Palfrey, the North American Union, Etc.
May 6, 2008
Nongovernmental organizations and multinational corporations are slowly taking over the functions of government. The elite believe that nation states are outdated and that new regional forms of government must be established. Many of the global elite like Phillip Bobbitt are openly calling for nongovernmental organizations and multinational corporations to take over the role of government. Bobbitt and others have made it clear that they care not about the liberties and freedoms provided to the American people by the U.S. Constitution. This is all part and parcel of the elite’s plan to form a global government. The European Union was the first step and now the elites are attempting to form a North American Union using NAFTA and the Security Prosperity Partnership as its foundation. Although the elites continue to deny that there are plans for a North American Union, why is it that there is a nongovernmental organization called the North American Forum on Integration that is sponsoring yet another mock North American Parliament meeting for students later this month? That’s right, this isn’t the first time they’ve sponsored a mock North American Parliament meeting. What other purpose can be behind this event besides the mass indoctrination of well meaning students?
The mock North American Parliament meeting will last from May 25th – May 30th and take place in Montreal. There is no doubt that this is designed to brainwash students into accepting a North American Union or as the Council on Foreign Relations has called it a North American Community. Below are the stated goals of the mock North American Parliament meeting.
To bring future Canadian, American and Mexican leaders together in order to experience and take part in an international negotiation exercise.
To allow participants to familiarize themselves with the functioning of democratic institutions as well as North American political, economic, environmental and social realities.
To develop the participants’ sense of belonging to North America.
To increase intercultural exchanges and promote the creation of North American academia networks.
To inform the current decision makers of the priorities and concerns of North American youth.
These goals sound like something that you’d see out of a Soviet Union mind control program. There is no doubt the media is already socially engineering people to accept that they are North American citizens instead of Canadians, Mexicans or Americans. Instead of U.S. Box Office receipts, the mass media complex reports North American Box Office receipts. Companies are saying that they have North American operations and not Canadian operations, Mexican operations or U.S. operations.
It is ridiculous to believe that there isn’t a push for a North American Union when there are open borders, secretive agreements and meetings via the Security and Prosperity Partnership and nongovernmental organizations like the North American Forum on Integration which openly advocates a North American Parliament via gatherings such as this one. The Security and Prosperity Partnership is an illegal agreement because it was not approved by Congress as the U.S. Constitution demands. What Bush did by signing that agreement is an impeachable offense and is an attempt to destroy this nation’s sovereignty. People who believe that a North American Union is some sort of conspiracy theory clearly haven’t done their research. It is obvious that a North American Union is the goal of the elites for all three countries with simple fact checking and cross referencing what the elites have said in their own statements and documents.
Fire’s The Torch
May 6, 2008
FIRE announces its Speech Code of the Month for May 2008: the University of Louisville.
The University of Louisville maintains such a repressive speech code, it’s hard to know where to begin. But since we have to dive in somewhere, let’s start with the fact that Louisville "requires that public speech and discourse on campus shall be civil." For the sake of the legal profession, I’m hoping that Louisville’s general counsel was out sick the day this crossed his or her desk, because there is just no way such a requirement could possibly be constitutional. As far as impermissible restrictions on speech at a public university go, this is a twofer: it’s both vague (what counts as "civil," and who gets to define it?) and overbroad (uncivil speech is certainly protected by the Constitution).
Indeed, Louisville’s prohibition of "uncivil speech," whatever that means, brings instantly to mind FIRE’s victory at San Francisco State University (SFSU) from a couple months back. Why? Because in issuing a preliminary injunction against SFSU’s speech code—which, like Louisville’s, required students to be "civil" to one another—a federal judge held that SFSU’s civility requirement was unquestionably unconstitutionally overbroad:
The First Amendment difficulty with this kind of mandate should be obvious: the requirement "to be civil to one another" and the directive to eschew behaviors that are not consistent with "good citizenship" reasonably can be understood as prohibiting the kind of communication that it is necessary to use to convey the full emotional power with which a speaker embraces her ideas or the intensity and richness of the feelings that attach her to her cause. Similarly, mandating civility could deprive speakers of the tools they most need to connect emotionally with their audience, to move their audience to share their passion. In sum, there is a substantial risk that the civility requirement will inhibit or deter use of the forms and means of communication that, to many speakers in circumstances of the greatest First Amendment sensitivity, will be the most valued and the most effective.
But my favorite part (by which I mean the most hilariously unconstitutional part) of Louisville’s code is their harassment section:
A person is guilty of harassment when, with intent to harass, annoy or alarm another person, he or she:
(c) In a public place, makes an offensively coarse utterance, gesture, or display, or addresses abusive language to any person present.
Besides the anachronistic, Victorian-era prohibition of "offensively coarse utterances, gestures, or displays" and the hopelessly vague restriction against "abusive language," what really makes this section of the speech code amusing is the fact that Louisville isn’t even trying to meet the legal definition of harassment in an education setting.
The best legal definition for peer-on-peer sexual harassment in the educational context was set forth by the United States Supreme Court in Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education, 526 U.S. 629, 650 (1999), and requires conduct or expression to be "so severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive that it effectively bars the victim’s access to an educational opportunity or benefit." Obviously, Louisville’s policy (which sounds more like the signs you see at zoos) doesn’t even come close. Louisville’s harassment policy also fails to meet the somewhat weaker definition of sexual harassment promulgated by the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights, which prohibits "unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature so severe, persistent, or pervasive that it affects a student’s ability to participate in or benefit from an education program or activity, or creates an intimidating, threatening or abusive educational environment." So all in all, it’s about as far off the mark as can be.
For these reasons, the University of Louisville has earned our May 2008 Speech Code of the Month. If you believe that your college or university should be a Speech Code of the Month, please email email@example.com with a link to the policy and a brief description of why you think attention should be drawn to this code.
http://www.infowars.com/?p=1956 (John McCain)