Sibby Online

Obama represents Clinton-Bush VI

Bill Fleming should like the reference to the "Who", but that is about it:

Way back in 1971, the English rock band the Who had a hit song called "Don't Get Fooled Again."

It was an interesting song for the times – with the air of revolution wafting through America's campuses and streets. This was a song that said it was all futile – with the key lyric line being, "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss."

That's kind of how I feel about the incoming Barack Obama administration.

This is change!

This is the same old, same old.

For the most part, Barack Obama's new prescriptions represent nothing but tired, old, discredited ideas that have failed every time they have been tried in history.

I'm not surprised. In fact, I predicted it.

I even got very specific last August 21 when I boldly proclaimed I knew who would be named defense secretary – no matter who won the election, John McCain or Obama. This week, I was proven right when it was announced Obama had picked the establishment's guy –Robert Gates.

Obama warned that a McCain administration would be Bush III. What we got instead was Clinton-Bush VI.

Blame social engineers, not capitalists

And the blame goes to both Republicans and Democrats (That also points to why Todd Epp and Pat Powers get along so well.):

Among the goals of the social engineers in the 1970s was a "right" to affordable housing. A U.N. treaty set forth this right and Congress quickly enacted the Community Reinvestment Act, which required lending institutions to extend loans to people who would not qualify for a loan in a free market. Social engineers in the Clinton administration were not satisfied with the number of loans made to unqualified people and further intruded into the free market by further relaxing lending standards.

Social engineers applauded the great success of their engineering, claiming more people than ever before were now homeowners. All was well with the world – until the unqualified borrowers failed to meet their responsibilities and defaulted on theirloan payments.

Social engineers are quick to point the finger of blame at "greedy capitalists," but the blame lies not with the market, nor the market's propensity to profit. The blame lies squarely with the social engineers who dared to force the market to make loans to people who could not, or would not, repay them. The result is the current economic disaster.

Government, at every level, whether controlled by Democrats or Republicans, is full of social engineers. The recent elections added a bumper crop of rambunctious social engineers, all eager to intrude into the market wherever possible.

So Obama representing Clinton-Bush VI theme is further reinforced. And bad economic times will continue due to this policy:

Social engineers will "cap" allowable greenhouse gas emissions at a level they determine to be appropriate. This level will be substantially below the 1990 level, and require a dramatic reduction in the use of fossil fuel. This maximum emissions cap will be allocated among all the businesses that produce greenhouse gases, and each business will be required to reduce their emissions to this arbitrary limit – or – purchase "credits" from businesses that have not used their entire allotment. This is also known as putting an arbitrary value on hot air.

Businesses will be forced to buy credits – and pass the cost on to their customers. Or, they can invest in new technology, if available, and pass these costs on to their customers. Either way, higher energy costs are inevitable.

Energy is the fuel that powers the entire economy. This cap-and-trade engineering will force a reduction in energy use, forcing a reduction in economic output, at higher prices. The magnitude of economic impact of this scheme is negative beyond comprehension. The tragedy is that the scheme is totally unnecessary and, according to more than 31,000 scientists, will have no effect on global climate.

And the main source of social engineering is the United Nations:

Social engineers are also chomping at the bits to ratify more U.N. treaties, each with its own devastating consequences. The U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea was approved by the Foreign Relations Committee last December, but conservatives kept it away from a Senate vote. It will surely be revisited by this new crop of social engineers.

Another treaty high on the priority list is the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child. This treaty will effectively destroy the family, in that it gives government – not parents – the authority to dictate the way children are raised and educated.

Throughout the 20th century, social engineers steadily gained influence. The 21st century appears to be a continuation of this trend. This has been possible, not because their philosophy is valid; it clearly is not. Social engineering has expanded because the determination of their advocates has been met by apathy from their opponents.

Americans who believe in individual freedom, free markets, and the prosperous America created by our Founders, must realize that this wonderful system of government must be defended daily from the social engineers who believe they know best how everyone else should behave.

