Sibby Online

Pro-abortion, anti-American, and anti-family

Kevin Woster has Larry Long’s decision on the pro-abortion advocate’s attempt to shut down the VoteYesForLife ads:

South Dakota Attorney General Larry Long said Monday that he will not take action on a complaint that supporters of the near-total ban on abortion were breaking an existing state law by using deceitful advertising.

Long said the law Nicolay cited doesn't apply to general questions of truth in campaign advertising. Approved in 1913, the law has a narrow application to distributed documents that are purported to be the language of the campaign measure, Long said.

"If you knowingly hand out something you purport is Referred Law 6 and it is not, or if you sneak in language that's not in there, you've violated the statute," Long said. "But you can stand on the corner and hand out all kinds of documents saying here's what referred measure 6 really does or doesn't do, and I don't think those transgress the statute - almost irrespective of what they say."

Long said the law was

written long before television and radio and their effects on campaigns. It also apparently was written without clear attention to speech protections in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, he said.

Those fundamental protections of free speech are not dependent on the absolute accuracy of that speech, Long said. That's true "particularly in the area of political speech, and that goes back a long way," he said.

Jan Nicolay continued with the abortion-on-demand propaganda:

VoteYesForLife advertising, brochures and public statements have used a variety of terms - including "provision" and "option" - to describe how Referred Law 6 addresses rape and incest and health problems. But they have also used "exception," in ways that Nicolay argues imply that an abortion would be allowed.

"There are no exceptions for rape and incest and health of the woman," she said.

…

Nicolay said Monday that campaign honesty is a crucial issue that the coming state legislative session might want to address.

"In fairness to the voters, they shouldn't have to put up with people not speaking the truth," Nicolay said. "I still believe the other side is misrepresenting the truth to the voter."

And the legislators did not put the kind of exceptions that would undermine the legislation and allow the abortion-on-demand environment to continue. Nicolay is not being honest about that. Her campaign is using exception loopholes to mislead those who oppose abortion to vote in support of the abortion-on-demand advocates. It is anti-American to attack the First Amendment rights of those who are trying to clear up the distortions.

And if Nicolay is concerned about honesty, then they should not have called their campaign of deception Healthy Families. As I posted earlier, their political strategist thinks the case to kill babies is more important than helping out a family that has to deal with life-threatening health issues regarding their 12-year-old daughter. This demonstrates how abortion-on-demand advocates are anti-family.

Terrorists kill 14-year old Christian

Some of the Democrats biggest supporters kill a 14-year old, just because he was a Christian:

A website in Assyria is confirming that a 14-year-old Christian boy who was working a 12-hour shift maintaining an electric generator has been murdered by Muslim insurgents.

The Assyrian International News Agency said the tragedy was reported by an Assyrian language web page at www.ankawa.com.

The youth was identified as Ayad Tariq, who lived in Baqouba, Iraq, and was at work on Oct. 21 when a group of "disguised Muslim insurgents" went into the power plant shortly after his shift began at 6 a.m.

The website reported the insurgents asked him for his identification and, according to other witnesses who hid and stayed alive to report on the attack, questioned his identification card's reference to him as a "Christian."

Are you truly a "Christian sinner," they asked.

"Yes, I am Christian but I am not a sinner," he replied.

The insurgents then called him a "dirty Christian sinner," grabbed his limbs and held them while beheading him, the witnesses reported.

They were shouting, "Allahu akbar! Allahu Akbar!" during the murder, witnesses said.

An organization called AssyrianChristians.com said they are the indigenous people of Iraq, with a population that has been in the Middle East from the time of Christ.

However, they have faced a number of purges by the region's rulers over time, including the present attacks by powerful Islamic factions across Iran, Iraq and neighboring nations, officials said.

Hildebrand goes anti-family

Steve Hildebrand is angry about paying for an ad during a show about a family getting their dream home:

A 30-second TV ad costs $10,000 Sunday night on KSFY, so political consultant Steve Hildebrand decided not to buy time during the show that features a Toronto family getting a new home. The show airs two days before the election, which typically drives television ad prices higher, as well.

"I think it's revolting what KSFY is doing," said Hildebrand, who works for the South Dakota Campaign for Healthy Families, a group that opposes a ban on abortion. Voters are being asked to decide the issue on the ballot.

