Sibby Online

Anti-gun group behind filibuster

In Mark Levin’s book, "Men in Black", he points out that far-left special interests groups are behind the effort to stop conservative appointments to the bench. Yesterday I received an email from the anti-Second Amendment Brady Campaign that contained this message form Ted Kennedy urging the obstruction of the William Myers nomination:

Dear StopTheNRA Member,

My good friends at StoptheNRA.com have kindly agreed to send this email to allow me to reach out to you and ask for your help in defeating extremist judicial nominees who will align themselves with the NRA's all-out campaign to gut sensible efforts to prevent escalating gun violence.

A poisonous right wing infection has gotten hold of the US Senate. They've got a narrow Senate majority that's not enough to get their extremist judges on the courts. So they're scheming to change the fundamental Senate rules, silence the minority, and get their judges approved. It's an assault on the Constitution and the whole system of checks and balances that makes our democracy work.

This unprecedented scheme will reach a crisis in the coming days. The focal point may be William Myers, a nominee rejected last year who's been nominated again. He'll be the test vote on this far-out power grab.

I'll say no on William Myers -- and no to the poisonous abuse of power right- wingers are trying to foist on the Senate. Please say it with me:

http://www.stopthenra.com/site/R?i=zjznpU5e0HH-_v2Mejv72Q..

The vast, vast majority of President Bush's nominees -- over 95 percent -- have been confirmed by the Senate for the federal courts. But the Senate refused to confirm a handful of them who are too extreme to swallow - the worst of the worst, the very bottom of the right-wing barrel.

Bush has nominated Myers for the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals – the largest federal court of appeals, and a potential stepping stone to the Supreme Court. It also has jurisdiction over vast expanses of public land and priceless natural resources -- which makes a person like Myers especially unfit to serve.

He's spent his career trying to dismantle the legal protections our courts exist to protect. As a lobbyist for mining interests, he was handpicked by President Bush to regulate that industry. His only experience has been manipulating laws and regulations for corporate gain, against the public interest.

Myers and the other rejected nominees make up a band of corporate facilitators and right-wing crusaders who don't deserve lifetime power to shape laws that govern us. We have to say no:

http://www.stopthenra.com/site/R?i=dJBTH3hKzL7-_v2Mejv72Q..

On the merits, there is simply no case for why William Myers should be confirmed.

Fortunately, the Constitution and two hundred years of Senate history give a minority of Senators like Democrats are today the right to say no to irresponsible nominees like Myers.

But the majority leaders in Congress won't take the Constitution for an answer. They want to change the basic long-standing Senate rules, silence the minority, and force Myers to the federal court for life.

I need your help. If we all stand together, we can stop this madness. Please - say no to Myers now:

http://www.stopthenra.com/site/R?i=oismtQ7odwf-_v2Mejv72Q..

Thank you.

Sincerely,

Senator Edward M. Kennedy

Defining Moral Values

This sounds like it will be a hoot:

The South Dakota Democratic Party's fourth annual McGovern Day event is set for Saturday, April 30, at the Holiday Inn Convention Center in Spearfish.

The meeting will include a symposium titled "Defining Moral Values," featuring former South Dakota senator and presidential candidate George McGovern. Other participants will include state Sen. Stan Adelstein, R-Rapid City; Cecelia Fire Thunder, president of the Oglala Sioux Tribe; Dr. Ahrar Ahmad, professor of political science at Black Hills State University; and Dr. Richard Fisher, retired Methodist clergyman.

Priscilla Romkema, director of the Center for Business and Entrepreneurship at BHSU, will moderate.

Other events will include an address by radio talk show host Ed Schultz and greetings from former U.S. Sen. Tom Daschle, current Sen. Tim Johnson, Rep. Stephanie Herseth, all D-S.D., and other state and regional officials.

Daschle worse than DeLay?

From a Chuck Raasch column:

Among the latest to walk through the revolving door is former Senate Democratic leader Tom Daschle of South Dakota, who was defeated in a bitter re-election fight last year by up-and-coming Republican John Thune. Daschle has joined a well-connected Atlanta-based law and lobbying firm, Alston & Bird, whose other notables include former Senate Republican leader Bob Dole of Kansas, the former chief of the government's Medicaid program, and a longtime adviser to 2004 Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry.

If only Congress could show that kind of bipartisanship. Many top lobbying firms now make a point of employing people from both sides of the political aisle. That's one of the ultimate ironies of today's Washington: Bipartisanship is now more valued among the special interests than it is among the elected officials sent here to do the people's business.