And I will issue a warning to my liberal friends to not confuse "social engineering" with "Natural Law". The former relies on the authority of men, which naturally leads to tyranny, which will be the end result of the New World Order if the plutocrats are successful with full implementation. The latter relies on the only authority that will provide maximum freedom…God.

GOP needs to return to principles

Katon Dawson explains what went wrong with the GOP:

Our elected officials, candidates and party leaders dutifully repeated the principles of our party, but once in office, too many abandoned those principles. Whether it was abandoning our commitment to fiscal responsibility, turning a blind eye to serious character flaws in some of our candidates, or providing a handout to big business at the expense of the American taxpayers, we seemed to lose the courage of our convictions. As President Reagan’s speechwriter Peggy Noonan has been quoted, "part of courage is simple consistency."

So here is the solution:

There are several steps that we must take to renew, reform and restore the greatness of the Republican Party.

Renew our commitment to our Party’s timeless principles…by reconfirming our commitment to be the party of smaller government, lower taxes, individual freedom, strong national security, respect for the sanctity of life, traditional marriage, the importance of family and the exceptionalism of America.

In South Dakota, the GOP attacks the family of those who are committed to "smaller government" and "lower taxes". Does the SD GOP have the courage to go down the road of reform and say no to the liberals?

For the health of the mother, ban abortion

More on the mounting evidence that abortion is not healthy for the mother:

A new research study featuring numerous controls and a national data set finds a link between abortion and psychiatric disorders. The study refutes the report the American Psychiatric Association released in August claiming abortion causes no mental health issues for women.

The research team found induced abortions result in increased risks for a myriad of mental health problems ranging from anxiety to depression to substance abuse disorders.

The number of cases of mental health issues rose by as much as 17 percent in women having abortions compared to those who didn't have one and the risks of each particular mental health problem rose as much as 145% for post-abortive women.

For 12 out of 15 of the mental health outcomes examined, a decision to have an abortion resulted in an elevated risk for women.

"Abortion was found to be related to an increased risk for a variety of mental health problems (panic attacks, panic disorder, agoraphobia, PTSD, bipolar disorder, major depression with and without hierarchy), and substance abuse disorders after statistical controls were instituted for a wide range of personal, situational, and demographic variables," they wrote.

"Calculation of population attributable risks indicated that abortion was implicated in between 4.3% and 16.6% of the incidence of these disorders," they concluded.

Dr. Priscilla Coleman, a professor of Human Development and Family Studies at Bowling Green State University, led the research team that conducted the study.

Together with Catherine Coyle of Edgewood College, researcher Martha Shuping and psychologist Dr. Vincent Rue, they published their results online today at the Journal of Psychiatric Research, a well-established and respected journal.

The researchers found women who had abortions, compared with those who didn't had a 120% risk for alcohol abuse, with or without dependence, a 145% increased risk of alcohol dependence, 79% increased risk of drug abuse with or without dependence and a 126% increase in the risk of drug dependence.

For mood disorders, the experience of an abortion increased risk of developing bipolar disorder by 167%, major depression without hierarchy by 45% and major depression with hierarchy by 48%.

For anxiety disorders, there was a 111% increased risk for panic disorders, 44% increased risk for panic attacks, 59% increased risk for PTSD, 95% increased risk for agoraphobia with or without panic disorder and a 93% increased risk for agoraphobia without panic disorder.

There was no mental health outcome showing abortion to have decreased the risk or a high risk for women who did not have an abortion.

The history behind “Under God”

Here is the history behind the Pledge of Allegiance:

The Rev. George M. Docherty, credited with helping to push Congress to insert the phrase "under God" into the Pledge of Allegiance, has died at 97.

Docherty died on Thanksgiving at his home in central Pennsylvania, according to his wife, Sue Docherty.

She said her husband of 36 years had been in failing health for about three years.

"George said he was going to live to be a hundred and he was determined," she said in a telephone interview Saturday. "It’s amazing that he was with us this long."

Docherty, then pastor of the New York Avenue Presbyterian Church in Washington, just blocks from the White House, gave a sermon in 1952 saying the pledge should acknowledge God.