Without the special circumstances, the spot in that time slot typically would cost $600 to $800.

"They (KSFY) know that their viewership is going to be very high in South Dakota that night, and they think that these political campaigns have a lot of money and the most urgent need," he said. "So they're going to try to sell those time slots at top dollar to people who need it the most."

But Kelly Manning, general manager of the Sioux Falls ABC affiliate station, says it's not a case of greed: He has only two minutes of local ad time during the entire hour broadcast, and he wants to reserve some of that time for the home builders.

Rosana Olson, a consumer advocate from Iowa sent a letter to the Argus Leader. Excerpt:

Steve Hildebrand, got "free" advertising, via the Argus Leader, regarding his comment, related to KSFY, charging more for advertising, during Sunday night's broadcast.

What's truly revolting, is Mr. Hildebrand's attempt to exploit a situation, in order to further, his latest self-serving "cause!"

So what is the cause of the South Dakota Campaign for Healthy Families...promoting abortion-on-demand. And to them, the killing of babies is more important than this:

During Sunday's show, viewers across the nation will see Kevin and Nila Thibodeau's old home demolished and new home constructed during one week in September. The Thibodeaus and their three children were sent on a vacation in New York while their dream house was built by hundreds of local volunteers and dozens of contractors, all of whom donated materials and labor.

Siehera Thibodeau, 12, was born with a large hole in her heart. The birth defect has required four major open-heart surgeries so far. During her last surgery, the uninsured family was faced with complications when her kidneys failed and both lungs collapsed.

Rosana Olson put this in perspective:

On a lighter note, the time I recently spent, volunteering, at the Iowa build site for Extreme Makeover: Home Edition, is an unforgettable memory, which I will treasure forever.

I'm certain, that in South Dakota, as in Iowa, the banding together of thousands of volunteers, alongside the builders, designers, & ABC, was a spectacle, that I was priviledged to be a part of.

If you didn't get to either of these build sites, you really missed something special.

I resent Steve Hildebrand, attempting to "steal the thunder", of the little girl in South Dakota, for whom the home was built.

So the so-called South Dakota Campaign for Healthy Families could care less about a South Dakota family who are dealing with a child with serious medical issues. Instead their priority is protecting Planned Parenthood’s multi-million dollar abortion mills. Certainly they have far more financial wherewithal than the Thibodeau family. Next thing these far-left pro-abortion advocates will say is that they are concerned about the poor and the high cost of medical care…Ha.

And they can keep a straight face when they say they are for healthy families. These people are really sick.

More on the Argus Leader poll

I received this email from Argus Leader reporter Megan Myers regarding my earlier post:

I saw your recent blog post on the latest poll the Argus Leader conducted and thought you might be interested in some more insight on the survey. So here's a more detailed breakdown of the 800 registered voters who said they were likely to vote in this election. The numbers were included as part of the poll information we were given by Mason-Dixon. Those interviewed were selected by the random variation of the last four digits of telephone numbers. A cross-section of exchanges was utilized in order to ensure an accurate reflection of the state. Quotas were assigned to reflect the voter turn-out by county.

Men 390 (49%)

Women 410 (51%)

Democrats 306 (39%)

Republicans 394 (49%)

Independents 100 (12%)

I ran these numbers against the detail provided yesterday and they do match up to the 52 to 42 result printed on Sunday.

The assumption I made to calculate the even split among the political demographics was incorrect and I apologize to my readers and the Argus Leader for my mistake.

The Shadow Party’s plan revealed

From Craig R. Smith:

Secular progressives (a fancy way to say liberals) have had a secret plan to win the War on Terror for over three years. I just received the details from an unidentified source who has been monitoring the secret meetings held by George Soros, Michael Moore, John Kerry and Howard Dean. The source took copious notes during the meetings and has passed them on to me. What they reveal will shock you, to say the least.

In the 2004 election cycle John Kerry told the public, on multiple occasions, he had a plan to win the peace in Iraq and the War on Terror. He never shared the plan publicly but repeatedly vowed, if elected, he would then implement this secret plan. Howard Dean in this current cycle has repeated the same promise. The Democrats have a plan to win in Iraq and Afghanistan and if elected, they will reveal and implement the plan. You will just have to take their word on the plan's effectiveness until Nov. 8, at which time, if they are victorious, it will be revealed.

