Sibby Online

Progressives can’t solve problems

The only thing that I would add to this Craige McMillan column is that the "liberals" are members of the Progressive movement that are following the philosophy of Hegel:

A recent letter in The Economist contained a very telling phrase. It was all the more so because the letter spans Russia and England in its concerns:

"For the majority of Russians, Mr. Khodorkovsky continues to personify the excesses of 1990s capitalism, when the dubious activities of the few exacerbated the misery of millions. To understand the depth of such animosity look no further than the anger presently directed towards bankers such as Sir Fred Goodwin, Royal Bank of Scotland's former boss. Rightly or wrongly, such figures come to represent everything that was wrong with the former system. ..."

The important words are: "former system."

Aside from the egregious error of mistaking capitalism for the national criminal syndicate that emerged in Russia under "Mad Vlad" Putin's pay-to-play government, the letter writer makes two flawed assumptions. The first is that capitalism is now a "former" economic system (he does not elaborate what the current system might be). The second – and key misassumption – is that the problems that emerged under capitalism were due to flaws in the capitalist "system."

The left's underlying problem – in the end, the only one that matters – is their flawed view of humankind. Liberals view humanity as a collection of little toy robots. In the liberal mind, all that is necessary is that humanity be placed in the correct "system" to march in joyous harmony to the state's tune. Stalin and Mao both tried. Combined, they murdered over 60 million of their own citizens to create the "joyous harmony" of the communist system, worshiped by today's left.

In the leftist mind, there is no God, there is no heaven, and there is no hell. As a consequence, there is nothing larger than humankind. Thus we are entirely governed, each by our own self-interest. Liberals believe that it is impossible an individual will act outside of their own self-interest, in support of a larger cause. Mankind is therefore meldable in support of the liberal view of history.

But if history shows anything, it shows that man is not meldable. The early Greek comic and tragic writings demonstrate the same human frailties we see in such abundance today: Lust, anger, envy, greed, pride and a desire to rule over others.

These are not the issues that little robots struggle with. But they are the issues that men and women struggle with every day of their lives. Wishing it were otherwise, and acting as if it were so, ensures only disaster.

This is why the left can never solve mankind's problems. Liberals have a flawed view of humanity. Their fantastically expensive and freedom-robbing statist "systems" are created to rule robots and doomed to failure when governing humanity.

Indoctrination centers are stimulus?

This will not help the economy much:

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 will provide South Dakota with more than $102 million in federal funding for projects in Indian Country from the Department of Interior.

Funding includes more than $5 million for Cheyenne-Eagle Butte School to re-roof buildings; more than $1.7 million for Cheyenne River; $564,402 for the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe; funding for the Crow Creek Tribal School for full reconstruction of a K-12 school; $320,000 for Takini High School to renovate buildings and grounds; and $37,000 for Tiyospaye Topa School for repairs.

Spending taxpayers dollars on Progressive’s indoctrination centers to promote government dependency is not going to stimulate the economy. It will only further the tyranny that Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson and FDR set out to establish.

Corporate elite are liberal elite

Rush Limbaugh makes a point that should give Progressives a pause when they equate corporate America to conservative Republicans, and now they are being owned by the Obama Regime:

RUSH: The further we go down the road trying to make it work the deeper the well we dig for ourselves, the deeper the pit and the harder and longer it's going to be to get out of it. This shift of the Masters of the Universe, the corporate elite from around the world, this shift of theirs leftward is made up of many things. It is made up of, yeah, they would love to off-load all their unfunded liabilities, the health care plans that they have and pension plans, what have you. But they're also, many of them, as time has evolved, they're Democrats, they've come out of business schools, and they're liberals, they're Democrats. It's another myth that big business is a bunch of fat cat Republicans. Plus, you add to this, now, that these people are running scared of every government, they're just running.

Obama is making it clear, I mean if you ran a bank, if you ran any kind of business today that this administration thinks is a problem, Obama has just made it very clear, if he wants to, he can come claim your business, and he can fire you, and he can tell others what people that work in your business are going to make. When things like this happen, a lot more people than you would realize become cowards, rather than standing up and fighting it, they just slink away, try to go along with it, take care of themselves, not make any waves so as not to aggravate the beast that's out there breathing fire and brimstone at others, 'cause you don't want the fire and brimstone being breathed on you. So you don't say anything, you go along with it. In my 58 years, I have never had the sense that so many people are so genuinely afraid of their government, from all walks of life, as they are today. And, believe me, that is being exploited by people who love us being afraid of them.