He was born in Glasgow, Scotland, and was unfamiliar with the pledge until he heard it recited by his 7-year-old son, Garth.

"I didn’t know that the Pledge of Allegiance was, and he recited it, ‘one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all,’" he recalled in an interview with The Associated Press in 2004. "I came from Scotland, where we said ‘God save our gracious queen,’ ‘God save our gracious king.’ Here was the Pledge of Allegiance, and God wasn’t in it at all."

There was little effect from that initial sermon, but he delivered it again on Feb. 7, 1954, after learning that President Dwight Eisenhower would be at the church.

The next day, Rep. Charles G. Oakman, R-Mich., introduced a bill to add the phrase "under God" to the pledge, and a companion bill was introduced in the Senate. Eisenhower signed the law on Flag Day that year.

Communists cheer Obama’s socialism

From WorldNetDaily:

Communist Party USA leaders – including one who spoke with tears in his eyes – held a confab at which they celebrated the election of Barack Obama as "the biggest political realignment since the 1930s" and urged the immediate implementation of socialist policies.

The People's Weekly World, a weekly newspaper affiliated with the Communist Party USA, or CPUSA, reported on a meeting last week of top party leaders who celebrated Obama's election and announced a call to action to "carry out the election mandate, including immediate government steps to help Americans hit by the economic crisis and bringing peace to Iraq and Afghanistan."

CPUSA National Chairman Sam Webb noted the election represented "a necessary first step toward a new society."

He stated that a required remedy to the country's financial crisis "is massive fiscal expansion, large injections of federal money into the economy [to fund public works job programs, extend jobless benefits and food stamps and help Americans hold onto their homes]."

The communist newspaper reported party leaders attending the meeting supported projecting socialism as a fundamental solution to America's woes, claiming the U.S. is "now open to hearing more about [socialism]."

"We need to put out our vision of socialism and how it will come about," Webb stressed.

Social conservatives versus libertarians?

Here we have Mike Huckabee putting forward the social conservative versus libertarian divide:

Former Arkansas governor and presidential primary contender Mike Huckabee recently attacked Republicans for focusing too exclusively on libertarians and what they stand for—limited government, lower taxes, and increased personal liberty. He states in his new book, Do the Right Thing:

"The real threat to the Republican Party is something we saw a lot of this past election cycle: libertarianism masked as conservatism. And it threatens to not only split the Republican Party, but render it as irrelevant as the Whig Party."

The way he sees it, social issues must be solved first, then the country can move on to government-size and fiscal issues.

How about solving both issues at the same time? A while back a caller into the Rush Limbaugh program said that in order for a cause to take hold, their needs to be leaders who establish the philosophy of a cause. In a previous post, I said conservatives should pay careful attention to what Jonah Goldberg said on page 181 of his book, "Liberal Fascism":

Progressivism came to be renamed "liberalism". In the past, liberalism had referred to political and economic liberty as understood by Enlightenment thinkers like John Locke and Adam Smith. For them, the ultimate desideratum was maximum individual freedom under the benign protection of a minimalist state. The progressives, led by Dewey, subtly changed the meaning of this term, importing Prussian vision of liberalism as the alleviation of material and educational poverty, and liberation from old dogmas and old faiths. For progressives liberty no longer meant freedom from tyranny, but freedom from want, freedom to be a "constructive" citizen, the Rousseauian and Hegelian "freedom" of living in accord with the state and the general will. Classical liberals were now routinely called conservatives, while devotees of social control were dubbed liberals. This in 1935 John Dewey would write in Liberalism and Social Action that activist government in the name of economically disadvantaged and social reconstruction had "virtually come to define the meaning of liberal faith."

Given this worldview, it shouldn’t be surprising that so many liberals believed the Soviet Union was the freest place on earth. In a series of articles on the Soviet Union for the New Republic, Dewey hailed the grand "experiment" as the "liberation of a people to consciousness of themselves as a determining power in the shaping of their ultimate fate."

