Sibby Online

General Motors going Government Motors

Check out these details in regard to the bankruptcy of General Motors:

It also gives a union-run retiree health care trust 17.5 percent ownership of a post-bankruptcy protection GM, with a warrant to buy another 2.5 percent. The trust will take on the company's retiree health care costs starting next year. The stock will come in exchange for part of the company's $20 billion obligation to the trust.

GM has received $19.4 billion in loans from the U.S. government, which would get 72.5 percent ownership of the new company, perhaps sharing with the Canadian government. The remaining 10 percent would go to GM bondholders to wipe out $27 billion in unsecured debt.

Bondholders have until 5 p.m. EDT Saturday to accept or reject the stock-for-debt offer, under which they would get a warrant for an additional 15 percent of the new GM's stock.

So we have the government and the labor unions into GM for $20 billion each, with the bondholders (who are suppose to be first in line during bankruptcy) holding $27 billion. So why would they only get 10% ownership and the government gets 72.5%, with labor getting 17.5%? Wasn’t it the regulations of government and the high cost of labor that put GM into poverty in the first place? If I was a bondholder I would say forget it. Liquidate the company and gives us our share. Why would I want to be minority owner in a socialist entity?

What the Bible says about resisting tyranny

Joseph Farah gives us a Bible lesson on the issue of responding to tyranny:

Whenever I question the timidity of today's church in America, I receive lectures accusing me of violating a biblical principle that supposedly provides a blanket condemnation of Christian resistance to tyranny.

The contention that Christians should simply lay down and comply with even the most hideous requirements of government is an old argument. It was thoroughly debated by America's Christian founders when they took up arms to defend their declaration of independence in 1776 – and even before at Lexington and Concord when British troops tried to take away their arms.

Many of the founders were biblical scholars – and well aware of Paul's warning in Romans 13:1-7, most often the text cited by the new defenders of the "divine right of kings":

Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing. Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour.

I believe we profoundly dishonor our heroic and inspired founders when we accuse them of disobeying Paul's admonition and an even graver disservice to the Word of God when we read too much into seven verses in one book of the Bible to the exclusion of the complete context of its 66 books.

Perhaps there is no better time than now to revisit this issue – as we approach America's Independence Day and our nation moves ever closer to tyranny, this time directed not from London but from our own nation's capital.

To me it is clear Paul was exhorting us not to overthrow government as an institution, because it was ordained by God. However, this passage in no wise suggests that believers are simply to submit to unjust laws.

That the founders were not anarchists was demonstrated by the speed with which they acted to form a new government in the very act of declaring their independence from a foreign power that had refused to negotiate further with them on their legitimate grievances. They recognized government was, in a fallen world, a necessary evil.

But the Bible is also teeming with acts of civil disobedience and deliverance from tyranny – so much so that they inspired not just the founders but men like Martin Luther King Jr.

I think of Pharaoh's daughter and Moses' mother in Exodus 2.

I think of Meshach, Shadrach and Abednego in Daniel 3.

I think of Moses himself in Exodus 2 when he killed an Egyptian who was beating a Hebrew slave.

I think of Daniel praying in defiance of the king in Daniel 6.

How about Abraham, who mounted an army of several hundred men and took on four kings who had captured his nephew Lot. For laying waste to those kingdoms he was toasted by Melchizedek, king of Salem, in Genesis 14.

I could go on and on, but let me give you one striking example of the way the Bible actually celebrates heroes of the faith who take extraordinary, even violent, actions to liberate themselves from ungodly rulers.

The Book of Judges recounts ancient Israel's frequent temptations to disobey God and pay the consequences and then to cry for a deliverer – with their prayers heard.

Such was the case with Ehud, son of Gera, a left-handed Benjamite, who actually assassinated Eglon, the ruler of the Israelites' conquerors, the Moabites, in a story told in Judges 3.

"And he said unto them, Follow after me: for the LORD hath delivered your enemies the Moabites into your hand. And they went down after him, and took the fords of Jordan toward Moab, and suffered not a man to pass over. And they slew of Moab at that time about ten thousand men, all lusty, and all men of valour; and there escaped not a man. So Moab was subdued that day under the hand of Israel. And the land had rest fourscore years," we are told in Judges 3:28-30.

In Romans 13, Paul was not suggesting that any earthly kings or rulers have absolute authority and God's blessing to torment their subjects, oppress God's people, break covenants and, most importantly, ignore God's laws.

Our founders believed – and I think they were right – that when King George broke his own laws, he was acting without authority. The same principle applies today to our own leaders when they break trust with the Constitution and God's laws.