To get this information I had to assure my source that I would never reveal the source unless I was granted permission. Therefore I am fully prepared to protect my source even if called by Congress to testify. I, like Judith Miller, believe in protecting sources. When the leaks of information came to Judith on the ''intentional'' outing of CIA agent Valerie Plame, they came via an unidentified source. When the NSA terrorist wire-tapping program made the front page of the New York Times it did so through the use of an unidentified source. The sources in both cases were a bit off. It is now known that Richard Armitage inadvertently talked about Ms. Plame, not Karl Rove; and the NSA wiretapping was not a ''domestic'' wiretapping but a monitoring of calls made from and to known al-Qaida and terrorist contacts.

My source however is rock solid on this plan.

One would think, armed with a plan that would secure the peace, the patriotic secular progressives would be happy to share it with their peers on the moderate and conservative side of the aisle. Apparently not. I think it reprehensible to hold back a plan if it would save lives and bring our troops home with victory but I guess the SPs feel the reward of being a good citizen is not as great a dividend as power.

The Plan: Analyzing the enemy and its goal was the first priority of the SPs. They wanted to know just what would appease the enemy. So they looked at the words of bin Laden and the Grand Mufti from the '40s and realized the No. 1 goal of the Islamo-fascists was to kill all Jews and Christians who stand in the way of converting the whole world to Sharia Law. With that in mind, Soros, being a business man, saw this as a simple common sense proposition.

If America was godless and devoid of all Jews and Christians then there would be no need for terrorists to destroy that which does not exist. The plan would include, but not be limited to, the removal of any mention of God in our society. No Ten Commandments. No mention of God in our Pledge of Allegiance. Even ultimately taking ''In God we Trust'' off our money. All prayer at sporting events would be outlawed. The mere mention of God would be punishable by prison. In essence, God would be removed from America.

The planners concluded that a godless nation, devoid of all Jews and Christians, that didn't allow the mention of God, would no longer be a threat to their goal. Islamo-Fascists would then focus their full attention and fury on countries like Italy that host the Vatican; Australia, with its large Evangelical populations; and ultimately Israel, where the basis of belief in Judaism and Christianity are founded. The land that brought forth the Bible of the Jew and the Christian.

Keep in mind this plan has been underway for some time. Many moves have already been quietly put in place by the ACLU, MoveOn.org and other SP operatives. The final purging of all the last vestiges of God and believers will be accomplished as George Soros and his armies of godless complete the plan. That is if they are elected. Remember, they will only tell the public of their plan if elected.

This will all occur while the secular progressives claim they are merely doing so for the safety of the nation and to uphold the principle they hold so dear – the separation of church and state. The means justify the ends in that we will be a nation that has no value to anyone for we are a nation without values. Oh don't worry. I'm not talking about your 401K or the value of your home. You will still get the weekly paycheck. Maybe a little less in it each week as your taxes will have gone up. The need for more government-sponsored social programs will be required to meet the needs that the churches and synagogues until now have serviced. Obviously, without churches and synagogues the need will be great.

So that is the strategy. A good one if you are an atheist or a Soros Kool-Aid drinker who believes it is better to switch than fight. It is quite different than the plan the neocons have put forward.

The current leadership wants to eliminate the enemy, not God. They want to destroy evil and bring peace through strength. The want freedom to be a right granted by God, not man. Twelve million Iraqis have voted and they voted for freedom. They had their elections and established a government.

Make no mistake about it. This column will not see the front page of the Times. They will not care about my source or the value of my information because it does not out a Florida congressman who has a sick perversion. It does not point out the poor choice of words from a Republican or point a finger at Karl Rove. It won't give the media fodder to assure a Democrat victory in November. It does however reveal the real heart of the appeasement-loving, godless left (SPs) and their willingness to surrender that which has made this nation what it is; One nation under God.

Writer's note: If the SPs win in November I will not ever have to worry about revealing my source for in the world they create, it will be illegal.

Terrorists are banking on Democrat victories

From John Gibson:

A couple days ago I wrote that if the Dems win, insurgents win.

That produced a huge amount of hate mail. A woman in L.A. can hardly wait for impeachment and she figures I should be on the impeachment list along with Bush and Cheney.

