Sibby Online

Argus Leader covers the truth

I am amazed that the Argus Leader put this on their front page today:

Sioux Falls became entrenched in its own version of "A Tale of Two Cities" Wednesday night.

Compared to Charles Dickens' tale of crime, war and deception set in London and Paris, ABC's "20/20" program cast Sioux Falls in a generous light comparing charitable giving of the city and San Francisco.

ABC reporter John Stossel said religious participation is the biggest predictor of whether someone will be charitable.

Sioux Falls is rural and religious, with half of the population going to church, he said. San Francisco residents make more money, are more liberal and only 14 percent attend church.

"I would assume people here would give a lot," Stossel said of the California city.

Stossel said San Francisco collected half as much in Salvation Army buckets in front of Macy's, compared with Sioux Falls at Wal-Mart. Maj. Paul Duskin of the local Salvation Army said the two-day total reached about $1,000.

The ABC segment cites Arthur Brooks' book, "Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth about Compassion and Conservatism," which identified South Dakota and the city by the bay as having the same giving per family - $1,300 and the same population, said Jay Powell, Sioux Empire United Way president.

Yet San Francisco's income per capita was 78 percent higher than South Dakota, he said.

"That struck the author as interesting," Powell said. "I've seen other studies that we are one of the most generous communities in the nation. We should feel proud of it.

"We still care about our neighbors."

Brooks told Stossel that conservatives give about 30 percent more than liberals, and conservative-headed families make slightly less money. The author said the rich and working poor are more likely to contribute.

Now is the time to tell the Argus Leader to stop pushing the agenda of the far-left. Now is the time that we look to ourselves as the source of solutions and not the corrupt in Washington DC.

And we also need to help John Thune get back to his conservative roots and be a leader that stands up to the lying left by promoting the truth. Right now his mission seems to be a contest on how he can bring home more pork than the Democrats.

Public education and the media

It is from those two areas that the left has changed America to their way of thinking. Beverly K. Eakman has a column that details this. (Read the whole thing) Here is the introduction:

Democrats won Nov. 7 for two reasons Republicans would rather not talk about: education and media.

Conservative pundits and pollsters imagined that because the Democratic Party didn't have a consistent message, or because the class-warfare theme was wearing thin, the left couldn't win an election. While the rants of Rep. Jack Murtha, D-Pa., Al Gore and Michael Moore became increasingly wacky, of far more significance was the fact that the old formulas conservative strategists once relied on to win no longer apply. The dynamics of the electorate has changed

Forty years of failure in education policy and media strategy have come back to bite us.

While Republicans were busy padding the coffers of GOP political action committees, the left spent 40 years infiltrating schools beefing up publishing outlets and stripping God even from our houses of worship. They consolidated gains, established state and local agents through second and third parties and edged out smaller competitors. The National Education Association instituted mandatory memberships on three levels; left-leaning media powerhouses like the New York Times bought hundreds of once-independent publishing outlets. The Big Three networks snapped up cable channels. Religious oversight bodies like the liberal Episcopal Church USA gave local denominations their marching orders. And so, by default, closet Marxists won the war of sound bites among burgeoning waves of barely educated voters without the verbal and logic skills to defend critical principles of the republic.

Unsurprisingly, we are no longer a populace that rationally grapples with philosophical dilemmas. A common store of values no longer serves as a backdrop for earnest discussion. Instead, we're mired in catchphrases, oversimplifications and personality contests – in large part thanks to an education system awash in sports, rewritten history, lax discipline and faddish methodologies.

Conservatives failed to secure our schools and media from well-organized, leftist provocateurs from the 1950s on, and now it's payback time.

Had we rejected educational psychobabble; had we revamped teacher training in the universities based on what researchers actually know about learning; had we crafted real diagnostics for entering schoolchildren, American schooling today would be the best in the world instead of fourth from the bottom. Had we bought up media outlets when they were cheap and available, we would have today a credible soapbox.

Instead, we ignored the electoral consequences of a politicized curriculum and a psychologized learning environment. We launched misleading legislation like the No Child Left Behind Act (a sop to Democrat Sen. Ted Kennedy) and, more recently, initiated universal mental health screening (under the Marxist-like moniker "New Freedom Initiative for Mental Health"), knowing full well that both concepts were flawed, or bogus, or both.