There are two points that need to be taken from that. First, conservatives need to understand that they are "classical liberals". We are suppose to adhere to the principles of freedom this country was founded on. Second, those principles are the polar opposite of the agenda that has been adopted by the public education system thanks to the work of John Dewey. That resulted in a movement that increased the role of government beyond the limited scope that founding fathers intended, and it also but man above God as noted in the Dewey quote;

"liberation of a people to consciousness of themselves as a determining power in the shaping of their ultimate fate."

To fix the libertarian problem of big government and the social conservative problem of immorality (caused by putting man above God), the common solution is education reform. Huckebee is wrong to say that the libertarians and the social conservatives are political enemies. And can Huckabee understand the importance of education reform for conservatives with his connection to the NEA?

Thanks to the indoctrination of public education, and the propaganda feed by the MSM, we have ideological confusion among conservatives, as explained by Star Parker:

According to the just published report, more Americans today call themselves conservative than liberal, and the relative percentages in each category has hardly changed since George W. Bush was elected to his first term in 2000.

Thirty eight percent of Americans self-identify as conservative, 21 percent as liberal, and 36 percent as moderate. This compares to 36 percent, 18 percent and 38 percent, respectively, in 2000.

But taking a closer look at what this means leaves you scratching your head. You have to wonder what it means today to think of yourself as conservative.

When asked if the Bush tax cuts should be made permanent, only 38 percent of those who said they are "conservative" said yes. And 50 percent of "conservatives" said they favor government guaranteeing health care "even if it means raising taxes."

Although 71 percent of "conservatives" said they oppose gay marriage, only slightly more than half, 52 percent, said that abortion should be illegal.

Star Parker then explains that fiscal conservative libertarians and social conservatism goes hand in hand:

Some argue that the party should lighten up on the social agenda. The party is all white, they say, and there is no future without Latinos and blacks.

But consider the obvious. First, conservatives define the Republican Party. According to this study, 68 percent of Republicans call themselves conservative.

Second, it should be obvious from the above, that if conservatives are rooted anywhere, it's more in the social agenda than in the fiscal and limited government agenda. Where in the world would the party be if the leadership tried to uproot from social conservatism?

Third, consider what is going on with blacks and Latinos.

In this same Pew survey, 25 percent of all Democrats called themselves conservatives. But among these same Democrats, 35 percent of blacks call themselves conservative compared to 21 percent of whites.

Why? Blacks are social conservatives. Blacks understand the havoc that moral relativism has caused in their communities. And, this is also the case with Latinos.

As was widely reported, blacks and Latinos voted for Proposition 8 in California, supporting traditional marriage, despite the majority of them also voting for President-elect Barack Obama.

So where is the logic in Republicans abandoning social conservatism in order to reach blacks and Latinos?

It appears that the message getting lost is the importance of limited government and fiscal conservatism.

Health care is almost 20 percent of our national economy. Too many are not getting what it will mean when bureaucrats will define what health care is and when the IRS comes knocking to check on the policy you bought. Too many seem to have forgotten that prosperity is created by individual freedom and creativity and not government programs.

These are tough times and families are under duress. Perhaps it's tempting to think that opening the door to more government is a good idea. Particularly in an environment where every day another half trillion-dollar check is being cut in Washington for bailout programs.

When most Americans say they are conservative, they mean it. Too many, however, are forgetting that this means limited government as well as traditional values. We need new, energetic Republican leaders to get this message across.

The need for new Republican leaders is also true in South Dakota. Currently the leadership of the SD GOP is blaming social conservatives for splitting the party with the abortion fight, and blaming the libertarian-minded reforms that are to reduce the size and scope of government for making the GOP look like crooks. Oddly, it seems that these two movements embody most of the GOP platform. Perhaps the mistake is the thinking of that Huckabee brought forward...that fiscal conservatives and social conservatives cannot work together. And I say they can and they should and they need to. And the issue to unite the two grass roots movements is education reform.

Media retaliates and wins

NetRightNation has a post on the impact mass media had in the Democratic take over of America:

Bluntly put, those who refuse to believe that mass media propaganda is not a problem in America today, really need to wake up and smell the proverbial coffee. Because if it is not addressed by those in top leadership positions, America could well wind up with one party rule for generations to come.