But look at the report today in The Sydney Morning Herald, which says that the Pentagon spokesman Eric Ruff "attributed the rising violence in Iraq to attempts by Al Qaeda to influence the U.S. elections and stir up opposition to President George W. Bush." Ruff stopped short of saying that Al Qaeda wanted a Democratic victory in the November 7 elections and denied emphatically that he was implying that, the paper said.

Eric Ruff probably saw all my hate mail for saying precisely that and decided to keep quiet. But he did quote an Al Qaeda leader, Abu Ayyub al-Masri, reported by the Washington Post to be ordering redoubled attacks "to have a great effect on the American elections."

Republicans losing conservative base

The AP has a report regarding the loss of appeal the Republican Party has with Christian Conservatives:

Of the many disturbing trends for Republicans going into November congressional elections, one of the most troubling is the drop in support among white evangelicals.

The number of conservative Christians with a favorable view of the party has plummeted from 74 percent to 54 percent between 2004 and this year, according to the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press. Evangelicals comprise more than one-third of Republican voters.

In South Dakota, the abortion poll shows only 54% of Republicans will vote in favor of banning abortions. 65% of those Republicans who will vote against the abortion ban because of the rape and incest issue. So where was the South Dakota Republican Party the last couple of months? They certainly were not supporting the ban on abortion by countering the propaganda of the pro-abortion advocates regarding rape and incest. It should be clear to Republican voters that the Supreme Court will not go with a law that would treat a tiny percentage of children as second class citizens based on how they were conceived.

The South Dakota Republican Party did not explain to its members that the type of exception that the pro-abortion advocates wanted was one that would not have changed the current abortion-on-demand environment. Planned Parenthood would have used medical privacy to allow the alleged rapes to go unreported to authorities. Their idea of a rape and incest exception would have not changed the current abortion-on-demand environment that primarily benefits the rapists, especially pedophiles including those involved with incest.

I am a relative newcomer to the Republican Party, and have fought hard for them. I fought hard because I thought the Republican Party was in line with my conservative position on the issues. But now, when the issue is abortion, the South Dakota Republican Party did not fight. So why should I continue to fight for "the Party"?

This was a perfect opportunity to leverage the abortion issue with Bruce Whalen and send a message to the Native Americans that the Democrat Party is not your friend. But sadly, the South Dakota Republican Party let that opportunity pass. Their support for Whalen was almost none existent.

When I vote in November for the District 20 House race, I will be voting for pro-life Democrat Susan Steele. I have a second vote, but there are no other pro-life candidates in the race. I will not vote for any of the remaining three, including the two Republicans. I will not vote for the lessor of two evils. It is time to stand for the truth and not stand for anything else.

Argus Leader promotes flawed poll?

[CORRECTION: Please see this post for new information I received on this poll. The assumption I made to come up with the even spit among party affiliation was wrong, and I have sticken the incorrect parts of this post. I apologize to my readers and the Argus Leader.]

Today the Argus Leader promoted on their front-page a poll that stated the no votes on referred law 6 was leading the yes votes 52 to 42. I did some math and determined that the 800 person sample broke down to 268 Republican, 266 Democrat and 266 Independent. But that is not how the actual voter registration pool breaks down. In the 2004 pool, Independents amounted to less than 15% versus the 33% used in the Argus Leader poll. And Republicans were nearly 50%, which is far more than the 33% used in the poll. This is a common technique used by the media to promote the false conclusion that most people think like Democrats.

Another interesting conclusion one can gather from the details of the poll is that abortion is not really a woman’s rights issue. 45% of women support the ban, but only 48% oppose the ban (within the margin of error). Whereas only 39% of men support the ban, but a majority of 56% does not support the ban. It is the men who are leading the opposition to the ban, not women. Clearly the message that abortion harms women is being heard by women. But it is the men who could care less about the harm to women and continue to want women to get abortions. Wonder why?

If the media would report on that truth, and stop with the promotion of abortion-on-demand advocates using the victims of rape as political pawns to maintain their abortion-on-demand multi-million dollar business.

Planned Parenthood thinks South Dakotans are stupid

From VoteYesForLife blog:

Despite what Unhealthy Families may want you to believe, they do not endorse any restriction to abortion in the state of South Dakota. If a law came to a vote that said "you can't procure an abortion for eugenic sex selection" they would still say "it goes too far". The reason that this disingenuous approach of the law going "too far" is so clear is by looking at those organizations so intimately involved with the campaign. One such example is that Planned Parenthood is listed proudly on the Unhealthy Families' website as a friend and supporter.