The GOP problem is with the RINOs

David Limbaugh also understands that the GOP problems began in 2006 when the RINOs took over:

I see "pragmatists" everywhere I look in the Republican Party – those who say we must always be more concerned with not offending so-called moderates than with advancing our principles. The irony is that no one is less pragmatic, in the end, than these self-styled pragmatists because their prescriptions are a recipe for failure.

Most recently, of course, the Republican branch of the political correctness sect insists that we must not oppose Judge Sonia Sotomayor's nomination for the Supreme Court because her confirmation is inevitable, and by opposing it, we'll gratuitously alienate Hispanics and women – as if they haven't already been conditioned by the liberal press to believe conservatives are ogres regardless.

What's missing from this analysis is that one of the main reasons Republicans have lost favor of late, reflected in their trouncing in the 2006 congressional elections and in shrinking GOP party identification percentages, is their alienation of the conservative base. The best-kept secret is that with 60 percent of Americans still considering themselves conservatives, Republicans only need to be true to their conservative principles to win again.

And Limbaugh is also beginning to understand the point I made at the end of my previous post…there is little difference between Democrats and Republicans:

While I've always considered it hyperbolic to suggest there is no difference between the parties, I find it increasingly difficult to defend this position. Beltway Republicans, with notable exceptions, spend half their time groveling to the forces of political correctness, conceding the ideological turf wars to liberal Democrats and agreeing to operate within the four corners of the liberal- and relativist-dominant media culture without a fight.

And in South Dakota RINO Pat Powers and Democrat Todd Epp both went into hate mode when I argue issues based on ideology. After the 2004 election, the GOP was on a real roll. Then in 2005, Todd Epp and Pat Powers entered the South Dakota blogosphere with their cross hairs pointed at me. Pat Powers is part of the GOP problem in South Dakota.

Sotomayor versus Alito, Progressive versus American

Trent Duglosh left this comment on my post regarding Sotomayor’s high reversal rate by the Supreme Court:

If that is your measuring stick for qualification then I'm sure you will now start calling for Justice Alito to resign since he also was overturned four times by the Supreme Court before he joined the court. You can look it up if you like. Here they are:

Friends of the Earth v Laidlaw

Chittister v Department of Community and Economic Development

Casey v Planned Parenthood

Rompilla v Beard

And, in Riley v Taylor Alito got overturned in his own circuit before the Supreme Court even heard the case

Do us all a favor and try stop trying to make it seem like you object to her because she not qualified, just tell the truth, you don't like her because she is a woman who comes down on the left more often than on the right and anyone who does that is by your definition an activist judge. Of course that definition is incorrect, but fundamentally you on the right have a problem with women in positions of power, you would rather see them pregenant and at home with the kids, so just come clean.

I am not sure why Trent hates motherhood, and we all know that the radical left hates kids as they promote killing them before they are born. And in the Casey v Planned Parenthood reversal that Trent sites, the SCOTUS says a woman can kill her kid without telling the spouse.

In addition, Trent sites no statements that I have made to support his premise that I have a problem with women in power. But we do have statements by Sotomayor that shows she thinks a woman automatically makes a better judge than a "white man". So it is the radical left that thinks "white men" in power is a bad thing. (as you read on perhaps you will see that is due to the Founding Fathers being white men)

Upon research, I find that Trent does make a good point regarding similarity of Alito and Sotomayor in regard to SCOTUS reversals. I found this point interesting:

In an eleven-year career, she issued 380 opinions. Five were appealed to the Supreme Court and only three were reversed. According to SCOTUSblog, a 60 percent reversal rate is actually lower than the overall Supreme Court reversal rate for the past five years. In 2008, for example, the Court reversed 75.3 percent of the cases it considered.

The real difference between Sotomayor and Alito is this:

Yet as Obama's "empathy" nominee, she may need to stress rule of law over experience in her hearing, just to show she's not a judicial activist.

Rule of Law means adhering to the Natural Law foundation of the Constitution, as Alito does. The anti-constitutionalists advocate a "living" document that can be changed do to "historical experience". Note the word "historical" and that Sotomayor was a Yale law school graduate as you read this:

In the 1850s, three members of The Order left Yale and working together, at times with other members along the way, made a revolution that changed the face, direction and purpose of American education. It was a rapid, quiet revolution, and eminently successful. The American people even today, in 1983, are not aware of a coup d'etat.