Remember I was just talking about how the leftward tilt of corporate America and the corporate world and they're just frightened? Plus a lot of them are liberal Democrats anyway coming out of MIT, Wharton, the Harvard Business School and so forth. But here, Wall Street Journal today: "Citigroup Inc., soon to be one-third owned by the U.S. government, is asking the Treasury for permission to pay special bonuses to many key employees," These are the famous retention bonuses. "The request comes as Citigroup is grappling with broad government pay restrictions that could break apart its legendary energy-trading unit. People at that unit, Phibro, are threatening to leave because of pay caps," caps on their pay, "tied to the U.S. bailout of Citigroup. Phibro has been the source of hundreds of millions of dollars in profits for the bank, and has paid out hefty compensation, including a roughly $100 million windfall last year for the unit's leader, Andrew Hall."

Now, uhhh, I understand. If you're going to take federal money, they're going to have common stock and they're going to own it, but I have to tell you. I have to tell you, folks, as a good old-fashioned red-blooded American, I cringe. It just rubs me the wrong way for a bank to be asking Obama -- asking Treasury or asking Obama -- for permission to pay bonuses. Good! Lord! Citibank is a big bank. I know the government's going to own a third of it. That's not a solution; that's an objective. But they have to call the Department of Treasury and ask for permission to pay bonuses to keep key people? That ought to embarrass everybody. And after it embarrasses you, it ought to make you mad. And you might be saying, "Well, they ought to have to ask permission, Mr. Limbaugh. They have screwed us blind! They have raised our credit card interest rates. They are unkind, charged us ATM fees." Alright, fine. You sit back and let this happen, and pretty soon it isn't going to be long before you're going to have to call the government for permission to go to the bathroom and use a certain kind of toilet paper.

Obama attacks dissent

Tonight I noticed Obama did not let Fox News ask a question. Rush Limbaugh noticed Obama mocked Fox News and the citizens who attended the Tea Parties:

RUSH: We're back. President Obama today is out celebrating his first 100 days in orifice. He went to my home state of Missouri. He went to Arnold, Missouri, at Fox High School. I have two sound bites from President Obama. And those of you -- and there were hundreds of thousands of you --who attended tea parties on April 15th, I want you to know that President Obama, the president of all the people, The One, the Most Merciful, was really irritated by what you did. He does not like at all what you did. And he doesn't think what you did was worth the time you spent on it. We have two sound bites here. Here's the first.

OBAMA: Those of you who are watching certain news channels, on which I'm not very popular, and you see folks waving tea bags around, let me just remind them that I am happy to have a serious conversation about how we are going to cut our health care costs down over the long term, how we're gonna stabilize Social Security. Let's not play games and pretend that the reason is because of the Recovery Act, because that's just a fraction of the overall problem that we've got.

RUSH: Now, this is not wise. This is a man who supposedly has great political instincts, correct? Barack Obama. But this is a bitter clinger moment here. He's looking at you people that went to the tea parties, and he doesn't like you at all, "waving tea bags around, let me just remind them I'm happy to have a serious conversation about how we are --" You know, he's not president of all the people. I mean, he's cold, and he's partisan. It's going to start trickling out. Things that irritate him, he's going to eventually let it be known how irritated he is. He says let's "have a serious conversation about how we're going to cut our health care costs over the long term." You know how we're going to do that, we're going to raise taxes, and then we're going to have government programs. Health care costs are impossible to come down the way he's going to do it. Can anybody tell me when government's lowered the cost of anything? It's not going to happen. But the tea parties were not even about health care. The tea parties were about his irresponsible spending, his irresponsible growth of government, his irresponsible power grab over individual liberty and freedom. Here's the second sound bite he had for those of you who attended the tea parties.

OBAMA: We are going to have to tighten our belts, but we're going to have to do it in an intelligent way, and we gotta make sure that the people who are helped are working American families and we're not suddenly saying that the -- the way to do this is to eliminate programs that help ordinary people and give more tax cuts to the wealthy. We tried that formula for eight years. It did not work, and I don't intend to go back to it.