One could point to President Bush’s victory in Florida in 2000, via the Supreme Court Decision, Bush v. Gore, as the start of the endless media onslaught, which finally ended on November 4th, 2008 with the election victory of Barack Obama. Ever since 2000, mass media have been waging a relentless campaign to oust Republicans from the White House and Congress. And now they have succeeded.

There is no question that mass media wanted Barack Obama to win. Just ask former DNC Chairman Terry McAuliffe: "You know what - every independent study has said that this is the most biased coverage they have ever seen in a presidential campaign."

Just how broad and pervasive mass media propaganda favoring the Left actually is has not been adequately aired. And it’s not just the news media; it is every medium extant, from the "Idiot Box" to the silver screen to the CD and I-Pod, and even the burgeoning Internet. In short, there is an outlet for every audience for this propaganda—and the left is in control of virtually every venue.

The post ends with this interesting statistic:

And here is why: 7 out of 10 young people voted for Barack Obama, and that trend only needs to persist for a generation or two before the left has one party control over all facets of government.

So I will add the importance at the bias found in the public education system. It is 70% effective in turning votes for the Marxist based socialism. ANd in a tyranny of mob rule, you only need 51%. Journalists are also impacted by the Left’s agenda found in the curriculums and standards. If conservatives want to get to the root cause of the problem, then education reform must be are rallying cry and a uniting cause. Those who are not with use, are not true conservatives.

Rounds issues warning to new legislators

Earlier we learned from Pat Powers that Governor Rounds is running the state legislture. Here he issues some guidance to new legislators:

Legislative Research Council workers already are busy getting bills ready for the 2009 legislative session, which opens January 13.

Executive Director Jim Fry says the workload so far is mostly bills supported by government agencies and veteran lawmakers. Fry says 500-550 bills usually are introduced in a 40-day session. He also says there will be 33 new legislators who might be reluctant to introduce bills this year.

Governor Mike Rounds says lobbyists and others might persuade some of the new lawmakers to introduce bills that have been brought forth in the past and defeated.

Orientation for new lawmakers starts Monday at the Capitol.

You know when you are out of line by getting called into the Governor’s office.

Thanksgiving goes to God

Bob Ellis has a great post regarding the "real" Thanksgiving message that gives thanks to God:

Thanksgiving is a great day for the retelling of the abysmal failure of the notion that would be popularized by Karl Marx.

We usually think of Marxism and its slightly more benevolent brother socialism are relatively new, and that is true on a world scale. But the idea that human nature can be denied and Utopian sentiments will lead everyone to gleefully share their resources--no matter how hard or how little they have worked for their share--has been around a long time.

The Roman Empire flirted with it, and it contributed to their decline.

But some Americans flirted with socialism long before Karl Marx was ever born. And like everyone who has tried it and had the intellectual honesty to give it an objective appraisal, they found it to be the usual pathetic failure.

Joseph Farah at WorldNetDaily tells of how the Pilgrims played with socialism... and it almost cost them their lives.

To say that social experiment was a total failure would be an understatement. The first winter spelled death and disease and hunger for the colony because the Pilgrims had arrived too late in the season to plant crops and build adequate shelters. Half of them died. The following spring, however, they planted and hunted and fished to get by – just barely. They did invite some of the friendly Indians to join them in their first "Thanksgiving" celebration. But they were not thanking the Indians. They were thanking God for pulling them through.

And here is more on this issue that points to the indoctrination of public education that gives the false message most adhere to in regard to Thanksgiving:

Each year at this time school children all over America are taught the official Thanksgiving story, and newspapers, radio, TV, and magazines devote vast amounts of time and space to it. It is all very colorful and fascinating.

It is also very deceiving. This official story is nothing like what really happened. It is a fairy tale, a whitewashed and sanitized collection of half-truths which divert attention away from Thanksgiving's real meaning.

