Sibby Online

Now the British noticed the DBA

This Peter Preston column uses the Dakota Blog Alliance’s influence in the 2004 South Dakota Senate race as an example of what can happen to the BBC. Excerpt:

It's the American way, rapidly becoming the British way as well - and it covers far more than a few hundred undeleted expletives. Take politics in election year and ensuing ructions in the editor's office. One American textbook case concerns the Sioux Falls Argus Leader , South Dakota's top newspaper, and the November defeat of its favoured candidate, Senator Tom Daschle. Simply, was he blogged into early retirement? And have the swelling tribe of bloggers found a new way to bring journalists to heel?

This was a tight, deadly serious race. The Argus Leader was a fan of the Senate minority leader. Republicans sought to bring him down, so they organised their own blog (and associated email) legions and set out to swamp the paper - with obvious success. Randall Beck, the executive editor, was caught on the back foot, fulminating in print that 'true believers of one stripe or other, no longer content merely to bore spouses and neighbours with their nutty opinions, can now spew forth on their own blogs, thereby playing a pivotal role in creating the polarised climate that dominates debate on nearly every national issue. If Hitler were alive today, he'd have his own blog'.

And probably fewer Panzer divisions, when you assess the blog damage. Complaints flooded editorial offices; reporters spoke about a siege mentality; coverage was surely affected; Daschle lost.

Good, maybe, if you dislike media bias and arrogance and want to change it. Bad, because a handful of militant bloggers or media watchers aren't true public opinion. But pause for thought as triumphant bloggers look for their next victims.

We know all about the BBC's troubles, but next in line it could be your British morning paper. Bloggers can become real cloggers when they start kicking editorial doors open.

I am a "militant blogger" and a "triumphant" one too? We may have won a battle, but there is more that needs to be done to win the war.

UPDATE: For more on Randell Beck see this post.

Todd Epp

My previous post regarding the James Abourezk lawsuit against ProBush.com mentioned Todd Epp as one of the lawyers working with Abourezk. As Todd Epp sues a web site, he has web sites of his own. One has the header, "Revitalizing the S.D. Democratic Party". A post from that site has links to two other Epp sites, Thune Watch and Rounds Watch. His first post on Thune Watch contains this excerpt:

This blog will keep an eye on Republican South Dakota U.S. Senator John Thune. I am not interested in personal attacks. I am interested in revealing, showing, investigating, questioning, and analyzing Sen. Thune's record as Congressman and U.S. Senator. That should provide plenty of interesting information. His divisive 2002 and 2004 campaigns and unfair attacks on Sen. Tom Daschle cannot go unheeded.

[Emphasis Epp’s]

In less than a week, Epp then makes this statement about John Thune:

The major lie of the Thune 2004 campaign was that his "values" were better than Daschle's, and, by implication, better than the 49%+ of South Dakotans who voted for Daschle. This is polarizing, "big lie" language that was repeated and repeated in the course of Thune's advertising. Thune's "values" apparently included preventing women from controlling their bodies, attacking homosexuals for daring to wish to be treated as human beings, providing the rich with tax cuts, and blindly following the President in an illegal and poorly thought out war in Iraq.

Because of his scorched earth approach on values, he has set the moral bar for himself so high that he has planted the seeds of his own downfall in 2010 or before. He now has no ability to effectively fend off criticism of his past or future personal, professional, or political missteps. The $49%+ of South Dakotans who did not vote for him will give him no quarter if he does.

[Underlining mine]

I have a strong opinion about a South Dakota Democratic operative who would sue a web site, start his own web site downplaying personal attacks, and then make the above comment. I will not express my opinion out of fear that I too may become involved in a multi-million dollar lawsuit. I will just report and let you decide.

I will now report on those who have a strong opinion on this point Epp made, "blindly following the President in an illegal and poorly thought out war in Iraq". Check out this web site. Note the reference to a Ramsey Clark web site. Here is more on Ramsey Clark. Here is reference to Ramsey Clark from Aljazeera. Here is a Ramsey Clark and James Abourezk connection with MECA [Middle East Children Alliance]. Here is another connection between Clark and Abourezk. I am not sure what this is.  Now Abourezk and Jane Fonda have a connection.