Daschle is barred from lobbying his old colleagues for a year, but in announcing his hiring, his new employer said he would give "policy advice" to clients. Translation: He'll provide an insider's road map on how clients can get their interests stoked and stroked in Congress. Daschle's new firm said he may not become a registered lobbyist per se, but he will if he follows the Dole model.

No one in this town ever expected retiring public servants like Dole or Daschle to return to the Kansas and South Dakota plains of their homes. Both are married to accomplished Washington insiders. Elizabeth Dole is a senator from North Carolina and veteran of several Republican administrations. Linda Daschle is a high-powered lobbyist.

In their defense, both men have remained involved in issues near and dear to their home states: Dole in agriculture and school lunch issues, Daschle in the problems of American Indians.

But the expectation that public service naturally evolves into lucrative, private influence-peddling is having a long-term corrosive effect on Congress' standing with the American people. The revolving door spins, even as Congress is wracked by bitter partisan fights over judicial nominations, increasingly polarized over the ethics of Republican House Leader Tom DeLay and gridlocked on important legislation like a national energy policy.

No wonder the public this month has given Congress its lowest approval rating since 9/11.

More Dem hypocrisy

I had an after thought on the Tom DeLay issue. Remember how the Democrats argue, we are not traitors. Can’t we voice our dissent toward the President? Now I have a Question for the Democrats. Can’t Tom DeLay voice his dissent toward a Supreme Court justice? After all, it is an equal branch of government to the executive branch. Perhpas the Democrats don't believe in equal branches of government when the Republicans control the White House and Congress.

Rush Limbaugh found an even more direct example of the Democrats’ hypocrisy:

Let's talk a little bit about Tom DeLay. Now, this is the exact opposite of what we've got from these "maverick" Republicans in the Senate. (story) "DeLay yesterday intensified his criticism of the federal courts. He singled out Anthony Kennedy and his work from the bench as 'incredibly outrageous' because he had relied on international law and done research on the internet. DeLay was on Tony Snow's radio show yesterday on the Fox Radio News Network, and basically DeLay said, 'We got Justice Kennedy writing decisions based upon international law, not the Constitution. That's just outrageous, and not only that he said in session he does his own research on the Internet. That is just incredibly outrageous.'" Now, I'm going to be talking to DeLay this afternoon. I don't know what's particularly outrageous about somebody using the Internet themselves. I do it. But he's got to have a reason for it and I want to find out what that is, and we will, and I'll pass it on to you tomorrow if I get the answer.

But contrary to all of these people that are cowering in fear, DeLay said, "All right, you want to hit me? Well, fine! Hit me again, because this is what I really think. I'm totally entitled, anybody is, to comment on the performance of a judge." This is essentially what he's saying. He's echoing Scalia. Scalia said the same thing. Scalia went out there and said basically the same thing. He just didn't single out a justice by name but we all know who he was talking about. He was debating another Supreme Court justice on the whole concept of deciding US cases on the basis of international law. He was debating Stephen Breyer. We have played you audio sound bites of that debate, which aired on C-SPAN. Scalia has been mentioning his colleagues left and right, just not by name, but he, too, is flabbergasted that international law has become something relevant in deciding US constitutional cases. So DeLay says the same thing.

Now Scalia, of course, was attacked but not because he shouldn't have said it. He was attacked for what he said. DeLay is being attacked because he said it! They can't believe he's saying it. Can we contrast this, though, however? There was a contrast. People's memories are short. Does anybody remember what Dingy Harry Reid said about Clarence Thomas? Clarence Thomas was accused of basically being an idiot! His writings don't pass muster; his intellect doesn't past muster. He's an embarrassment to the court, Dingy Harry Reid said -- and did we see the press going through outrageous contractions and expansions? Did we see the press outraged at all? No. No. They loved it, and they echoed it, and they amplified it throughout their own echo chamber. But let Tom DeLay say it? "DeLay Criticizes Justice Kennedy -- Sharpening his attack on judicial activists, the House leader focuses on one particular judge." You didn't see headlines anywhere near like that when Harry Reid went after Clarence Thomas.

Dems continue to bust budget

When the issue is private accounts for Social Security, the Democrats cry about the evil deficit that the plan will add to. But when it comes to spending on veterans, 51% increase in spending since 2001 is not enough. Now the issue of education comes to the front lines.

First, we have the NEA suing the government for more money:

The nation's largest teachers union and a group of school districts sued the U.S. Department of Education Wednesday, claiming the No Child Left Behind act is severely underfunded and has forced schools to divert money from worthy programs to pay for the reform's "costly absurdities."

The lawsuit, filed in federal court in eastern Michigan, claims the department of education is forcing schools to meet tough student testing and teacher licensing requirements even though Congress has shortchanged districts and states by $27 billion during the last four years. To meet the law's regulations, schools have had to use scarce state and local money - which the suit contends is illegal under No Child Left Behind.