The revolutionary trio were:

Timothy Dwight ('49) Professor in the Yale Divinity School and then 12th President of Yale University.

Daniel Coit Gilman ('52), first President of the University of California, first President of the Johns Hopkins University and first President of the Carnegie Institution.

Andrew Dickson White ('53), first President of Cornell University and first President of the American Historical Association.

Gilman is the key. Both John Dewey, the father of "Progressive" education and Woodrow Wilson attended the John Hopkins graduate school in the 1880s. And remember this from yesterday:

The story of big government in America begins in the Progressive Era, stretching from the 1880s through World War I. Enamored with 19th-century European historicist philosophy and unwilling to hold any truths as self-evident, American Progressives thought the natural right principles of the Constitution represented the greatest obstacle to political "progress" and "evolution." In place of the Constitution, Progressivism proposed an administrative state whose purpose would be the unending quest of evolutionary "progress" and whose powers therefore would be unlimited.

More than anyone, Woodrow Wilson advanced the new Progressive theory of human nature and human institutions and the corresponding Progressive critique of the principles of the American Founding and the Founders' Constitution. Wilson, who was president of Princeton and of the American Political Science Association before becoming President of the United States, was the first Chief Executive to openly criticize the Constitution, once comparing it to "political witchcraft." So hostile was he to the self evident truths of the Founding that in a 1911 address he remarked, "if you want to understand the real Declaration of Independence, do not repeat the preface."

The Progressive theory is based on Hegel (again note the 19th-century Eurpoean "historicist" as this relates to those who view the Constitution as "living") , who influenced both Dewey and Wilson while at John Hopkins:

This notable trio were all initiated into The Order within a few years of each other (1849, 1852, 1853). They immediately set off for Europe. All three went to study philosophy at the University of Berlin, where post-Hegelian philosophy had a monopoly.

• Dwight studied at the Universities of Berlin and Bonn between 1856 and 1858,
• Gilman was at the University of Berlin between 1854 and 55 under Karl von Ritter and Friedrich Trendelenberg, both prominent "Right" Hegelians, and
• White studied at the University of Berlin between 1856 and 1858.

Notably also at the University of Berlin in 1856 (at the Institute of Physiology) was none other than Wilhelm Wundt, the founder of experimental psychology in Germany and the later source of the dozens of American Ph.D.s who came back from Leipzig, Germany to start the modern American education movement.

Why is the German experience so important? Because these were the formative years, the immediate post-graduate years for these three men, the years when they were planning the future, and at this period Germany was dominated by the Hegelian philosophical ferment.

There were two groups of these Hegelians. The right Hegelians, were the roots of Prussian militarism and the spring for the unification of Germany and the rise of Hitler. Key names among right Hegelians were Karl Ritter (at the University of Berlin where our trio studied), Baron von Bismarck, and Baron von Stockmar, confidential adviser to Queen Victoria over in England. Somewhat before this, Karl Theodor Dalberg (1744-1817), arch-chancellor in the German Reich, related to Lord Acton in England and an Illuminati (Baco v Verulam in the Illuminati code), was a right Hegelian.

There were also Left Hegelians, the promoters of scientific socialism. Most famous of these, of course, are Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels, Heinrich Heine, Max Stirner and Moses Hess.

The point to hold in mind is that both groups use Hegelian theory of the State as a start point, i.e., the State is superior to the individual. Prussian militarism, Naziism and Marxism have the same philosophic roots.

Today we have a nearly complete Marxist based takeover of America by the fascist Progressive movement. The above research explains how the movement was created. And it is not just about Democrats:

America's Secret Establishment: An Introduction to the Order of Skull & Bones by Antony C. Sutton - the complete book with more details & facts about the hidden forces behind modern public education, psychology, economics, politics and world chaos. Covers Yale University's link to a secret German society, the Bush Family (i.e. George), and much more. Very well reserached and written.

Suggested Reading List - the Demise of the Educational System - OBE (Outcome-Based Education), NEA (National Education Association), educational psychology, German psychology & influences, demise of public education, educational sabotage, Wundt, Pavlov, Dewey, Skinner, Watson.

Heidelberger needs to note the "Bush Family".

It is the education system that is moving America, including both political parties, to the radical left. Fundamentally, a RINO is a member of the GOP who adheres to the Progressive agenda. They are about destroying the Natural Law foundation of America that created liberty. And Pat Powers is one of their crusaders. His problem lies with a relationship with an Educrat. And it is due to education that Powers does not have the capability to understand the ideological problem facing politics today. We really don't have a two party system, we have one Progressive party and two fraternities from Yale.

