Sibby Online

Progressives who longed for the global government Wilson failed to create

Henry Lamb:

Oct. 24 is the 65th birthday of the United Nations – a great age for retirement. This institution has consistently failed to achieve the objectives for which it told the world it was created, and has just as consistently drained the coffers of developed nations under the guise of eliminating poverty and maintaining the peace.

What a joke.

Global poverty is just as rampant today as it was in 1945 – probably worse. U.N. peacekeepers are routinely caught exploiting the very people they are supposed to protect. Corruption flourishes at the U.N. from the oil-for-food program to the ongoing procurement scandals throughout the entire institution. What's worse is that this joke continues from administration to administration because there is no oversight or accountability.

Despite these blatant failures, the United Nations has been remarkably successful in achieving the purpose for which it has consistently told the world it was not created: that is, to govern the world.

The League of Nations was a product of the Woodrow Wilson administration, which made no apology for its desire to create a world government based on Marxist principles. Fortunately for the world, the U.S. Senate rejected Wilson's dream – three times – and the League withered, but did not die.

Many of the same people who created the League of Nations created and gathered in the Council on Foreign Relations in America and in the Royal Institute for International Affairs in Europe. When Franklin Roosevelt reclaimed the federal government for the Democrats in 1932, his administration was filled with Wilson cronies and other progressives who longed for the global government Wilson failed to create.

Two weeks after Pearl Harbor, Roosevelt appointed a 14-member Committee on the Post War World. Ten of the members were members of the Council on Foreign Relations. Two weeks later, Roosevelt issued a "Declaration of United Nations," the first time the term was used officially by any government.

Global government remained a distant dream of the progressives and Marxists on both sides of the Atlantic until the 1970s. The new environmental movement absorbed the young war activists who were left with nothing to protest after Vietnam. Maurice Strong created the U.N. Environment Program in 1973 and pushed through several environmental treaties. The U.N.'s Man and the Biosphere Program was created during this period, which was not a treaty, but a simple agreement between the U.S. State Department and UNESCO to manage 47 U.N. Biosphere Reserves in the United States according to the recommendations of UNESCO.

In 1976, the U.N. adopted its first policy position on land use. The preamble says "public control of land use is indispensable." Two of the people who signed the document for the United States were members of the Council on Foreign Relations: Carla A. Hills, who became George Bush's trade negotiator responsible for the World Trade Organization, and William K. Reilly, who became Bush's administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.

Progressives in both parties have promoted the United Nations and worked to advance global governance. The Clinton administration was especially supportive of the U.N. global governance agenda. The 1992 U.N. Conference on Environment and Development in Rio de Janeiro produced the Convention on Climate Change, the Convention on Biological Diversity and Agenda 21. All of these U.N. documents were embraced by the Clinton/Gore administration and implemented administratively as much as possible.

Obama and his team bring an even stronger admiration for the United Nations and determination to subject the United States to global governance.

Defund NPR, and why not SDPB while we are at it

IN South Dakota there is a lot of talk of what to cut from the budget. Seems South Dakota Public Bradcasting should be on the cutting table as Sarah Palin says the same about NPR:

At a time when our country is dangerously in debt and looking for areas of federal spending to cut, I think we’ve found a good candidate for defunding. National Public Radio is a public institution that directly or indirectly exists because the taxpayers fund it. And what do we, the taxpayers, get for this? We get to witness Juan Williams being fired from NPR for merely speaking frankly about the very real threat this country faces from radical Islam.

We have to have an honest discussion about the jihadist threat. Are we not allowed to say that Muslim terrorists have killed thousands of Americans and continue to plot the deaths of thousands more? Are we not allowed to say that there are Muslim states that aid and abet these fanatics? Are we not allowed to even debate the role that radical Islam plays in inciting this violence?

I don’t expect Juan Williams to support me (he’s said some tough things about me in the past) – but I will always support his right and the right of all Americans to speak honestly about the threats this country faces. And for Juan, speaking honestly about these issues isn’t just his right, it’s his job. Up until yesterday, he was doing that job at NPR. Firing him is their loss.

If NPR is unable to tolerate an honest debate about an issue as important as Islamic terrorism, then it’s time for “National Public Radio” to become “National Private Radio.” It’s time for Congress to defund this organization.