Pelosi, Herseth, and Max Sandlin

Remember this from Roll Call in the fall of 2004:

The Capitol Hill publication Roll Call has an item in today's edition headlined "Sitting in a Tree," regarding Stephanie Herseth's relationship with Rep. Max Sandlin, a Democrat from Texas:

Sorry, guys. The newest, most eligible bachelorette in Congress appears to be off the market.

Rep. Stephanie Herseth (D), who just won the special South Dakota election, had a boyfriend waiting for her on Capitol Hill when she arrived last week.

He's Democratic Rep. Max Sandlin, a four-term Texan.

The couple met during Herseth's failed 2002 election bid against then- Rep. Bill Janklow (R-S.D.), who recently was released from prison for his second-degree manslaughter conviction. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, which has its own version of a "big buddy" program, appointed Sandlin to be Herseth's mentor during that campaign.

Maybe the DCCC should have a match-making business on the side?

"Representative Herseth and Representative Sandlin met during the last election cycle. They remained friends after the 2002 election and have had a relationship for approximately a year," her spokesman, Russ Levsen, told HOH.

Sandlin, who is divorced with four children, also worked hard to campaign and raise money for his girlfriend during her winning campaign against GOP state Sen. Larry Diedrich in the June 1 special election.

He said having just arrived in Washington, the new Congresswoman has not found permanent housing yet. For now, he said, she's staying at the Capitol Suites.

But Herseth, 33, and Sandlin, 52, were seen Wednesday morning in front of Sandlin's apartment building near D and First streets Southeast.

Now we have this from a report that details Nancy Pelosi’s career:

When she became leader, she pushed through the appointment of Max Sandlin to the Appropriations Committee. Sandlin, a moderate Texan, was a sensible choice, since he had been stung by redistricting and the slot would raise his profile and appeal. He was also among Pelosi's most valuable supporters, since he helped her to deflate claims that her appeal was limited to the political Left. But Sandlin hadn't asked for a seat on Appropriations - he had requested the Ways and Means Committee. Since Members spend years building support for an appointment to either of these elite panels, jumping from one list to the other is akin to changing planes mid-flight. It just isn't done. But here Sandlin was, being ushered past all those who had been waiting their turn. And yet, this was not even what made the appointment most notable. As it happens, Sandlin was also the boyfriend of Nancy's daughter Christine - a fact widely known among Democrats. So the move wasn't just disruptive; it also bore the taint of nepotism. Pelosi's exceptionalism could not have been more starkly shown. But in case there were still doubts, she also gave Sandlin a top position in leadership.

Pelosi became leader in fall of 2002, which is about the same time Sandlin was Herseth’s mentor, and also dating Pelosi's daughter. As Todd Epp would say…Hmmmm.

And before I move off Pelosi’s career, this little bit would make one wonder about her promise to clean up Washington DC:

At one point, it seems to have occurred to Pelosi and her associates that she could double the amount of money she raised - and thus double the amount she gave - if she opened a second political action committee. It never seems to have occurred to the group that, as a matter of law, this was preposterous. If one could double-up by simply opening another committee, why not ten committees? Or one hundred? Pelosi appears not to have had anyone at the time who could point out the obvious to her. So her machine, based in San Francisco, went ahead with the plan, opening a second PAC that was identical to the first in all but name. And soon that committee was taking and giving money in the usual order. The treasurer of both, former California Lt. Gov. Leo McCarthy, told me he had phoned the Federal Elections Commission beforehand and was told there was nothing wrong with the arrangement - a dubious story, since not even the commissioners are permitted to provide legal guidance over the phone. The FEC eventually fined Pelosi's original PAC $24,000 for the screw-up. Her committee was also forced to retrieve all the illegal money that had been given to candidates and to reimburse its donors.

All is fair when it involves love and war.

Secular socialists vs the Christian Right

Walter E Williams has a fantastic column called, "Why we love government". Here is the ending:

Today's Americans hold a different vision of government. It's one that says Congress has the right to do just about anything upon which it can secure a majority vote. Most of what Congress does fits the description of forcing one American to serve the purposes of another American. That description differs only in degree, but not in kind, from slavery.

At least two-thirds of the federal budget represents forcing one American to serve the purposes of another. Younger workers are forced to pay for the prescriptions of older Americans; people who are not farmers are forced to serve those who are; non-poor people are forced to serve poor people; and the general public is forced to serve corporations, college students and other special interests who have the ear of Congress.

