Sibby Online

The Marxist’s “mandatory volunteerism”

"Mandatory volunteerism" is an oxymoron that puts the face of hypocrisy on the radical left’s lies. And Bob Ellis has been ahead of me on the so-called "Give Act":

Tonchi Weaver, a fellow patriot in Rapid City, brought to my attention the "Born Again American" site today.

On the surface, this website may initially strike one as good, patriotic, and traditional. After all, it has the good ole’ red, white and blue colors; it speaks of love of country; it speaks of voter involvement; it speaks of being American.

But then you recall the context of public discussion these days, and you start to wonder.

There’s an awful lot of talk on the website about volunteering and volunteerism. You might recall the recent push from the Obama Administration for mandatory volunteerism (how’s that for Orwellian?) and the GIVE Act (though the mandatory provisions ended up coming out, it was originally a TAKE Act, as in, to take your freedoms). With giving and volunteerism in America higher than anywhere else in the world, all this blather from a Marxist-leaning government seems more than a little out of place, doesn’t it?

Bob has a very long post that is well worth a read. He has research that tie the "People for the American Way". Bob ends his post with this:

In the end, I would have to surmise that "Born Again American" is a slickly-packaged piece of propaganda designed to inoculate people against strong reactions to the "mandatory volunteerism" sure to follow in subsequent "tweaking" of the GIVE (aka TAKE) Act. Get folks all happy about being a "Born Again American" who loves to volunteer…then just take the "voluntary" aspect out of volunteerism.

It sounds homey. It sounds patriotic. It sounds American. But if it’s goals are anything like PAW and Barack Obama’s mandatory volunteerism, it is anything but American.

Bob is right on here. How can a government mandated action be considered "volunteerism". Only the radical left would attempt to pull of such lies.

ACORN protected by Democrats

My research into the GIVE act, the mandatory enlistment of youth into Obama’s Marxist regime not surprisingly included ACORN:

Sen. David Vitter (R-Louisiana) tried to stand up for civil society and taxpayers last week but his effort was shot down by liberal Democratic senators.

Vitter tried to prevent the radical direct-action group, ACORN, and its affiliates from benefitting under the odious national service legislation known as the (proposed) GIVE Act. The bill itself, which received a glowing review from John Podesta's pro-Obama propaganda factory, the Center for American Progress, would give government money to volunteer programs and would dramatically expand the feel-good liberal program, AmeriCorps, which ACORN and other groups have used to promote their own political objectives.

Vitter's amendment to the bill known as HR1388 would have prevented ACORN from receiving funding under the legislation and from participating in any program authorized by it involving the use of government-sponsored volunteers.

Vitter noted in a press release that ACORN is

currently under federal investigation, and this is simply not the sort of organization that should be funded by taxpayer dollars. Although this bill prevents the use of funds for political activities, a loophole exists that would allow volunteers sponsored by the federal government to work on behalf of ACORN, freeing up ACORN workers to engage in voter registration activities. The fact that ACORN has been caught engaging in a number of suspect activities is of even more concern. [emphasis added]

On the Senate floor March 26, Vitter explained further, saying of his amendment:

It says no money under this program could go to ACORN or any of its affiliates. Although it is about that one organization, I think the amendment goes to the heart of this debate.

A lot of us are concerned this bill could politicize and put too much Government involvement in charitable work across the country.

Some folks may like ACORN, other folks may not, but nobody can argue that ACORN isn't at its core political and ideological. It should not get money under this program. The language in the bill that says you can't do political activity with the money clearly isn't good enough, because ACORN and other very political and ideological groups would simply have charitable offshoots that could accept the money and be underwritten indirectly in that way.

Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-Maryland), long a friend of ACORN, objected. She made a motion to kill Vitter's amendment, saying "I think this is an amendment that has no purpose and [sic] has Draconian consequences if passed." Senators agreed, voting 53 to 43 to kill the amendment. The only Democratic senators to vote with Vitter were Robert Byrd of West Virginia and Ben Nelson of Nebraska.

The original version of HR1388 passed by the House contained an amendment offered by Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-North Carolina) that prohibited organizations involved in "engaged in political or legislative advocacy" from receiving funding.

But two left-wing pressure groups distorted Foxx's amendment and demanded its removal. "The First Amendment protects against speech restrictions such as those in [this] amendment," said OMB Watch. The Center for Lobbying in the Public Interest said Foxx's amendment was "anti-nonprofit" and "anti-democratic," and added that "civic participation is the touchstone of American democracy."

Of course, their arguments were nonsense because groups are not required to take funding from the government, but Sen. Mikulski did ACORN's bidding, filing a substitute bill in the Senate that took out Foxx's provisions. The bill was approved by the Senate on a 79 to 19 vote.