Jane Fonda, James Abourezk, and Todd Epp

The Argus Leader’s links are only temporary, so I am posting today's entire report on Jane Fonda joining James Abourezk in a lawsuit against ProBush.com:

An Internet site that calls former U.S. Sen. James Abourezk a traitor will not legally oppose adding activist actress Jane Fonda and another woman to Abourezk's lawsuit, according to federal court documents filed earlier this week.

Abourezk charges that brothers Michael and Ben Marino committed libel when they placed his name and photo on a "traitor list" at ProBush.com. Abourezk, who is of Arab descent, has criticized President George Bush's foreign policy in the Middle East. He was part of a four-person delegation that traveled to Syria and Iraq in 2002.

The site's owners previously had attempted to block Fonda and California professor Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz from the lawsuit, filed May 2003. They argued the women's individual listings on ProBush.com did not signal a connection to Abourezk or to South Dakota, where the case will be tried barring a settlement. Abourezk seeks $2 million in actual damages, $3 million in punitive damages and a retraction.

Atop the "traitor list" is this statement: "Parody. Not to be taken seriously. These 'traitors' are not legal traitors of the United States."

The most recent filing does little to change how Abourezk and his lawyer, Todd Epp, will handle the case. Although there now are three plaintiffs, and each still must prove defamation. Depositions are scheduled to begin in the next few weeks, Epp said.

"It's basically the same set of facts, and it probably makes litigation easier," said Epp, a member of Abourezk's own local law firm.

Ron Parsons, another Sioux Falls lawyer, represents ProBush.com. He said his client decided to forgo procedural battles to get to the core of the issue.

The Marinos are confident their site's statements are protected by the First Amendment. Further, they challenge whether they should be named as defendants at all. The brothers formed ProBush.com as a corporation, and Parsons said it is that entity that should be charged with making the allegedly defamatory remarks.

"It's a very interesting case," said Parsons, who knows both Abourezk and Epp. "I don't think there are any hard feelings. It's an important principle. Imagine if any time the president was criticized, he brought a civil suit. It would totally chill expression."

Abourezk's side maintains that ProBush.com has the right to its opinions, but it doesn't have the right to brand someone a traitor.

Abourezk, Fonda and Dunbar-Ortiz were in the first batch of names and photos posted on the site. Parsons said while the Marino brothers have added people since, most names belong to signers of the "Not in Our Name" petition circulated to protest the invasion of Iraq.

The "traitor list" includes dozens of others, among them radio host Howard Stern, actors George Clooney and Susan Sarandon, musicians Sheryl Crow and Tom Petty, and moviemakers Michael Moore and Oliver Stone. A host of prominent Democrats appear as well, including Sens. John Kerry and Ted Kennedy of Massachussetts, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, former Vice President Al Gore and former President Jimmy Carter.

Michael Marino, the site's twenty-something editor and publisher, didn't know who Abourezk was, Parsons said, and was making a comment largely against the petition. Fonda is known for her opposition to the Vietnam War, while Dunbar-Ortiz also is an author, historian and part of the women's movement.

U.S. District Judge Lawrence Piersol cleared the way for the case in March 2004, when he denied a dismissal motion from the Pennsylvania-based ProBush.com.

In the months before Abourezk's filing, site co-owner Ben Marino told The Progressive magazine that the threats were "kind of ridiculous."

"The traitor list is parody. There's a place for that," Ben Marino said. "I don't see how he could be claiming we're doing much to libel him."

He added that he and his brother regarded Abourezk, a Democrat who served in the U.S. Senate from 1973 to 1979, as a public figure.

The question of public versus private can be an important one in libel law. Private figures must show only that negligence led to defamation. Public figures must prove "actual malice." This means the person who made the statement either knew it was false or showed a reckless disregard for the truth.