The supreme tragedy that will lead to our undoing is that so far as personal economic self-interests are concerned, it is perfectly rational for every American to seek to live at the expense of another American. Why? Not doing so doesn't mean he'll pay lower federal taxes. All it means is that there will be more money for somebody else.

In other words, once Congress establishes that one person can live at the expense of another, it pays for everyone to try to do so. You say, "Williams, don't you believe in helping your fellow man?" Yes, I do. I believe that reaching into one's own pockets to help his fellow man is both laudable and praiseworthy. Reaching into another's pockets to help his fellow man is despicable and worthy of condemnation.

The bottom line: We love government because it enables us to accomplish things that if done privately would lead to arrest and imprisonment. For example, if I saw a person in need, and I took your money to help him, I'd be arrested and convicted of theft. If I get Congress to do the same thing, I am seen as compassionate.

This vision ought to bother the Christians among us, for when God gave Moses the commandment "Thou shalt not steal," I'm sure He didn't mean thou shalt not steal unless you got a majority vote in Congress.

And The Chronicle of Philanthropy tells us who does reach into their own pockets to help his fellow man:

In Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism (Basic Books), Arthur C. Brooks finds that religious conservatives are far more charitable than secular liberals, and that those who support the idea that government should redistribute income are among the least likely to dig into their own wallets to help others.

So these tells us who truly cares about helping the poor. The conservative believes in a limited government and will help out the poor with their own money. The secular socialists instead believe someone else should take care of the poor and expect the government to enforce their greedy ways.

And tonight at 9PM, John Stossel features a contest of giving between the liberals of San Francisco and the conservatives in Sioux Falls:

To illustrate what distinguishes those who give from those who don't, "20/20" went to two parts of the county that have two very different populations: Sioux Falls, South Dakota and San Francisco, California. "20/20" asked the Salvation Army to set up buckets at their busiest locations in both cities - Macy's in San Francisco and Wal-Mart in Sioux Falls. Which bucket gets more money?

Sioux Falls is rural and religious, more than half of the population go to church every week. People in San Francisco make much more money, are more liberal, and just 14% of people in San Francisco attend church every week. Liberals are said to care more about helping the poor; so will people in San Francisco give more?

In his book, Who Really Cares, Arthur Brooks finds that the people who donate money are the same ones who will donate blood, volunteer, and even give up their seat on a bus. "The people who give one thing tend to be the people who give everything in America," says Brooks.

I bet Sioux Falls wins.

Washington’s financial cocaine

After putting up my previous post on the federal pork, I found this Mount Blogmore post that features a Rapid City Journal column (read the whole thing) by Bob Ellis on one of South Dakota’s federal pork, the farm bill. Excerpt:

I grew up on a farm, as did my wife, so I know that while there are many farmers who are addicted to Washington's financial cocaine, there are also some farmers who realize the strings that come with the cash include too many entanglements.

"Farm subsidies" conjures up an image of the small "family farmer" who farms a few hundred or few thousand acres, but he's usually the one least helped by the bureaucratic exercise often known as "the farm bill."

For example, a 2004 Heritage Foundation report says Riceland Foods, an Arkansas co-op, received $110 million in farm subsidies. Yet Hoovers' business information says in 2006 to date, Riceland made $937 million in sales. We need the farm bill for this?

Given the writings of the founders and early leaders of our country, earlier generations would have been appalled at the unconstitutional nature of farm subsidies and disaster aid. Yes, we're already doing it - but is it right?

Instead of the Marxist "collective farming" model we've adopted, the business of farming should be managed by those who understand it best: farmers. But pork addicts and the politicians who enjoy being the "go-to guy" for the loot don't want to hear that.

Ellis, who obviously understands Reagan conservatism, ties the lack of fiscal conservatism to social conservatism:

The election wasn't even a week old and Democrats were excitedly drawing up a laundry list of plans like cut-and-run victory in Iraq, expanding access to abortion, and impeachment, er, "oversight" committees.

Is the pork worth the risk of a national security policy based on cowardice? Is the money worth undermining our military? Is stashing the cash worth higher taxes to pay for even more bloated government? Is getting the loot worth the advancement of a radical pro-homosexual, anti-life, anti-family agenda which will leave our civilization even more morally bankrupt than it already is?

