Sibby Online

The hate filled left

From NewsMax:

Pie-throwing thugs attacking conservative speakers on college campuses are motivated by left-wing hatred, says free-speech advocate David Horowitz, who warns that the incidents could escalate to serious injury.

It all began last October, when two young men threw pies at conservative pundit and author Ann Coulter.

On Wednesday, March 30, William Kristol, editor of the Weekly Standard, was attacked with a pie during his speech on U.S. foreign policy at Earlham College. A week later, Horowitz had a pie thrown in his face at Butler University.

Most recently, Pat Buchanan was attacked by a whacked-out college student while giving a speech. The young thug covered Buchanan's face with salad dressing. He screamed, "Stop the bigotry!" and almost hit him with the bottle. And last February a protester threw his shoe at former Pentagon adviser Richard Perle.

Lying, another Democrat value

Chad Schuldt repeats his "guaranteed benefit" lie and now this from Social Security Choice:

FackCheck.org pulls no punches when it exposes the Democrats’ faulty Social Security reform calculator. From their website:

Democrats have been using a web-based "calculator" to generate individualized answers to the question, "How much will you lose under Bush privatization plan?" For young, low-wage workers it projects cuts of up to 50% in benefits. And a $1-million TV advertising campaign is amplifying the claim, saying, "Look below the surface (of Bush’s plan) and you’ll find benefit checks cut almost in half."

In fact, the calculator is rigged. We find it is based on a number of false assumptions and deceptive comparisons. For one thing, it assumes that stocks will yield average returns of only 3 percent per year above inflation. The historical average is close to 7 percent.

The calculator’s authors claim that they use the same assumption used by the Congressional Budget Office. Actually, CBO projects a 6.8 percent gain.

Read it all…and then tell your friends.

Monica prevented private accounts

From Rush Limbaugh:

From the San Francisco Chronicle today, interesting story. Headline... Let me just say the headline: "Social Security Rehab..." (laughing) Rehab. Rehabilitation. "Social Security Rehab Died First Under Clinton; Lewinsky Scandal, Impeachment Ended His Overhaul Attempt -- Who killed Social Security overhaul? A) Harry Reid, B) George W. Bush, C) the AARP or D) Monica Lewinsky? Answer is D, Monica Lewinsky. Seven years ago, the first baby boomer president traveled the country to warn that his generation's impending retirement, 76 million people [who think the world revolves around them] would bankrupt the generations to follow. 'It would be unconscionable if we failed to act,' President Clinton said at a forum in 1998 when he made fixing the nation's retirement program a top priority in his second term. Clinton's efforts then, in light of President Bush's now, induce an extraordinary sense of déjà vu. Clinton appointed a bipartisan commission which delivered in '97 three options to save the program. They included a now familiar list of possible benefit cuts from changing indexing formulas to changing the retirement age, and one of the options would have allowed workers to divert five percentage points of their payroll taxes to personal accounts, the first such proposal by a government commission. Clinton started campaigning for changes without saying what he endorsed. 'I don't want to dodge any of that,' he said. 'but if I advocate a specific plan right now, then all the debate will be about that. First thing we gotta do is get the American people solidly lined up behind change.'

…

How many of you remember that we were this close to this bipartisan -- well, I don't remember it being that close. It never really got that close because of impeachment but they were talking, as opposed to what's happening today. The Republicans did not go out, start running commercials opposed it. The Republicans did not go out and trash Clinton's saying he was trying to do something filled with chicanery. They recognized that it was a problem that needed to be fixed as well. Only today, when the Democrats are in full obstruction mode, are they actually now opposed to what their favorite president in history next to FDR actually proposed in 1998, and Clinton's proposal, 5% of your payroll taxes go to your own private account. Bush's number they're throwing around is 4%. Bush then had his own commission too and it was headed up by a Democrat, Daniel Patrick Moynihan.

Hate, the Democrats true value

Quentin Riggins has insight on a couple of Dumped Daschle Dudes:

The leaders of the group are former Daschle campaign manager Steve Hildebrand and Jeremy Funk. Funk is best know for being arrested for tailgating John Thune's campaign bus in 2002. In addition, he now runs a blog where he promoted T-Shirts that say F$#@ John Thune. Funk has also mentioned on his blog how he would like to tear off various parts of John Thune's anatomy and said that John Thune's message to Native Americans is F@#$ You. This group seems more like a personal vendetta fueled by an intense hatred of the person who beat these guy's boss in a fair election than anything constructive. Maybe rather telling us why privatization is so bad and John Thune is evil Funk should come up with a better solution. At the very least he should follow Tom Daschle's example and show some dignity and class in defeat.

The two former staffers are leading a movement in opposition to private accounts for Social Security. I wonder to what degree Chad Schuldt, another former Daschle staffer, is connected with the Dumped Daschle Dudes campaign of hate? Perhaps Todd Epp, Mr. Full Disclosure, should be concerned.

These misguided lunatics should understand that private accounts are to be voluntary. If they don’t like the idea, then don’t participate. Why oppose giving others the freedom to chose? The Democrats believe choice is reserved for killing unborn babies.

Democrats false moral value

The Democrats have been voicing their moral value of helping the poor by making the rich pay more taxes to fund social programs. Star Parker points out that Pope Paul II did not promote this value:

I believe African-Americans mistakenly, and destructively, disconnect the way we express our religious convictions on Sunday and what we do in the voting booth on Tuesday. In church, we express our conviction that our lives reflect and are the result of our faith, our choices and our responsibilities. Yet, we then buy a political message that government is the place to turn to solve our problems.