RUSH: Boy, he's really fit to be tied here. We're going to have to tighten our belts? What do you call 600,000 people losing their jobs every month, Mr. President? Is that not tightening their belts? We're going to have to do it in an intelligent way, make sure that people who are helped are working American families, in other words, the only way anybody's going to get ahead in Obama's world is if the government's there shepherding you through your day. It's just plain wrong, and it will never happen, and if it's tried, it will fail. Eliminate programs, we're not suddenly saying the way to do this is to eliminate programs -- listen to this. We're talking about individual prosperity and success, and he's talking about government programs. I don't know about you, folks, I haven't needed a government program for my success. Now, I know, a lot of people -- and I'm not talking about unemployment or any of this kind of thing. I have not needed a government program for my success. And the people who have achieved great things, and many have, haven't done it with a government program.

Some business may have gotten tax breaks and so forth, but what Obama means is a government program that shepherds people and does things for them, rather than them doing the work. And that's an illusion anyway. He just wants people to think that's going to happen so they'll continue to sit on their hands and wait for it to happen. Like how many people are still waiting for them to pay their mortgage or find them a home or fill their gas tank? Make no mistake there still are people out there. "And give more tax cuts to the wealthy." Tax cuts to the wealthy. Do you know that the bottom 50% of taxpayers in this country pay less than 3% of the total tax burden. Would somebody tell me all these tax cuts for the rich, the rich are paying a greater and greater share of the tax burden every year, with a lower percentage. They're reporting earning more dollars. This is academic stuff. It's been proven. He's trying to rewrite history here.

How laws have replaced civility

Walter E. Williams makes a great point:

A civilized society's first line of defense is not the law, police and courts but customs, traditions and moral values. Behavioral norms, mostly transmitted by example, word of mouth and religious teachings, represent a body of wisdom distilled over the ages through experience and trial and error. They include important thou-shalt-nots such as shalt not murder, shalt not steal, shalt not lie and cheat, but they also include all those courtesies one might call ladylike and gentlemanly conduct. The failure to fully transmit values and traditions to subsequent generations represents one of the failings of the so-called greatest generation.

Behavior accepted as the norm today would have been seen as despicable yesteryear. There are television debt relief advertisements that promise to help debtors to pay back only half of what they owe. Foul language is spoken by children in front of and sometimes to teachers and other adults. When I was a youngster, it was unthinkable to use foul language to an adult; it would have meant a smack across the face. Back then, parents and teachers didn't have child-raising "experts" to tell them that "time out" is a means of discipline. Baby showers are held for unwed mothers. Yesteryear, such an acceptance of illegitimacy would have been unthinkable.

To see men sitting whilst a woman or elderly person was standing on a crowded bus or trolley car used to be unthinkable. It was common decency for a man to give up his seat. Today, in some cities there are ordinances requiring public conveyances to set aside seats posted "Senior Citizen Seating." Laws have replaced common decency. Years ago, a young lady who allowed a guy to have his hand in her rear pocket as they strolled down the street would have been seen as a slut. Children addressing adults by first names was unacceptable.

You might be tempted to charge, "Williams, you're a prude!" I'd ask you whether high rates of illegitimacy make a positive contribution to a civilized society. If not, how would you propose that illegitimacy be controlled? In years past, it was controlled through social sanctions like disgrace and shunning. Is foul language to or in the presence of teachers conducive to an atmosphere of discipline and respect necessary for effective education? If not, how would you propose it be controlled? Years ago, simply sassing a teacher would have meant a trip to the vice principal's office for an attitude adjustment administered with a paddle. Years ago, the lowest of lowdown men would not say the kind of things often said to or in front of women today. Gentlemanly behavior protected women from coarse behavior. Today, we expect sexual harassment laws to restrain coarse behavior.

During the 1940s, my family lived in North Philadelphia's Richard Allen housing project. Many families didn't lock doors until late at night, if ever. No one ever thought of installing bars on their windows. Hot, humid summer nights found many people sleeping outside on balconies or lawn chairs. Starting in the '60s and '70s, doing the same in some neighborhoods would have been tantamount to committing suicide. Keep in mind that the 1940s and '50s were a time of gross racial discrimination, high black poverty and few opportunities compared to today. The fact that black neighborhoods were far more civilized at that time should give pause to the excuses of today that blames today's pathology on poverty and discrimination.

