews of biblical Christianity and humanism. [See this post for more on this point.] From the Renaissance to the Reformation to the Enlightenment to the First Great Awakening that influenced the American Revolution tells us what being American means…freedom based on the Laws of God as revealed through the Bible and the world’s greatest philosopher…Jesus Christ.

Today we have a return to the humanist base as the secular humanist agenda has infiltrated our institutions, and most effectively in our education system. If we want to solve our problems, we must restore the biblical Christian foundation that was used to create freedom. Ben Franklin knew that the greatest challenge for future generations was to maintain what was created by the Continental Congress. In order to maintain freedom, Americans must restore in themselves the Truth from the Bible, and then use that Truth to engage America’s culture.

You should notice a change to my banner that looks to the heavens in the search for truth [Note: Could not get the new banner to work. Will try again leter.] God is that Truth. This web site is now being transformed from being in search of the truth to a message that aims to restore Truth and freedom in America.