Here is what John Paul II had to say about the welfare state:

In recent years the range of such interventions has vastly expanded to the point of creating a new type of state, the so-called "welfare state" ... Malfunctions and defects in the social-assistance state are the result of an inadequate understanding of the task proper to the state.

He added:

By intervening directly and depriving society of its responsibility, the social-assistance state leads to a loss of human energies and an inordinate increase of public agencies, which are dominated more by bureaucratic ways of thinking than by concern for serving their clients, and which are accompanied by an enormous increase in spending.

The welfare state is, of course, our limited version of socialism. Here are John Paul's observations about socialism:

Socialism considers the individual person simply as an element, a molecule within the social organism, so that the good of the individual is completely subordinated to the functioning of the socioeconomic mechanism. Socialism likewise maintains that the good of the individual can be realized without reference to his free choice, to the unique and exclusive responsibility which he exercises in the face of good and evil.

John Paul was a unique combination of personality and experience. This Polish pope lived through the worst abuses of government in the last century – Nazism and communism. He saw firsthand the human suffering that resulted from government and politics becoming religion itself.

You don't have to be a facist to oppose socialism. A freedom-loving American opposes both Nazism and communism.

Media bias on Iraq

From David Limbaugh:

When it comes to reporting on the Iraq War, the Old Media might as well be an appendage of the anti-war wing of the Democratic Party. It is astonishing how little coverage we've seen of the positive trend there over the last few months.

I realize many just chalk up the media's emphasis on bad news as intrinsic to journalism – the attitude that if nothing is going wrong, it's not really newsworthy. But that just doesn't wash.

How could anyone seriously contend that a reduction in the anarchy isn't newsworthy? What could be more important than signs indicating we might have turned the corner on the "insurgency"?

While we heard a daily drumbeat of despair and an ongoing tabulation of American dead when things were looking bleaker – a look, I might add, that was meticulously cultivated by the Old Media – we hear nothing but a thundering silence today.

How can we but conclude that the media simply don't want to promote the good news out of Iraq? But why? Well, obviously, they suppress good news because it vindicates their nemesis, President Bush, and incriminates them and their liberal comrades.

The voice of dissent

The far-left believe it is OK to voice their dissent toward a Republican President, but not so in regard to their far-left judges. Intro to a Thomas Sowell column:

Over the past several decades, we have gotten used to judges being above the law, so it was perhaps inevitable that we would now be asked to get used to the idea that judges are above criticism.

In the wake of the Terri Schiavo case, where a Florida judge ignored Florida law and Congressional subpoenas, and where federal judges ignored Congressional legislation duly signed by the President, some people dared to suggest that judges had overstepped the bounds.

Immediately there has been a firestorm of reaction by those who think it is just fine to have judges make social policy, even if that policy is contrary to legislation, so long as it is in tune with "evolving standards," political correctness, or what people do in Europe.

The president of the American Bar Association declared that he must "most strongly condemn the horrific and devastating attacks on judges" in recent weeks, that judges should be able to do their work without "intimidation."

These defenses of judges have been capped by statements by Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who reports receiving "many threats" and blames "harsh rhetoric" which "energizes people who are a little off base" who can "take actions that maybe they wouldn't otherwise take."

Those who argue this way are lumping together two very different things -- threats and violence, on the one hand, and criticisms of judges on the other. Worse, they suggest that criticisms of judicial activism are what led to such things as recent assassinations of a judge and of a judge's family.

Schuldt gives meaning to Argus Liar

Chad Schuldt, former staffer for Senator Tom Daschle, has a letter in today’s Argus Leader. Excerpt:

Is Thune afraid to face his constituents and tell them how the privatization plan he backs will saddle future generations with trillions of dollars in debt and dramatically cut guaranteed benefits?

A couple of months ago I confronted Schuldt with the "guaranteed benefits" lie being spread by the Democrat party. So Schuldt was willing to say something that he knew was not true. When Tim Johnson was in Mitchell, he admitted that the benefits of Social Security are not guaranteed. The Supreme Court ruled that the benefits are not guaranteed:

The fact remains that benefits under Social Security are not guaranteed. In 1960, the Supreme Court ruled that Americans have no ownership claim to their Social Security benefits (Flemming v. Nestor). Not only does this ruling clearly establish that Social Security benefits are not guaranteed, it also reminds us that Congress can cut benefits or even eliminate them altogether at any time. Moreover, as the Social Security Board of Trustee’s report clearly demonstrated this week, doing nothing is a benefit cut. If no changes are made this year, future retirees could face benefit cuts as steep as 27%.

So John Thune will not be spreading the lie Chad Schuldt and his fellow far-left Democrats are spreading. Instead Thune said this is today’s Rapid City Journal:

Thune sees privatization as part of a possible "comprehensive solution."

"Everyone can agree that Social Security is facing a problem that gets worse the longer we wait," Thune said. "We need to welcome all ideas and work together. We cannot afford to dismiss or attack individual ideas as being inadequate before we consider their positive effects as part of a comprehensive solution."

Private accounts are being considered as an option to 27% benefit cut that is looming. The benefits are not guaranteed.

The Argus Leader has rejected letters I wrote by falsely stating they were factually inaccurate. They should have rejected Schuldt’s, but his lie fits into their pro-Democrat agenda.