The official story has the pilgrims boarding the Mayflower, coming to America and establishing the Plymouth colony in the winter of 1620-21. This first winter is hard, and half the colonists die. But the survivors are hard working and tenacious, and they learn new farming techniques from the Indians. The harvest of 1621 is bountiful. The Pilgrims hold a celebration, and give thanks to God. They are grateful for the wonderful new abundant land He has given them.

The official story then has the Pilgrims living more or less happily ever after, each year repeating the first Thanksgiving. Other early colonies also have hard times at first, but they soon prosper and adopt the annual tradition of giving thanks for this prosperous new land called America.

The problem with this official story is that the harvest of 1621 was not bountiful, nor were the colonists hardworking or tenacious. 1621 was a famine year and many of the colonists were lazy thieves.

In his 'History of Plymouth Plantation,' the governor of the colony, William Bradford, reported that the colonists went hungry for years, because they refused to work in the fields. They preferred instead to steal food. He says the colony was riddled with "corruption," and with "confusion and discontent." The crops were small because "much was stolen both by night and day, before it became scarce eatable."

In the harvest feasts of 1621 and 1622, "all had their hungry bellies filled," but only briefly. The prevailing condition during those years was not the abundance the official story claims, it was famine and death. The first "Thanksgiving" was not so much a celebration as it was the last meal of condemned men.

But in subsequent years something changes. The harvest of 1623 was different. Suddenly, "instead of famine now God gave them plenty," Bradford wrote, "and the face of things was changed, to the rejoicing of the hearts of many, for which they blessed God." Thereafter, he wrote, "any general want or famine hath not been amongst them since to this day." In fact, in 1624, so much food was produced that the colonists were able to begin exporting corn.

What happened?

After the poor harvest of 1622, writes Bradford, "they began to think how they might raise as much corn as they could, and obtain a better crop." They began to question their form of economic organization.

This had required that "all profits & benefits that are got by trade, working, fishing, or any other means" were to be placed in the common stock of the colony, and that, "all such persons as are of this colony, are to have their meat, drink, apparel, and all provisions out of the common stock." A person was to put into the common stock all he could, and take out only what he needed.

This "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" was an early form of socialism, and it is why the Pilgrims were starving. Bradford writes that "young men that are most able and fit for labor and service" complained about being forced to "spend their time and strength to work for other men's wives and children." Also, "the strong, or man of parts, had no more in division of victuals and clothes, than he that was weak." So the young and strong refused to work and the total amount of food produced was never adequate.

To rectify this situation, in 1623 Bradford abolished socialism. He gave each household a parcel of land and told them they could keep what they produced, or trade it away as they saw fit. In other words, he replaced socialism with a free market, and that was the end of famines.

And Bob Ellis correctly ties that historical account to today:

America obviously needs to read and heed this lesson, and it needs the lesson BADLY, since just earlier this month we elected a transparently socialist president.

Despite the idealistic notions of Marxists, socialists and liberals, human nature does not change and has never changed since the Garden of Eden.

Socialism never works better, either. While throwing more money at it can stave off the inevitable results, those end results remain inevitable for the civilization that doggedly insists on riding that horse to the bitter end--over a cliff of disappointment, decay and destruction.

It's not too late to turn around, America. Let's return to our historic roots of freedom, personal responsibility and limited government before it's too late to stop the horse.

Amen to that.

Again, we have the Educrats using the public education system to foster their secular humanist agenda. The giving thanks to God does not fit the "secular" agenda. Giving thanks to men, specifically Indians, does fit the "multicultural" agenda. And now America, lead by the indoctrinated youth, is about to put into the Whites House a person who has confused Marxism for Christianity. It was the racist and intolerant multiculturist agenda that fueled the Obama crusade. It was the Marxist, tax the rich agenda, that ignored the Biblical Law of coveting that fueled the Obama crusade. It is not unity, but fragmentation that is the fruit of Obama's Marxist based agenda. And that is bad fruit.

The "change" is full adoption of the socialist agenda that history proofs to be destructive and the cause of poverty. Time to restore Truth and freedom in America. Time for the Conservative Underground to come to the surface and give the Obama Marxist based agenda a real resistance.