Patriots put the good of their country ahead of themselves. South Dakota did the patriot's duty in 2004 when we replaced the senate minority leader with a freshman senator. We decided that any lost pork and influence was worth it to have a representative who held our South Dakota values instead of East Coast "Ted Kennedy" values.

Rural development in South Dakota isn't going to suddenly blossom under Democratic congressional control. But our national security and the moral center of our society will almost certainly be undermined.

Is that a fair trade for some extra cash?

For those who don’t know, Bob Ellis is the force behind Dakota Voice. I suggest you subscribe and support his work. [for the sake of disclosure, I do write for the publication] The people of South Dakota need to hear the other side of the story. The conservative side is seldom found in the South Dakota Drive-By media outlets in our state’s two largest cities. I have suggested many times that the Argus Leader should allow equal ink to conservatives that they now give to David Kranz, who writes another George McGovern love letter today. With the Bob Ellis column, I now have more hope for the RCJ.

Adelstein does not support the SD GOP

From South Dakota War College regarding Stan Adelstein:

What might Stan have done? Let's see....

When you use PACs to fund primary elections (to avoid normal spending limits) against your Senate colleagues, creating discord, there are some Republicans who will take that as a cue that you aren't a party supporter.

When at the same time you claim "I have never, ever spoken in public against a fellow Senator unless it was in debate or discussion with that Senator present." and the evidence shows you call one of your fellow Republicans 'an ultra-conservative extremist' and note that many others 'should be thrown out of office', there are some Republicans who will take that as a cue that you aren't a party supporter.

When you allegedly try to use your financial resources as a tool to demand preferential committee assignments over other Republican Senators, there are some Republicans who will take that as a cue that you aren't a party supporter. (and you might get called a 'cancer on the caucus' to boot)

When you act like a big sore loser, you stand with and actively campaign for the Democrat running against your primary opponent, there are some Republicans who will take that as a cue that you aren't a party supporter.

When after your primary loss, you publicly and overtly float your own name as a running mate for the Democratic Candidate for Governor, there are some Republicans who will take that as a cue that you aren't a party supporter.

When you drop tens of thousands of dollars directly into Democratic races to defeat Republican candidates, there are some Republicans who will take that as a cue that you aren't a party supporter.

I could go on (and on, and on), but it doesn't serve much of a purpose.

It’s the spending stupid

While Democrats want to decrease deficit spending with economic unfriendly tax increases, some Republicans are looking at the spending:

It's been years since federal agencies have screamed this loudly about fiscal discipline being imposed on them. GOP Sens. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma and Jim DeMint of South Carolina have decided to take a stand against overspending by objecting to the nearly 10,000 earmarks, or member-sponsored pork projects, larded throughout the spending bills Congress is currently considering.

Their obstinacy has convinced the leadership of the departing Republican Congress that they probably won't be able to pass spending bills in next month's short lame-duck session. Instead, they are likely to pass a stopgap "continuing resolution," which will continue funding all programs at last year's level until the new Democratic Congress passes its own versions of the funding bills.

Mr. Coburn says the decision not to pass earmark-stuffed catchall spending bills could save taxpayers a cool $17 billion. All 10,000 earmarks in the pending bills will expire if they aren't passed by the end of the year. Mr. Coburn says the decision of the congressional leadership to instead go for a continuing resolution is a sign Republicans are learning some lessons from their stinging loss of Congress three weeks ago. "By either staying home or not voting Republican, many voters were sending a message that they don't want to give the spending favor factory that Congress had become their stamp of approval," Mr. Coburn says. "It's time that message was heeded."

Rick Warren takes on more heat

From WorldNetDaily:

Megachurch pastor Rick Warren may have been unprepared for the Syrian media's propaganda using his name during his recent visit and he may have confused religious tolerance with religious freedom, but neither is an excuse for becoming "an enabler and defender of evil," according to experts on the Mideast and its persecution of non-Muslims.

"Rick Warren can do us all a favor and keep his remarks and opinions to himself. When you don't stand up against and condemn evil, let alone say misrepresented facts about an evil regime, you become an enabler and defender of evil, plain and simple," Brigitte Gabriel told WND.

Gabriel, a Lebanese-American who wrote "Because They Hate," and the founder of the The American Congress for Truth, was responding to Warren's recorded statement about Syria that: "It's a moderate country, and the official government rule and position is to not allow any extremism of any kind."