The bill could be revisited by the House at any time and soon be on its way to President Obama's desk for his signature.

Mandatory enlistment into Obama’s Marxist regime

My previous post on the "GIVE Act" sparked more research that lead to concern regarding the "mandatory" aspect of this legislation that is currently in Conference:

"One can applaud" the Obama administration's promotion of volunteerism, writes Ronald Goldfarb at The Hill's Pundits blog,

"and at the same time ask..... [w]hy not a uniform requirement of national service for every 18-year-old or high school graduate?"

Goldfarb, a veteran of the Camelot era, served his country in uniform, so perhaps he has a better right to pose this question than many.

We know how, in a moment of exuberance, Obama spoke of a "national civilian security force" on the campaign trail.

We know that the GIVE Act, recently passed by the Senate, originally contained a provision to explore the idea of compulsory national service.

And I know this: if Obama tried to introduce compulsory national service for "every 18-year-old or high school graduate," he would instantly destroy the better part of his political capital with young people, even alienating his most ardent supporters.

The idea of compulsory anything -- let alone giving two or three years of your young adulthood to the State -- is utterly foreign to the so-called Millennial generation.

It will be interesting to see how, where, and when, this idea next rears it head.

Congress, Herseth Sandlin, Johnson approve Marxist takeover via H.R. 1388

On March 18, Representative Herseth Sandlin joined into the passage of H.R. 1388. On March 26, Senator Johnson also joined into the passage, with Senator Thune voted "Nay". There has been little coverage of this legislation, but this is a very dangerous advance of Obama’s Marxist movement:

The biting winds of change are blowing through ObamaNation. The same "volunteerism" that kept America running since the days of its founding, wiped out with the stroke of a pen, will no longer be volunteerism. It becomes forced labor and like the practice of another era, presses American citizens of all ages and creeds, unknowingly into military service.

On paper, H.R. 1388 is the "Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education Act"; the more innocuous sounding "The Give Act", for short. But "The Give Act" is not part of Obama’s distant future for unsuspecting American citizens, because it hit the House floor on March 18th.

Democrat Rep. Carolyn McCarthy is sponsoring the bill with 25 co-sponsors, Democrats down to the last one. Ayes and Nays 321-105, with 70 Republicans voting "Aye.".

The Give Act puts the finishing touches to Public Allies New Leadership for New Times, modeled after Saul Alinsky’s "Peoples Organizations" and operating under Michelle Obama with an alleged operating budget of more than $75-million a year. According to a Fact Sheet About Public Allies, "President Obama was a member of the founding advisory board of the non-profit organization. Michelle Obama was the founding Executive Director of Public Allies Chicago from Spring, 1993 until Fall 1996 (italics CFP’s). She served on Public Allies national board of directors from 1997 until 2002. Obama was no longer on the board when Michelle was hired.

Like most things Alinsky, H.R. 1388 sounds noble in stating why wide-sweeping change is necessary. "The Give Act" aims to "leverage investments to increase State, local, business and philanthropic resources to address national and local challenges."

Comprehensive in its power, H.R. 1388 goes straight to the heart of volunteerism in America, impacting everything from the lemonade stands of neighborhood children, to the residents of senior citizens homes.

"American volunteers" from across the spectrum, once pressed into service of the Civilian Community Corps, in the fullness of time, shall be called the "National Civilian Community Corps."

You might want to run, but you can’t hide from H.R. 1388.

Whether you are young or old, or firmly believe that volunteering means you are offering your time to the good of community work, you will be pressed into Obama’s National Civilian Community Corps.

The National Civilian Community Corps is year-round and will impose itself on children away at summer camp. Even private schools will not be immune from its membership.

Down through the generations, wearing a uniform has always appealed to the sincere at heart.

According to H.R. 1388, "the Director determines appropriate "uniforms."

Membership is mandatory!

Update: Check out this amendment to the bill:

H.AMDT.49 to H.R.1388 cancels out -- "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Obama’s Marxist Movement

I just stated a new section at my side bar called "Obama’s Marxist Movement". This has gotten serious enough to put the research into one spot. There you will find a link that describes the Obama’s Marxist Machinery:

On the web page, "The Movement" it says that Obama has...

...been organizing the cadre of his personal, civilian national security force -- his "shadow army" -- at fifteen fully-staffed and populated indoctrination centers since 1992.