Epp said there also is some uncertainty as to whether the disclaimer appeared from the site's inception. "We believe it was added some time into the site's existence," he said.

Parsons disagrees. The disclaimer was an original part of the page, he said. "It was at the bottom, but it was definitely there."

In addition to the notice, the site gives the legal definition of treason and its authors' own description of a traitor: "If you do not support our President's decisions, you are a traitor."

Parsons said he thinks the public/private issue will bear out to be largely irrelevant in the case, as will the scope of the disclosure.

"Ultimately, it will turn on this type of protected speech not being defamatory because it's not something alleged as a fact," he said. "It's intended to be a political opinion."

The Associated Press contributed to this report. Reach reporter Jennifer Sanderson at 575-3629.

More Clinton Scandals

From WorldNetDaily (read the whole thing):

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's former finance director has been indicted on charges of filing fictitious reports that misstated contributions for a Hollywood fund-raiser for the senator.

The indictment charges David Rosen with four counts of filing false reports with the Federal Election Commission. The charges focus on an Aug. 12, 2000, dinner and concert supported by more than $1.1 million in "in-kind contributions" – goods and services provided for free or below cost. The event was estimated to cost more than $1.2 million.

Rosen is the second figure involved in organizing the soiree for Clinton to become entangled in legal problems as a result.

Aaron Tonken is currently in prison for his role in organizing the event – a tribute to then-President Bill Clinton and starring Cher, Patti LaBelle, Sugar Ray, Toni Braxton, Melissa Etheridge, Michael Bolton, Paul Anka and Diana Ross.

Tonken has authored a tell-all book, "King of Cons: Exposing the Dirty, Rotten Secrets of the Washington Elite and Hollywood Celebrities," on his role in the fraud.

United Nations: Communists not liberal

The Democrats often look at the United Nations as authority iof United States foreign policy. Here is what Devvy Kidd thinks about the United Nations:

Why are so many informed Americans demanding the United States get out of the United Nations? Isn't the United Nations a benevolent organization that establishes "peace keepers" in troubled spots around the world and has so many programs "for the children"? Nothing could be further from the truth.

The United Nations and it's barbaric butchery is thoroughly documented in G. Edward Griffin's superb work, "The Fearful Master – A Second Look at the U.N." Their atrocities have continued over the decades. The United Nations was birthed by communists and its only purpose is to propagate communism.

Alger Hiss was convicted as a communist spy and was a key player in sucking America into the communist-controlled United Nations. At the time, Hiss was the director of the State Department's Office of Special Political Affairs who appointed members of the U.S. delegation to the United Nations. There is a long history there as well as with historical figures like John Foster Dulles.

United Nations not delivering

From The National Business Review:

While the United Nations appears to be adept at having meetings, the organisation is hopeless on the ground say career foreign service officers in tsunami-affected regions.

As news media are increasingly dominated by footage of US, Australian and regional military forces actually delivering aid to stricken survivors of the Boxing Day tsunami, UN officials are carping about housing in major cities far removed from the front lines and passing around elaborate business cards.

Organising to organise seems to be the word of the day for the UN, say career US foreign service officers anonymously, who fault the international organisation for taking credit where none is due and proving hopeless at actually delivering relief.

A blog (The Diplomad) run by "career US Foreign Service officers" -- many serving in what they call the "Far Abroad" as a eupehmism for what appears, often, to be Sri Lanka -- is loading the internet with accounts of UN ineptitude in the wake of the tsunami disaster.

Paid Daschle staffer blogging lies

Chad Schuldt, a paid Daschle campaign staffer, has a post regarding John Thune’s comment in today’s Argus Leader on the issue of Social Security. Based on a debate I am having with a member of South Dakota’s left blogosphere, I learned that the lying left do not believe that saying someone is lying is a personal attack. So I am going to rebut Schuldt’s post by saying he is lying.