NPR says its mission is “to create a more informed public,” but by stifling debate on these issues, NPR is doing exactly the opposite. 

The Great Depression was music to FDR and socialist Democrats' ears

Ellis Washington brings more truth:

Constitutional scholar and historian David Barton appeared recently on the Glenn Beck show and urged viewers not to "fall into progressives' traps." Barton continued: "On my property in Texas I have to set traps for skunks. I can only catch them if they don't recognize my traps; therefore, don't accept progressives' paradigms." Barton's comments reminded me of something Rush Limbaugh has been saying for years but few Republicans seem to take heed – "Don't accept the premises of liberalism."

I believe that Barton and Limbaugh want Americans to question all of what we accept as normal in modern society – from abortion, the welfare state, universal health care, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, food stamps, Department of Education, to the Federal Reserve, the IRS, income tax, death tax, separation of church and state and thousands of other examples. These progressive policies are the results of Democrats using the techniques of Fabian socialism (gradualism).

That said, how many times have you and I watched the state-controlled media sponsor a debate between the left and the right when any one of the progressive policies cited above is ipso facto assumed to be constitutional and viewed by both ideological sides as for the common good? The debate usually follows that the Democrat wants even more money for government programs and entitlements and the so-called Republican candidate wants to tweak liberal entitlement programs (mend it, don't end it).

Like any tyranny, progressivism always starts off with a pretext – here, the economic collapse of the banking industry and free market in October 1929. In the early 1930s, people were unemployed at unprecedented numbers, starving, suffering and didn't care about the Constitution, limited government or Natural Law. Therefore, the Great Depression was music to FDR and socialist Democrats' ears.

For example, Judge Andrew Napolitano wrote in his outstanding 2006 book, "The Constitution in Exile," about an FDR/New Deal 1934 landmark case, "Home Building & Loan Association v. Blaisdell," being responsible for multiple liberal Democratic boondoggles that have plagued America to this day, including: the home mortgage collapse, destroying separation of powers and the Contracts Clause, while promoting the big socialist lie that you can live outside your means because the government will provide all your needs.

In the Blaisdell case, the Supreme Court upheld a Minnesota law that prevented mortgage holders from foreclosing on mortgages for a two-year period. Sound familiar? I recently came across this article in Chicagoland: "Chicago sheriff says no to enforcing foreclosures." This law was exactly the kind of legislation the Contracts Clause was written to stop, as it kept irresponsible borrowers from defaulting on their home mortgages and relieved them of their contractual obligations – entered freely under agreement – to their lenders. The Court allowed the Minnesota law under the pretext of "emergency legislation."

Blaisdell started the Court down the slippery slope of anti-business judicial policymaking. Once achieved, the Court and the legislature would deem whatever they viewed was a "valid police purpose." It also ended the founders' intent for the Contracts Clause, rendering it a dead letter by 1937.

Remember that progressives love a crisis and thrive under controlled chaos and Trotskyite "perpetual revolution." Progressives like Obama and liberal Democrats are masters at using the government as a means of helping the people by way of an "emergency," when in reality they are unconstitutionally seizing more power for the federal government while depriving power from We the People.

Jesus & Matthew the tax collector

Greg Laurie:

The only way we can experience lasting change is if we change on the inside, because the heart of the matter is the matter of the heart.

The Bible tells us about someone whose life was radically changed after a short moment of contact with Jesus. Matthew left his career, left his wealth and left his powerful position to simply become a follower of Jesus. Two words from Jesus forever changed his life: "Follow Me."

Matthew was a tax collector, which meant that he worked for the Roman government. At this time in history, the Romans occupied Israel. The Jews resented the Romans, and the Romans taxed them heavily. So for Matthew, a Jew, to work for the Romans was essentially like being a traitor to your own people. Tax collectors in Israel were barely above plankton on the food chain. Matthew had aligned himself with the enemies of his own people. It seemed as though he went out of his way to offend his fellow Jews and even to resist God himself. He didn't have many friends. He would have been isolated. He would have been hated. When he would see people on the street, they wouldn't have made eye contact with him.

