Denise Ross joins Pat Powers' hate-filled attacks

Denise Ross shows her dark side with this post regarding Pat Powers' latest personal attack against me:

While Sibby continues waging the apocalyptic battle raging in his own mind, I’m going to chuckle over this most recent episode and hope that Sobby gets the winning bid.

Last week, Ross ran a column in the Mitchell paper regarding the South Dakota blogosphere and my mother noticed that she left me out. Ross said the paragraph about me went to other papers, but did not make the Mitchell paper. Here is that paragraph:

Sibby Online …#8220; (sibbyonline.blogs.com) This rarely cheerful but always spirited blog published by Steve Sibson of Mitchell takes its cues, in both tone and content, from Rush Limbaugh and other online conservative havens, such as World Net Daily. Sibson prefers blunt force trauma to thoughtful debate and through sheer force of will he's remained a fixture in the South Dakota blogosphere since 2004. And, while Sibson often posts comments on other blogs, he does not allow others to comment on his.

So clearly Denise Ross has joined pat Powers in his anti-conservative crusade. And in the column Ross said that her blog was "nonpartisan". Well she is just as anti-conservative as Pat Powers and most Democrats, and we should expect that from a product of the Drive-by media. Nonpartisan? Not true, and neither is her statement that I do not allow comments. I checked my statistics and I show 394 comments have been left on my web site. Like Pat Powers, Denise Ross has resorted to false accusations to defame me. [Also note that I started blogging in 2003, not 2004.]

Why would she do that? I suspect she did not like my analysis of her Unplanned Democracy documentary when it was opened up to questions at Dakota Wesleyan University on October 25, 2007:

The title "Unplanned Democracy" was an obvious take off from unplanned pregnancy. So I asked the question, is America a Republic or a Democracy and why. Schoenbeck said it was a Republic because that is what the Founding Fathers created. Denise Ross tried to say America was both. It was hard to hear, so I didn’t get all of the reasoning. Kate Looby did not answer the question.

Again, I present this introduction to a Ron Paul speech:

The dawn of a new century and millennium is upon us and prompts many to reflect on our past and prepare for the future. Our nation, divinely blessed, has much to be thankful for. The blessings of liberty resulting from the republic our forefathers designed have far surpassed the wildest dreams of all previous generations.

The form of government secured by the Declaration of Independence, the American Revolution, and the Constitution is unique in history and reflects the strongly held beliefs of the American Revolutionaries.

At the close of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia on September 18, 1787, a Mrs. Powel anxiously awaited the results, and as Benjamin Franklin emerged from the long task now finished, asked him directly: "Well Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?" "A republic if you can keep it" responded Franklin.

The term republic had a significant meaning for both of them and all early Americans. It meant a lot more than just representative government and was a form of government in stark contrast to pure democracy where the majority dictated laws and rights. And getting rid of the English monarchy was what the Revolution was all about, so a monarchy was out of the question.

The American Republic required strict limitation of government power. Those powers permitted would be precisely defined and delegated by the people, with all public officials being bound by their oath of office to uphold the Constitution. The democratic process would be limited to the election of our leaders and not used for granting special privileges to any group or individual nor for defining rights.

The above truth should be included in the documentary, but I don't think it will be based on Denise Ross's answer to my question. The vote on Referred Law 6 represented a democratic process that was used to define rights that are not in the Constitution. The abortion vote was an example of a direct democracy where the majority dictated who had the right to life and who did not. We have failed Ben Franklin’s "A republic if you can keep it". An "unplanned pregnancy" does not always lead to abortion, but an "unwanted child" most times does. That is why Ross’s film should instead be called "Unwanted Democracy" as the vote on Referred Law 6 was an attack on freedom’s right to life for the pre-born child. The vote was planned by the pro-abortion supporters. It could hardly be "Unplanned Democracy".

So where is Denise Ross’s attempt to thoughtfully debate the well-made point I made regarding the truth about America’s foundational principle. Seems to me that she can’t argue against the truth so she has instead joined forces with Pat Powers to personally attack me. And for more on the issue of America’s Republic versus pure democracy, here is what you will find on page 36 in John Chalfant’s book, "America, A Call to Greatness":

A pure democracy is unstable and by its essence cruel, enslaving and increasingly barbaric because it is founded upon the laws of fallen man.

Our American Constitutional Republic is stable and life-giving to individual citizens, but a terror to despots. It is founded upon the righteous laws of God and the willingness of the citizens to live by them.

Did you know that the most intolerant person who ever walked the Planet Earth was Jesus Christ? Never once did He compromise with evil. He confronted it. His mission was to…destroy the works of the devil(1 John 3:8), never to compromise with them. The messages and examples of Christ are clear: confront evil and win. Lower your vigilance, attempt to compromise with it, and, like inviting into your body just a little bit of malignant cancer, you (or your country) will ultimately die. With God it’s all or nothing-total loyalty and commitment, or no commitment at all.

William Penn, founder of Pennsylvania, summed it up:

Those who will not be governed by God will be ruled by tyrants.

"Governed by God" is our American Constitutional Republic, founded upon His moral and civil laws of righteousness. "Ruled by tyrants" is democracy founded upon the rule and laws of evil, of fallen men.

Is what Pat Powers is currently doing to me righteous in regard to the laws of God? May God guide Denise to the truth and set her free from the anger she has with me.

More Truth to come this Easter weekend. May you reflect on God’s greatest revelation of Truth to us…Jesus Christ.