Planned Parenthood states on its website (http://www.plannedparenthood.org/about-us/who-we-are/mission-and-policy-statements.htm) that, "abortion must always be a matter of personal choice" and that, "no one should be denied abortion services solely because of age, or economic or social circumstances." In other words Planned Parenthood believes mothers should be allowed to abort their children for whatever reason, no matter what.

Not only does it espouse these ideals but Cecile Richards, the president of Planned Parenthood, has clearly stated and shown that it intends on forcing this radical agenda on the people of South Dakota. In the strategy report released in October, Richards states,"We have to speak common sense to folks in the heartland of our country" as PP's 3rd "key step to success."

The ramifications of this statement are quite clear. Planned Parenthood believes that the people of America's heartland are not capable enough to make correct decisions without PP's provocation and intervention. Planned Parenthood seems to suggest that people in the "heartland" are also not intelligent enough to understand the issues affecting women and their pre-born children unless PP dumbs things down for them.

One of the first assertions this goal makes is that "Planned Parenthood and the ideas it represents have broad support all across America." The implication is that the values of the people of South Dakota are the same as those of Planned Parenthood. These values including teaching graphic sex information to children as young as seven years old, endorsing deviant sexual acts, and ensuring that children be killed in abortions at any whim at all. Planned Parenthood knows that if the people of South Dakota vote to support the ban of abortions it will be clear how much they do not support PP's radical agenda.

It is this fear of clear dissaproval that has provoked Planned Parenthood to mount a massive campaign across the country to target South Dakota. It is this fear that has brought Planned Parenthood to encourage people from around the nation to get involved in the affairs of the people of South Dakota. Given Ms Richards' lack of faith in the rational power of those in the Midwest, it seems odd that they would show this much concern, if in fact abortion-on-demand is the best option for women. Certainly if abortion-on-demand was common-sensical, South Dakotans would be able to figure that out. Ms Richards' attitude betrays the fact that either we are idiots and need, like sheep, to be led, or that abortion-on-demand is something that anyone who is not a pro-abort rejects.

If Unhealthy Families disagreed with this evaluation of South Dakota, certainly they'd say so. Instead, they have nothing but cheery things to say about their bedfellows. Planned Parenthood does not speak for South Dakota. Neither does Unhealthy Families.

Randell Beck spins on Sutton case

Today’s Randell Beck column regarding the Dan Sutton case is a perfect example of the paper’s pro-Democrat bias. Introduction:

I began thinking about this column as an explanation why this newspaper has avoided naming the former state legislative page and the kid's father who are caught up, properly or not, in a tawdry little affair that has dominated the front pages.

The answer is simple. Disclosing that the kid’s father is a Democrat would ruin the Argus Leader’s pro-Democrat story that this is nothing but a Republican political hack job.

But this is Beck’s explanation:

Meanwhile, mindful of the teenager's right to privacy, the Argus Leader has avoided naming him. Under the theory that identifying the father also would identify the kid, we've kept the former's name out of the newspaper, too. That's standard procedure for most newspapers writing about sensitive cases involving juveniles or allegations of sexual misconduct or both. And I still believe it was the right thing to do, however messy it's turned out to be.

Since when is an eighteen year old considered a juvenile. And regarding sexual misconduct, did the Argus Leader report on the Mark Foley scandel. Yes, here is a link. And David Kranz did to. Here is the link.

The difference between Mark Foley and Dan Sutton is that one is a Republican and the other is a Democrat. That is all we need to know to understand how the Argus Leader covers things.

When the story was about Republican Foley, Kranz was all too happy to help the South Dakota Democrats politicize it at the local level:

They're starting to talk here about the trickle-down effect of former Rep. Foley's alleged sins.

"Yes, this latest scandal will affect South Dakota races. We've gotten to the point where the adage about all politics being local surrenders to the weekly barrage of another Republican scandal or another blunder in foreign policy," says Don Carr, press secretary for the state Democratic Party.

Now when the story becomes local about an "alleged sin" regarding a page, the Argus Leader’s tune is a whole lot different because the "alleged sin" is that of a Democrat. Now their story is about how the Republicans are only trying to politicize the allegations.

This is a textbook example of the Democrat bias of the Argus Leader.