Schuldt provided this excerpt from the Argus Leader report:

"I would think they would keep their powder dry until there's a proposal on the table to evaluate," Thune said. "There's been a knee-jerk reaction to this concept, and people maybe aren't totally taking the facts into consideration. ... Their minds get made up on the simple cliches that prey on people's fears. If it's reduced to talking about 'privatization' and 'benefit cuts,' it's going to be hard to build a consensus around the country.

Here is Schuldt’s analysis:

Notice Thune will only dispute the use of the terms 'privatization' and 'benefit cuts'. He never denies the truth behind the words however.

Here's the bottom line folks:

1. THE HOOK-- President Bush wants to create a false sense of "crisis" in the Social Security system.
2. THE LINE-- President Bush is motivated by ideology rather than facts.
3. THE SINKER-- President Bush wants to privatize Social Security and cut guaranteed benefits by 1/3 to 1/2.
4. Senator John Thune has taken it all in -- hook, line, and sinker.

I believe, and correct me if I am wrong on this, one in five South Dakotans receives Social Security benefits. That's 20% of the citizens of the state get a check every month they depend on to buy groceries and pay their heat bill.

For some, Social Security is their primary source of income. In some cases, Social Security is their sole source of income. Now, to be truthful, those that rely on Social Security as their sole source of income have probably encountered some bad luck in their life, either through bad planning or some circumstance beyond their control. But I don't know that it would be right to tell these people "too bad" simply because of deep ideological convictions.

Is John Thune ready to tell South Dakotans he wants to cut Social Security benefits by up to half?

If Thune tells South Dakota that the plan to change Social Security results in cutting benefits in half, then Thune would be lying. Schuldt is spreading this lie by not looking at the facts.

One of Schuldt’s lies is that the Thune is cutting benefits by up to a half. He must have decided to ignore this portion of the Argus report:

AARP identifies itself as non-partisan, fighting for older Americans regardless of party interests. Republican lawmakers, however, back personal account models on an almost universal scale. That aligns the AARP firmly with Democrats, albeit by default.

The two parties do agree on the fundamentals: Unless Social Security can be righted, the program will start running in the red around 2018. Then, toward this century's midpoint, the system's trust fund itself will go broke, and retirees will receive about 73 percent of the benefits they now collect.

So if we do nothing, benefits will be cut 27%. This is a fact that the lying left doesn’t want you to hear. It contradicts their lie that there is "no crisis".

So what is the President’s probably solution? Sounds like he wants to allow us to put two thirds of our 6.2 % (4%) into a private account. The remaining 2.2%, plus our employer’s 6.2 % (total 8.4%) will continue going into the current Social Security system. In exchange for that right, we will have our benefit cut increased from the current 27% to about half. So let’s analysis this.

Let’s take Chad Schuldt’s brother who Chad claims is an underpaid schoolteacher making less than $25,000 per year. Assuming he does not get a raise and contributes the entire 12.4% into the current system he will retire and receive 73% of $900 ($657) current retirees are receiving monthly in SSI.

So if Chad’s brother takes up the President’s offer and puts the 4% into his own account, he will get only half of the $900. That would be $450. But here is the fact Chad does not address. Assuming his 4% contribution to the private account averages a 5% return he will have a $142,765 nest egg that is earning $595 in monthly in interest income. His total benefits would be $450 plus the $595 or a total of $1,045. This is a 16% increase over the $900 that current retirees are getting and is 59% higher than the $657 that can be expected if we do nothing with the current Social Security program. But the kicker is that upon his death, his estate will still have the $142,765 nest egg that is in his private account. Under the current system, there is no nest egg. The government rips off the $142,765.

So why would Chad want his brother to get ripped off? Because he refuses to get his facts straight and instead spreads the ideology of the lying left. With the help of the mainstream media, the left will get away with lying to millions. Its only guys like me who are capable of doing research and financial planning who understand the lies.