While they claim "Congress has shortchanged districts and states by $27 billion during the last four years", here is what really happened since 2001:

Primarily a state and local function, 9 percent of education spending comes from Washington. Federal education spending has surged 100 percent since the 2001 enactment of the No Child Left Behind Act. Most federal dollars are spent on low-income school districts, special education and college student financial aid.

We should not be surprised to see Todd Epp help Tim Johnson spread the same lies about the fabricated lack of Federal spending on education. Here is an excerpt from a Tim Johnson press release that Todd Epp posted earlier today:

The President’s 2006 budget proposal called for the elimination of 48 programs within the Department of Education. If enacted, this budget request would result in an overall decrease in education funding for the first time in a decade. And yet again, the President’s budget would underfund NCLB programs by an estimated $12 billion, bringing the cumulative funding shortfall to $39 billion.

So now the fabricated $27 billion shortfall over the last four years grows by $12 billion more. Man I can’t believe it costs so much to teach kids to give up on God and turn to government. But we should understand that this transformation requires years of repeating the same propaganda.

Lets not forget that President Bush gave in to Ted Kennedy and supported the NCLB program instead of pushing the idea of vouchers. I can only imagine how the competition of vouchers would have lowered the cost of education while raising the quality.

At least with vouchers, parents would have a choice as to where their children attend school. Remember that Democrats are also against Americans having a choice to place a portion of their Social Security taxes into private accounts. Again, the Democrats reject choice when it concerns freedom, but mischaracterize it as a Constitutional right when it concerns killing innocent unborn life.

We are not worthy

Again, Todd Epp provides insight on the Democrat mind. Only lawyers have the ability to understand the Constitution. The rest of us are too stupid. Epp posted a response to Tom DeLay’s statements that took issue with Supreme Court justices that used the Internet and International laws to support their rulings:

DeLay is endangering public respect for judges and the rule of law. He obviously holds our profession--a profession that resolves disputes, helps ensure rights, helps businesses run, and is a pillar of American democracy--in low repute.

Please, my GOP attorney colleagues, tell DeLay or tell Thune to tell DeLay that he is wrong, wrong, wrong.

So only an attorney is worthy? Todd, how about the rest of us? Is it not a duty of an American citizen to fully understand the law of the land? Well if Epp doesn’t want to listen to my opinion in regard to the judiciary, maybe he will listen to a legal scholar who graduated Phi Beta Kappa from Temple University in 1977 at the age of nineteen. In 1980 Mark Levin graduated from the Temple University School of Law. On page 22 of his book "Men in Black", Levin says this:

It is as if many of these [Supreme Court] justices will rely on anything but the Constitution to guide their decision-making, And there’s a reason for this: The Court has so fundamentally altered its duties, and so completely rejected the limits placed on it by the Constitution’s checks and balances and enumeration of powers, that the justices are in an endless search for extra-constitutional justifications and inventions to explain their activism. The power they crave does not exist in the Constitution, which is why they must constantly skirt its provisions.

Reliance on international law is a complete rejection of not only the roles of the other branches, for these are not decisions or laws reflective of their deliberations or actions, but the Constitution itself.

Judicial activists are nothing short of radicals in robes—contemptuous of the rule of law, subverting the Constitution at will, and using their public trust to impose their policy preferences on society. In fact, no radical political movement has been more effective in undermining our system of government than the judiciary. And each Supreme Court term, we hold our collective breath hoping the justices will do no further damage, knowing full well they will disappoint. Such is the nature of judicial tyranny.

The anti-First Amendment Dems

From WorldNetDaily:

In an attempt to lessen the impact of so-called conservative talk radio, a New York congresswoman is leading an effort to re-establish the "Fairness Doctrine" for radio and television broadcasters in the United States.

It's been nearly 20 years since the Fairness Doctrine – which said broadcasters had to provide "equal time" to opponents of political views expressed on the public airwaves – ruled the radio and TV industries.

Imposed originally by the Federal Communications Commission in 1949, the Fairness Doctrine was ruled unconstitutional by a U.S. Court of Appeals in 1986. The court found the rule was not a law but only a regulation, so it could be rescinded by the FCC – which it was. President Reagan vetoed a 1987 attempt by Congress to make the policy law.

In 1993, Congress unsuccessfully attempted to re-institute the rule. At the time, talk-radio giant Rush Limbaugh rallied his supporters to help defeat the effort, which he dubbed the "Hush Rush" bill.

Despite the failed campaign in '93, Rep. Louise Slaughter, D-N.Y., is confident she can shepherd the Fairness Doctrine through Congress this year, once again requiring broadcasters to provide "equal time."