And although Matthew was wealthy and successful, something was missing. Matthew had everything the world says you should have to make you happy – but he wasn't happy. And he turned his back on the very God who could help him. But then one day he got past religion and encountered Jesus Christ. Jesus saw Matthew sitting at his tax collector's booth and said, "Follow Me."

Matthew had been watching Jesus at a distance, from his collection booth. He admired him. He saw how Jesus would take little children into his arms and bless them. He saw him teach people. And he probably thought to himself, Man, I wish I could be a follower of Jesus. But he would never want someone like me.

Then one day Jesus looked over and saw Matthew. He made eye contact with him. And in the original language, the word the Bible uses for "saw" means that Jesus saw right through Matthew. Then he said, "Follow Me." One way to translate this phrase is "follow with Me" or "walk with me as a friend." Jesus was saying, "Matthew, I want to be your friend."

Yet some people don't see God that way. They think that God is out to ruin their lives, to make things hard for them. But nothing could be further from the truth. God loves you, and His plan for you is good. The Bible says, "'For I know the plans I have for you,' declares the Lord, 'plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future'" (Jeremiah 29:11 NIV).

IRS used to harass critics

Joseph Farah:

With a Republican midterm election landslide in the making, Democratic lawmakers are already demanding the IRS crack down on those paying for ads attacking them.

This is the way it starts.

I know because I've been there.

In 1996, an IRS agent visited the accountant who represented my non-profit news agency, the Western Journalism Center. He said the center was being audited and that it was a "political case" and the decision about our fate would be "made at the national level."

He wasn't kidding – and he wasn't misinformed.

Later, another IRS agent asked me, my attorney and my accountant the following: "What do you expect to happen when you attack the president of the United States in an election year?"

In other words, we were getting what was coming to us.

We were hardly alone.

Every group and individual that made it onto Bill Clinton's radar screen by being critical of his administration was audited. I'm talking dozens and dozens of names you would know – from Paula Jones to the Heritage Foundation to the Christian Coalition. Some of the groups and individuals targeted by the intrusive audits and the fallout they caused resulted in organizations and people being destroyed.

There's a lot of history to learn from – to get an idea of what's coming next just as sure as you can say former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

How bad did it get?

The IRS moved into my offices for nine months like they were employees, sifting through files like they were my own bookkeepers. A Cabinet official, Energy Secretary Hazel O'Leary, called one of my top supporters to tell him if he gave another dollar to the Western Journalism Center he would lose his federal contracts. Just so you know, his federal contracts were worth billions.

That's the way it works.

Presidents have enormous powers – some legitimate and many that aren't.

 

Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is Liberty

Pat Boone uses the same Bibile verse I choose for my campaign brochure:

I need some good news. Don't you? I mean, with all the breakdowns and bailouts and foreclosures and jobless numbers and trillions of dollars in national debt, with gun runners and drug cartels exploiting our porous borders, with the institution of marriage under attack and our national monuments in danger of terrorist attacks, with almost all candidates for office attacking and vilifying each other – I want, I need, to hear something good!

Well, I've got some great good news. And it's about what we call "The Good News." The Gospel. The wonderful news about an all-powerful God who loves us!

How is this relevant in a news, government and social commentary website like this? Let our Founding Fathers explain.

• George Washington: "It is impossible to govern the world without God and the Bible." (attributed)
• President John Adams: "Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
• Benjamin Franklin: "Only a moral and virtuous people are capable of freedom. The more corrupt and vicious a society becomes, the more it has need of masters."
• John Jay, co-author of the Constitution and first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court: "It is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation … to select and prefer Christians for their rulers."

What is increasingly overlooked, forgotten, or intentionally hidden from too many Americans, especially our young in school, is that this incredible country only exists because of the Judeo-Christian faith of the men and women who built it. There is no other reasonable or even possible explanation for it; the republican concept of democratic government grew wholly out of the Bible declaration "Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is Liberty." Not only that. Wherever this Christian approach to self-government under a loving God who grants every individual equality and liberty has taken root, in any part of the world, that nation or people have prospered, moving beyond their neighbors in every facet of life.

So, in this increasingly dark, dangerous and threatening world … what's the good news?

Almost under the media and political radar, the great Good News of God's love is being taught to millions of young people in many parts of the world. And it's being enthusiastically received, changing forever the priorities and knowledge of self-worth for all who receive and believe it!