Public Allies, modeled after Alinsky's "people’s organizations," is operating under the watchful eye of Michelle Obama and it has a ton of money -- more than $75 million per year -- and an impressive list of donors. Naturally, it also receives grants from federal, state and municipal sources. Its mission has been, and is, to produce "community organizers" -- baby Obamas -- and its process is replicable and repeatable -- continually producing more apparatchiks in "the community," where these people are perceived of as leaders. They answer to only one person -- Obama.

These community organizers have constituencies that can be mobilized, at the touch of a button, into political actions -- mobs in the streets -- to influence public opinion and the political process -- real visual stuff that Obama's water-carriers in the media will broadcast 24/7.

In addition to these shock troops, Obama has a reserve of 13 million-plus in his personal database that he is actively expanding. This pool of Internet-savvy people can be used to promote or attack any issue. Obama can direct tens of thousands of emotional emails, phone calls and letters on any target.

Now, Breitbart reports in, "Obama musters campaign army for economic fight," that Obama is out to do just that -- to muster his powerful people's army, calling on his millions of supporters to write letters, make phone calls and send emails to lobby on behalf of his budget and economic plan.

The appeal to back the president was made in an email and video sent out by "Organizing for America," the organization which morphed out of Obama's campaign machinery to push his agenda when he entered the White House.

In the video, Mitch Stewart, the director of "Organizing for America," urged the president's supporters to take part in the "Organizing for America Pledge Project."

"By pledging and building support you will be taking the first steps towards establishing a nationwide grassroots network, neighborhood by neighborhood, standing side by side with President Obama as we bring about our agenda for change."

David Plouffe says that "Organizing for America" is not aimed at twisting the arms of members of Congress but meant to keep activists engaged on issues such as health care, energy and the economy. When Obama's people control health care, energy and the economy, they pretty much have you by the shorts.

Good little Maoists swim with the fishes. Change is implemented bottom-up. Alinsky says so

If need be, you can expect to see the demonstrations, led by Obama's trained and ready-to-go community organizers --and ACORN will have its part to play.

Their "actions" will be all over TV, dramatically described by "independent journalists" like David Gregory and Chris Matthews.

Senator Vehle, King of tax and spend

Here is a District 20 Senator Mike Vehle thought about the 2009 South Dakota legislative session:

Sen. Mike Vehle, R-Mitchell, thought the Legislature did an "excellent job" of dealing with stimulus money and budget challenges, but he was disappointed with transportation funding.

Vehle introduced SB 201, which would have increased the fuel tax on non-ethanol blends from 22 cents to 25 cents. The rejection of that bill — and other bills that would have put money into the state transportation budget — may make for some difficult financial decisions next year.

"If we have some bad winters, I wouldn’t want to be the secretary of transportation," Vehle said.

In the year ended June 30, 2008, the Department of Transportation spend $400 million, including $223 million from the federal government. The final approved 2010 budget gave the DOT $597 million (almost a 50% increase) thanks to $414 million from the federal government. And Senator Vehle was "disappointed with transportation funding"?!? Wow!! He still holds the postion that we add taxes during a recession!?!

Vehle has proven his ultra liberal radical left ideology. And he will continue to be a hero with District 20 GOP County Commissioners, GOP City Councilors, and the GOP Mayor because he will fight to add more and more taxpayer money to their budgets. The District 20 GOP leadership have no clue what fiscal conservatism is about, A primary challenge against Vehle would have little chance of succeeding. That was what I was told in 2008, and I don’t see any of that changing.

So what does a conservative do?

RINO wrongly gets credit

The open government award goes to Dave Knudson:

Sen. Dave Knudson of Sioux Falls was given the Eagle Award from the South Dakota Newspaper Association for his sponsorship of open-records legislation that recently was signed into law.

The annual award goes to an individual or group that has worked to protect and enhance the people's right to know. It was presented Friday evening at the 127th annual SDNA convention in Watertown.

"For me, it represented the culmination of where my thoughts were," Knudson said Saturday. "What I thought was the right thing to do has changed quite a bit over the last 24 months, and it was an intellectual journey for me concluding that the presumption of openness is the way to go."

It was Senator Turbak Berry who lead the fight for this legislation, and it is sad that the GOP controlled legislature set it up to make it look like Knudson was the hero. Like the above report states, Knudson was not in favor of the issue, and had to find a way to stop the GOP bleeding on the corruption charges from their public-private partnerships connected with economic development through government, or what the liberals call "crony capitalism". Which is a dishonest label. Government involvement to the degree of public-private partnerships is crony "socialism".

There were other open government enhancements during the 20098 session, and those who supported IM10 will not get any credit neither.