A website dedicated to resurrecting the Fairness Doctrine is collecting signatures from Americans who support Slaughter's bill, H.R. 501, or the Fairness and Accountability in Broadcasting Act, which was introduced Feb. 1 and has 12 co-sponsors.

"Since [1987], the country has experienced a proliferation of highly partisan news outlets that disseminate unbalanced news coverage," says a statement on the site. "Democracy is built on the idea that the views, beliefs and values of an informed citizenry provide the best basis for political decision-making."

I just can’t stop laughing. We Americans are just too stupid? Rush Limbaugh quotes the folks on the loony left all the time. And its not that Rush Limbaugh is telling me what to think. It is Rush Limbaugh who effectively articulates 98.6% of the time, what I think.

Ted Nugent has balls

Todd Epp seems to have taken personal offense to Ted Nugent’s statement that "the real enemy was Americans who owned guns but had not joined the NRA":

That would also include me as an enemy, a gun owner with a South Dakota concealed carry permit. I don't plan on joining the NRA anytime soon either.

Todd goes on to say this:

I thought gun ownership was what the NRA was FOR. Even liberal Todd owns a gun and believes in Second Amendment rights.

This sounds familiar. Tom Daschle said he believed in the Second Amendment during the 2004 Senate race, but the Congressional Record shows he instead supported anti-gun protesters of the Million Mom March whose emcee, Rosie O'Donnell, said hunters should be locked up because they believe in owning guns. In fact the legislation is call the Daschle Amendment. And Todd Epp voted for Tom Daschle.

Todd, members of the NRA know that Tom Daschle is a wolf disguised in sheep’s clothing. If you truly believe in the Second Amendment, you would not have voted for Tom Daschle. Todd should join the NRA and learn something about the Second Amendment.

And if Todd Epp hasn't provided enough support for Ted Nugent’s statement, South Dakota also has so-called RepublicanTony Dean…the environmental wacko disguised in sportsman's clothing. Tony Dean owns a lot of guns, but he has no clue about what the Second Amendment really stands for.

So now we have Ted Nugent having the balls to tell it like it is. Republicans…take notice.

I stand corrected, communists not liberals

I made a mistake on the post regarding Wilderness areas. Doug Wiken, the ‘South Dakota Bush Hater’ makes this observation:

Note in the post continuation that this "socialist" movement is actually a Bush administration policy. Sibby could have made his little bit of deception apply only to the Bush administration instead of attacking Tony Dean and George McGovern. Steve Sibson has some real problems in his search for truth...it seems significant errors of omission and commission are his usual method of operation.

But he goes even a step or two further. McGovern indicates the change in policy applies to 1/10 of the grassland already controlled by the feds in SD. It is apparently a restriction on 4-wheelers. McGovern notes that the federal grassland is 1/12 of the grassland in SD. So, this change made by the Bush administration apparently does not take private grassland and convert it to public grassland.

[Emphasis Wiken's]

Wiken is right. The land was already confiscated by the Federal government. Now the Feds are using their power to restrict its use even further. This is a prime example of how a socialist policy becomes a stepping stone to communism. So this is a communist action. I stand corrected.

Wiken also points out that President Bush was the one George McGovern is giving credit for this. The linked I provided clearle makes that point clear. I don’t believe Wiken or Tony Dean can over come their hatred for the President and give him credit for giving the left a bone. So why should the Republicans continue to meet the left in the middle? They shouldn’t. The far-left extremists will not appreciate the compromise, and instead use it against us by saying "your guys do it too". Also see me post titled, "Republicans need some balls". I care about conservative issues as a whole, more so than any one action of any one Republican.

Even Though Democrats like Wiken think a little bit of communism is OK in South Dakota, I think its time Republicans call a spade a spade and stand up to these misguided environmental radicals. If they want land banned from four-wheelers, then buy it with their own money.

Coulter on the cover of Time

From WorldNetDaily:

The new issue of Time magazine hitting the streets today boasts a cover story on conservative flamethrowing WND columnist and author Ann Coulter – and a cover photo some fans are calling "bizarre."

Coulter told Matt Drudge last night Time used a more flattering photo of North Korean dictator Kim Jong-il.

While the story itself, written by Time's John Cloud, is generally quite favorable, Coulter and her fans are focused on the strange cover photo that seems to distort the image of the tall, thin, blond pundit.

"Is it just me or did they photograph Ann making her head look big?" wrote one fan on an Internet bulletin board. "It seems out of proportion to the rest of her toned body. Reminds me of the O.J. picture."

"That is the most freaky picture of Ann Coulter I've seen," said another.