I'm referring specifically to an organization named Child Evangelism Fellowship. This valiant, dedicated group of unsung heroes has been teaching school kids about God for over 73 years now. And amazingly, they're still able to teach them on public-school grounds – through Good News Clubs that meet after school, in neighborhood homes, even outdoors, wherever children and a good Christian adult can meet together, freely and voluntarily.

Global governance to be the framework of rules, institutions, and practices that set limits of the behavior of individuals, organizations and companies

Henry Lamb:

Pundits and politicians who giggle and point fingers at people who dare refer to global governance display their ignorance, or their duplicity. The U.S. National Intelligence Council, and the European Union's Institute for Security Studies has just released a report called: Global Governance 2025: At a Critical Juncture.

This 82-page document discusses quite openly the current status of global governance and the likelihood of global governance maturing into full-fledged global government. Those who scoff at the reality of global governance are to be pitied for their ignorance or despised for their duplicity. As Gustave Speth , former director of the World Resources Institute and head of the U.N. Development Program, said in 1997:

"[G]lobal governance is here, here to stay, and driven by economic and environmental globalization, global governance will inevitably expand."

Speth's belief was confirmed in November 2009 by Herman Van Rompuy, president of the European Union Council, who said "Global governance is the global management of our planet."

The new U.S.-E.U. report defines global governance to be "the collective management of common problems at the international level" and says that global governance is at a critical juncture.

The United Nations Development Program, in its 1999 report, defines global governance to be "the framework of rules, institutions, and practices that set limits of the behavior of individuals, organizations and companies."

What's great about this election is we get to take back both the U.S. House and the Republican Party

Janet Porter:

I'd agree that by and large the tea-party candidates are much better than the old-guard Republicans. But, whether Karl Rove and the some in the GOP like it or not, most of those tea-party people are running as Republicans. Once elected, I think they'll help keep the others from running off-track, as well. As Phyllis Schlafly said yesterday, the Republican Party's platform agrees with us pro-life, pro-family Americans. What's great about this election is we get to take back both the U.S. House and the Republican Party!

Christians need to be informed voters

Dave Welch:

It is hard to imagine given the precarious condition of what was and should be the land of the free, the home of the brave and one nation under God, that projections are less than one-half of registered voters will bother to vote in this general election. That doesn't count those who are eligible and who are not registered.

Not voting at all is indefensible, voting in ignorance is inexcusable and above all, in my opinion, Christians doing either or both is a sin. Samuel Adams, a dedicated Christian often referred to as "Father of the American Revolution," admonished the people to be faithful in voting:

Let each citizen remember at the moment he is offering his vote that he is not making a present or a compliment to please an individual--or at least that he ought not so to do; but that he is executing one of the most solemn trusts in human society for which he is accountable to God and his country.

If you have heard that before, repetition is an effective form of learning, and it is obvious that far too few people sitting in pews every Sunday have heard it at all or often enough. Offices from school boards, city councils, county commissions, state legislatures and governors to the direction of Congress are in the balance – along with the future of the country.

My message to pastors and to every Christian in particular, as well as every citizen who agrees we need to turn our nation and government to God and to the Constitution, is that whatever we have been doing is not good enough. It's time to pull out the stops and execute.

It is not rocket science to dramatically increase the quantity and quality of church voter turnout, but it does take intentionality and execution. Desire, wishing and good intentions will indeed pave the road to hell.

Citizen-politicians are going to be sent to Washington and establishment politicians are going to be sent home

By Doug Mainwaring:

Tea Party members, people from up and down Main Street America, whether rural, urban or suburban, have spoken loudly enough to wake up their neighbors. Maybe all these other Main Street folks aren't Tea Party types, but they certainly are being alerted now to the threat of the ruling class. In a recent Rasmussen survey, 68 percent of likely voters said they believe the political class doesn't care what most Americans think, while 84 percent said they think the United States is heading in the wrong direction. The political class's disdain for the entire spectrum of Main Street America is provoking an ever-increasing coalition, whose potential size is limitless.

This is why in November, citizen-politicians are going to be sent to Washington and establishment politicians are going to be sent home. The nation must be set back on the course charted for us by our Founding Fathers