Warren, the pastor of Saddleback Church and the author of the best-selling "The Purpose-Driven Life," told WND when the comment first was reported that he had been misquoted, and further, he wasn't a diplomat and probably wasn't fully prepared for a situation in which he was used for propaganda.

But a video posted on YouTube showed Warren making the statement, and when WND linked to it, it suddenly disappeared.

Larry Ross, who acts as a spokesman for the church, told WND the video showing Warren making the statement was removed because Warren had heard there were "reports" about his Syrian visit, but not necessarily the reports from WND.

Illegal immigrants kill more than terrorists

From WorldNetDaily:

While the military "quagmire" in Iraq was said to tip the scales of power in the U.S. midterm elections, most Americans have no idea more of their fellow citizens – men, women and children – were murdered this year by illegal aliens than the combined death toll of U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan since those military campaigns began.

Though no federal statistics are kept on murders or any other crimes committed by illegal aliens, a number of groups have produced estimates based on data collected from prisons, news reports and independent research.

Twelve Americans are murdered every day by illegal aliens, according to statistics released by Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y. If those numbers are correct, it translates to 4,380 Americans murdered annually by illegal aliens. That's 21,900 since Sept. 11, 2001.

Total U.S. troop deaths in Iraq as of last week were reported at 2,863. Total U.S. troop deaths in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Uzbekistan during the five years of the Afghan campaign are currently at 289, according to the Department of Defense.

But the carnage wrought by illegal alien murderers represents only a fraction of the pool of blood spilled by American citizens as a result of an open border and un-enforced immigration laws.

While King reports 12 Americans are murdered daily by illegal aliens, he says 13 are killed by drunk illegal alien drivers – for another annual death toll of 4,745. That's 23,725 since Sept. 11, 2001.

While no one – in or out of government – tracks traffic all U.S. accidents caused by illegal aliens, the statistical and anecdotal evidence suggests many of last year's 42,636 road deaths involved illegal aliens.

A report by the AAA Foundation for Traffic Study found 20 percent of fatal accidents involve at least one driver who lacks a valid license. In California, another study showed that those who have never held a valid license are about five times more likely to be involved in a fatal road accident than licensed drivers.

Statistically, that makes them an even greater danger on the road than drivers whose licenses have been suspended or revoked – and nearly as dangerous as drunk drivers.

King also reports eight American children are victims of sexual abuse by illegal aliens every day – a total of 2,920 annually.

Based on a one-year in-depth study, Deborah Schurman-Kauflin of the Violent Crimes Institute of Atlanta estimates there are about 240,000 illegal immigrant sex offenders in the United States who have had an average of four victims each. She analyzed 1,500 cases from January 1999 through April 2006 that included serial rapes, serial murders, sexual homicides and child molestation committed by illegal immigrants.

When Fire Thunder speaks, the media jumps

When Cecilia held her press conference yesterday, the Drive-By media was all too happy to report her beef. The Rapid City Journal’s coverage is here. And Denise Ross, former RCJ reporter, wrote a report for the Argus Leader. This comment was left on Mount Blogmore on a post promoting the press conference:

Fire Thunder was impeached and removed from presidency of the Ogala Sioux Tribe for violating its financial laws. There were five other impeachment charges waiting in the wings that were not brought up that I am certain would also prove she didn’t keep the laws of the tribe. The media did not accurately report about this story and again recently chose to ignore the other side of what it reported. To gain office in 2004 Fire Thunder violated laws of the tribe and continues that MO in 2006.

It is not noticed when the tribe attempts to follow it laws but when Fire Thunder wants to continue her propaganda then all that is required of her is to call the HOT LINE. The media is a reliable conduit of misinformation and is doing little research to find the truth or at least get the other side of the story.

Before I comment further, let’s see how the mainstream media will spin stories in Fire Thunder’s behalf.

Aren’t you curious that the Bureau of Indian Affairs is not sought out for opinion.

When it is the far-left holding a press conference, the Drive-By media jumps to help promote their propaganda. When conservatives hold press conferences, the media downplays the message if they report it at all.

It is very disturbing that we have the two largest cities in South Dakota being manipulated by the media. The future of conservatism is in danger if we don’t respond to these two media outlets. They are in a position to totally control South Dakota politics.