Tom Daschle’s lies may have been exposed during the 2004 election and he is now a DC resident, but his legacy of lies continue via those from his staff that are still here in South Dakota. The Argus Leader report also quoted Tim Johnson’s intentions:

"I have great respect for AARP," Johnson said. "That doesn't mean I agree with every position they take. But they have tried to address the needs of seniors, and many times it has involved expansion in the role of government. I've been supportive of that effort."

Yes, Tim Johnson is among those who do not want us to control our own retirement nest egg that allows us options. Instead he wants Americans forced into a government controlled rip off without options. This is not liberal or progressive...this is communism.

They can't imitate us

Jon Lauck has a post that covers the Democrats response to the Dakota Blog Alliance:

Catholic members of the Senate Democratic Caucus warned their colleagues Wednesday the party must find a way to bridge the religion gap between the Democratic Party and voters of faith to regain control of the chamber, Democratic sources said. The warning came during a day-long retreat convened by Minority Leader Reid. Democrats also discussed the role of Web logs last year, focusing on the November defeat of former Minority Leader Daschle.

Lauck added this:

Sources also tell SDP that Senator Reid copied off articles about the Dakota Blog Alliance and distributed them to Democratic Senators as "must read" items. Reid said Democrats up for re-election in 2006 need to hire bloggers and organize pro-Democratic bloggers in their home states.

Yeah…there are lefty blogs showing up in the South Dakota blogosphere, but they cannot imitate us. The truth is not on their side. I just busted one for lying and being a hypocrite about it. Like Daschle, who failed to imitate a conservative…blogs run by the lying left will not be successful imitating the Dakota Blog Alliance.

Thune pulls a Daschle

During his first week in the Senate, John Thune pulls a Daschle and brags about deficit spending:

The U.S. Department of Labor has announced a grant of almost $2.2 million to help laid-off South Dakota workers, Sen. John Thune, R-S.D., said Wednesday.

In a release, Thune said the first part of the grant will be $795,000 with the rest to follow later.

The money will help South Dakotans laid off by Gateway in North Sioux City and Sioux Falls move ahead with job training and career counseling, Thune said. "Losing your job is tough, but these services will help many South Dakota workers land on their feet," he said.

It is sad to see conservatives playing the Democrats game…seeking re-election with taxpayers’ money. The left has Thune under the gun to prove his clout. Of course the Democrats will ignore this deficit spending, but blame Thune for deficits when the issue is about taxes.

Daschle’s Social Security $121,233

This is even more than estimated:

Senate Democratic leader Tom Daschle's 26-year political career ended with defeat in the November elections, but he did take home a consolation prize: a pension that in its first year will total $121,233.

Daschle’s defeat resulted in the lost of his $175,000 salary as minority leader, but he still gets over $120,000. On a per capita basis, Tom Daschle benefited far more than any South Dakotan for his leadership position. The AP report ended with this:

"The Republican revolution of 1994 was the last time we heard any serious talk of reforming the congressional pension system," Sepp said. "This issue may rear its politically inconvenient head when Congress begins discussing Social Security reform," he said.

As the rest of us get ripped off by the government’s Social Security program, the ripped off money is used to fund their cushy retirement. But things are different for lawmakers elected after 1984:

Lawmakers elected in 1984 and after are enrolled in a somewhat less generous program, the Federal Retirement System that covers millions of government workers. But their benefits are calculated differently from those of other civil servants and many augment their pensions with savings from a 401K-type program and Social Security.

Rep. Amo Houghton, R-N.Y. a multimillionaire who retired after 18 years in Congress, will initially get $44,000, a figure that increases with annual cost-of-living adjustments.

The $44,000 amounts to over $3,500 per month. That’s about three times higher than the rest of us get to "augment" our retirement with. Of course Daschle’s $121,233 will only augment his wife’s hundreds of thousands of dollars she receives from lobbying.

I wonder how much of the $121,233 Tom Daschle is willing to share with the tsunami victims? I wonder how much he is willing to give poor South Dakota Native Americans who can’t afford healthcare? Daschle doesn’t have to wait for another tax increase to help out the disadvantaged.