Obama’s Townhall stacked

My research on FDR includes the trait of being dishonest, and so is Obama:

an event billed as an opportunity for the American people to ask questions of an "open" and "transparent" administration, the only fully identified inquirers plucked from the audience, it turns out, were Obama campaign supporters.

At last week's "Open for Questions" forum, the full transcript and video of which is posted on the White House website, Obama answered several questions selected from a reported 100,000 queries posted online. He also took a handful of questions, in town hall fashion, from those in attendance at the event.

But according to a Washington Post report, those audience members the president chose included "a member of the pro-Obama Service Employees International Union, a member of the Democratic National Committee who campaigned for Obama among Hispanics during the primary; a former Democratic candidate for Virginia state delegate who endorsed Obama last fall in an op-ed in the Fredericksburg Free Lance-Star; and a Virginia businessman who was a donor to Obama's campaign in 2008."

After answering concerns submitted by online inquirers – including a question about legalization of marijuana that prompted the president to joke about the composition of the online community – Obama invited six audience members to pose questions.

The first questioner, named Ellie, wasn't fully identified on the White House transcript of the event. The other five, however, were people later pegged as Obama campaign backers.

Al Gore’s hypocrisy

No surprised that the leader of the environmental extremists got caught in an act of hypocrisy:

Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" may have inspired many to participate in yesterday's "Earth Hour" by switching off their lights from 8:30 p.m. to 9 p.m., but maybe the former vice president didn't get the memo.

Drew Johnson, the president of the Tennessee Center for Policy Research, decided to drive by Gore's mansion in Nashville at 8:48 p.m. and records that floodlights were on illuminating the driveway leading up to the main quarter.

"I pulled up to Al's house, located in the posh Belle Meade section of Nashville, at 8:48 p.m. – right in the middle of Earth Hour," he wrote on his blog. "I found that the main spotlights that usually illuminate his 9,000 square foot mansion were dark, but several of the lights inside the house were on."

He added: "The kicker, though, were the dozen or so floodlights grandly highlighting several trees and illuminating the driveway entrance of Gore’s mansion. I [kid] you not, my friends, the savior of the environmnent couldn’t be bothered to turn off the gaudy lights that show off his goofy trees."

Parental rights at stake

Protecting families require protection of parental rights. There is an effort to put constitutional power behind parents:

Though efforts to pass a constitutional amendment protecting parental rights have failed in the past, two U.S. legislators are preparing to reintroduce the idea this week; and this time, they say, the effort is backed by more than 60 congressional members.

Rep. Peter Hoekstra, R-Mich., who introduced a parental rights amendment by himself last year, told the Agence France-Presse that he will be joined by Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., on Tuesday as they renew the fight.

According to a statement released to AFP by Hoekstra's office, the amendment "would clearly outline in the U.S. Constitution that parents, not government or any other organization, have a fundamental right to raise their children as they see fit."

"At a time when government at every level seems to encroach upon the ability of parents to choose the best for their children," Hoekstra writes on his website, "it is important to preserve parental rights into the Constitution."

Last summer Hoekstra introduced H.J.R. 97, proposing a constitutional amendment stating that the liberty of parents to direct the upbringing and education of their children is a fundamental right that cannot be infringed upon by federal, state, or international treaty law without demonstrating government interest "of the highest order." Hoekstra asserts that legitimate cases of abuse and neglect fall under the "demonstrated government interest" clause.

Without any co-sponsors, however, H.J.R 97 died in committee.

According to ParentalRights.org, an organization dedicated to seeing the amendment passed, this year's effort, in addition to senatorial support from DeMint, has recruited 65 U.S. representatives who have committed to joining Hoekstra in co-sponsoring a parental rights amendment.

As WND reported, the president of the world's premier homeschool advocacy organization made a case for the amendment in a Washington Times commentary published last year:

"Few dispute the vital role of parents in raising the next generation, but, regrettably, few recognize that the fundamental role of parents is under direct attack," wrote J. Michael Smith, president of the Homeschool Legal Defense Association.

Smith pointed to the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child, an internation treaty approved by the Clinton administration but stalled by opposition in the Senate, as one example of governmental attempts to infringe on parental rights.

"It's possible that in the near future, the United States may significantly weaken the rights of parents to raise their children," Smith wrote. "Crucial decisions that parents are accustomed to making, such as what our children read, who they associate with, what kind of discipline is used, whether we take them to church, or whether we homeschool, all become decisions for the state if the United States ratifies the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child."

He continued, "By allowing the government to define and determine what is in the 'best interests of the child,' outside the context of abuse and neglect cases, the UNCRC in effect diminishes the parental role, replacing it with government supervision."

As WND reported, Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., last month urged a hurry-up timetable for adoption of the UNCRC.