Policemen and laws can never replace customs, traditions and moral values as a means for regulating human behavior. At best, the police and criminal justice system are the last desperate line of defense for a civilized society. Our increased reliance on laws to regulate behavior is a measure of how uncivilized we've become.

Scott Munsterman a fiscal conservative?

Again Pat Powers proves that he is unqualified to stand for the conservative movement:

And finally, that leaves Brookings Mayor Scott Munsterman.

A somewhat nontraditional candidate, Munsterman doesn’t come from the legislature or other state office, so some people might think it’s inexplicable that he’s getting very strong reviews from dinner attendees. And I confess, at one time, you could count me in the number of doubting thomases. "Mayor of Brookings? Yeah, right." But from all reports I’m getting, as opposed to fading into the background, he’s picking up steam, and garnering rave reviews for being frank, identifying problems, and charting a course to solve them.

And Powers describes Munsterman’s course:

And looking at Scott’s policy statements shows one the depth of his very personal examination of the issues; with engaging communities a development strategy to grow the whole state. To strengthen the social fabric of South Dakota through revitalizing communities - with a lot of thought devoted towards education and maintaining community schools (a big switch in current thinking). In addition, we have thought going towards economic planning on a regional basis, a plan for renewable energy, transportation, health care, fiscal leadership, community development, etcetera and so on.

Sounds like the book Obama wrote. Since when has "community", Progressive talk for collectivism, and being devoted to education, the Progressive’s anti-conservative propaganda centers, been "a big switch in current thinking"? The Progressives have set the stage for the complete take over of individual rights with the Nanny/Police State.

And then the government economic planning should have tipped off Pat Powers to Munsterman's lack of fiscal responsibility. Powers responded to one of my posts with perosnal attacks, but did not respond to this portion:

During the 2006 election cycle corruption was used by the Drive-by media against the GOP to turn the tide away from the GOP, that was built in the early 2000’s by the conservative base, and gave it back to the Democrats. It is the GOP’s economic development through big government that breeds the corruption. That policy is fascist in nature and is the stepping stone to socialism. It is a violation of traditional American principles and any conservative worth his salt would decry the current economic development through government agenda. It is the RINOs that provide ammunition for the Democrats and the Drive-by to falsely attack conservatives with. It is how the GOP/Democrat fued is fostered. Too often you hear the radical left deflect criticism by saying..."the GOP does it too". It is the RINOs that would do what a card carrying member of the Democrat's radical left would do.

Long-term sustainable economic development can only be successful by following Natural Law and the Austrian school on economics. The current agenda needs to be less government and lower taxes, if America is to have an sustained and real economic recovery. The GOP’s efforts to lower taxes only spawns Marxist based attacks by the radical left for giving the rich a break. This Marxist attack is only compounded when the rich get "corporate welfare" via the economic development through government crusades. If the GOP truly wants on board the fiscal conservative bandwagon, they must not only stop with the promotion of economic development through government, they must also condemn it.

Pat Powers could not respond to that because what I said was ideologically above him. Pat Powers does not have the ideological ability to understand what conservatism is. His GOP job is to fool conservatives into supporting a RINO. His job is to use campaign tricks to garner votes. This kind of short-term and short-sighted thinking is what has serverely hurt the GOP over the last two election cycles.

Obama, no questions from Fox News?

Just finished watching the Obama press conference, and I did not see the president allow Fox News to ask him a question. What is he afraid of? The truth? Must be as he lied about Congress being an equal branch of government while answering the qestion on Arlen Spector switching parties.

But the most serious point was Obama saying the Republcians can go pound sand because the majority voted for him. Again the tyranny of mob rule coupled with the destruction of the separation of powers has destroyed freedom in America today. The Marxist takeover of America is now complete. Obama is the dictator of the United States. This is what the Progrssives wanted. Woodrow Wilson and FDR would be proud of what they helped destroy...a Constitutional Republic based on Natural Law.

Out with Napolitano

This will never happen, the Obama administration could care less about fundamental American principles:

A coalition of nearly two dozen organizations is launching a campaign that demands the resignation of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano and an apology from President Obama for labeling those who hold traditional American values and conservative ideals as terrorists.

"We, the law-abiding Citizens of America, demand: 1. The Resignation or Removal of DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano for her partisan political profiling of veterans and conservatives and her abuse of power," says the petition, which is posted on the website for the coalition that goes under the name No Political Profiling.

It also demands, "An apology from President Barack Obama to ALL Americans for his administration's call for domestic spying," and "The Immediate Retraction of the 'Rightwing Extremism' report for labeling law-abiding citizens as 'terrorists' because of their political views."

As WND reported, a spokesman for the Department of Homeland Security cited executed Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh as an example of why "right wing" interests must be monitored closely by his agency in the United States.

DHS spokesman Sean Smith told talk-radio host and WND columnist Roger Hedgecock, "There was a very tragic example of a threat that was realized and materialized in this country, almost 14 years ago to the day, in Oklahoma City. I'm talking about Tim McVeigh."

Hedgecock was the first to expose the Department of Homeland Security report on "right-wing extremism" that pointed to a potential threat from returning war veterans, abortion opponents, gun-rights advocates and supporters of third-party candidates, among others.

The ad presents images of the pope, President Ronald Reagan, Mother Teresa and President George Wahsington as those who would be suspected of terrorism under the DHS report guidelines.

For example, the pope supports life and traditional marriage, Reagan was pro-life and a staunch advocate for less government, Mother Teresa pro-life and Washington a military veteran and a gun owner.

Officials with the federal Department of Homeland Security declined to respond to a WND request for comment on the effort, organized by WND columnist Janet Folger Porter, who also works with the Faith2Action ministry.

Parental rights amendment needed

A move is on for a parental rights constitutional amendment:

Supporters of a plan to amend the U.S. Constitution to include parental rights are warning moms and dads across the United States they already are losing their rights to make decisions regarding their children's health, education, welfare, finances, sex education, access to abortion and even leisure time.

"The erosion is upon us," said Michael Farris, founder of the Home School Legal Defense Association, a college and a church and now a dedicated leader in the effort to change the U.S. Constitution through the amendment process to restore and protect parental rights.

Eighty years ago, the amendment website notes, "the Supreme Court declared that 'the child is not the mere creature of the State; those who nurture him and direct his destiny have the right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare him for additional obligations.'"

However, according to Farris, a survey last year of state and federal appellate court rulings found "the vast majority of the court decisions refused to acknowledge traditional parental rights are fundamental rights."

The problem, says Farris, is the growing reach of domestic and international government into decisions about health, education, discipline and other issues that for millennia have been made by parents. In one recent case in the South, the parents of a 13-year-old juvenile were refused access to his medical records because the doctor decided against including the parents in the discussion.

According to Farris, the parents could only be granted access to their son's medical records with their son's permission.

"The Supreme Court has so muddied the waters … the growing practice is to treat parenting as a government privilege," he said.

In another case that outraged parents, a federal court ruled that parents do not even have the right to withdraw their children from public school teachings that violate their religious beliefs.

Farris says the solution is the Parental Rights Amendment, which would embed in the Constitution the description of parental rights as fundamental.

"Neither the United States nor any state shall infringe upon this right without demonstrating that its governmental interest as applied to the person is of the highest order and not otherwise served," the draft states. "No treaty may be adopted nor shall any source of international law be employed to supersede, modify, interpret, or apply to the rights guaranteed by this article."

Woodrow Wilson’s dream comes true

With Arlen Spector giving the Marxist dictator control a filibuster proof Senate in which to pack the Supreme Court, the constitutional based separation of power has been destroyed. Woodrow Wilson’s anti-American Progressive dream is coming true:

President Barack Obama talked to Sen. Arlen Specter at 10:32 this morning from the Oval Office, said Dems are "thrilled to have you," according to a White House aide.

Obama was informed of Specter's decision to switch parties at 10:25 this morning while receiving his daily economic briefing in the Oval Office, according to a White House official.

Obama was handed a note by an aide that read: "Specter is announcing he is changing parties."

The president reached Specter, one of only three Republicans to support his stimulus package, on the phone at 10:32 and told him "you have my full support." He added that we are "thrilled to have you."

Officials close to the White House say that Vice President Joe Biden, who served in the Senate with Specter for 28 years from next door Delaware and became close to him through their work on the Judiciary Committee, played a pivotal if quiet role in persuading the five-term senator to switch parties.