Dusty Johnson & Mike Vehle rebuked

Dusty needs to understand that joining a cause with a liberal may be a mistake, even if that liberal is a fellow member of the GOP:

There’s always room for improvement, Davison County Commission Chairman Jerry Fischer said Tuesday, but things are running well in Davison County and no major changes are required.

That was the gist of Fischer’s response to recommendations made by the local planning group Focus 2020, which was represented at Tuesday’s commission meeting in the courthouse by state Sen. Mike Vehle and Public Utilities Commissioner Dusty Johnson. The two men, both Mitchell residents, are cochairmen of Focus 2020’s Government Structures Subcommittee. The subcommittee issued draft recommendations recently for the county that included hiring a "county mayor" to represent the county as a whole and holding evening instead of daytime meetings. Tuesday, Johnson and Vehle delivered presentations summarizing the recommendations.

While presenting the county mayor idea, Johnson said that cities have mayors and school districts have a superintendent who "helps guide the strategic goals of the organization" and handles daily administrative chores. Creating a similar post known as a county mayor would free up the commission for more important duties, like making strategic and policy decisions, he said.

The recommendation didn’t sit well with Fischer. He said the subcommittee report’s statement that "Running the weekly meetings is likely the chairman’s most important unique responsibility" is an "insult to the integrity of the chairman and the commissioners."

And then there was this criticism:

Commissioner Gerald Weiss agreed with Fischer. Weiss said the subcommittee’s impression that each commissioner’s focus lies mainly with the district he represents is incorrect. The commissioners are regularly involved in the overall welfare of all county taxpayers, he said.

Weiss said he was against any changes, such as a county mayor, that he thinks would expand county government and waste taxpayer money.

"I’m for keeping government small," he said.

I hope the experience will give Dusty pause in regard to the Focus 2020 project. I see it as part of the Progressive’s central planning through bigger government agenda. Liberals like to put rosie labels like "strategic planning" on their agendas.

Moderate liberal ideology? NO, it is radical Progressivism

Sotomayor’s ideology is "moderate liberal? So says an Augustana professor:

Brent Lerseth, assistant professor of government at Augustana, was not surprised by the nomination since Sotomayor fits criteria Obama had expressed during his campaign.

"She has lots of life experience different from most nominees, being raised in the South Bronx and working her way through school," Lerseth said.

With Sotomayor's moderate liberal ideology, the court should not see a major change from her predecessor Souter, but her philosophies could raise questions for Republicans, Lerseth said.

A racist whose mission is to destroy America’s constitution is a proud member of the radical left’s Progressive movement. Here is more:

The story of big government in America begins in the Progressive Era, stretching from the 1880s through World War I. Enamored with 19th-century European historicist philosophy and unwilling to hold any truths as self-evident, American Progressives thought the natural right principles of the Constitution represented the greatest obstacle to political "progress" and "evolution." In place of the Constitution, Progressivism proposed an administrative state whose purpose would be the unending quest of evolutionary "progress" and whose powers therefore would be unlimited.

More than anyone, Woodrow Wilson advanced the new Progressive theory of human nature and human institutions and the corresponding Progressive critique of the principles of the American Founding and the Founders' Constitution. Wilson, who was president of Princeton and of the American Political Science Association before becoming President of the United States, was the first Chief Executive to openly criticize the Constitution, once comparing it to "political witchcraft." So hostile was he to the self evident truths of the Founding that in a 1911 address he remarked, "if you want to understand the real Declaration of Independence, do not repeat the preface."

Wilson above all others deserves credit for the notion that the Constitution is a "living" or "evolving" document. As he wrote in 1908, "Government is not a machine, but a living thing. It falls, not under the theory of the universe, but under the theory of organic life. It is accountable to Darwin." Insisting that the Constitution does not contain any theories or principles, Wilson argued that the Constitution has a "natural evolution" and is "one thing in one age, another in another." "Living political constitutions," he wrote, "must be Darwinian in structure and in practice."

In the course of the 20th century and continuing into the 21st century, Wilson's interpretation of the Constitution has served the cause of big government, eventually dropping the self-description of "progressive" for the more marketable label "liberal." But whether they call themselves progressive or liberal, whether they are Democrat or Republican, the advocates of big government are unified in their belief that the principles of the Founding are irrelevant and the meaning of the Constitution can be easily stretched to justify any exercise of government power.

Americans who want to recover limited constitutional government must confront the ideas of Woodrow Wilson. To facilitate that civic education, we are proud to announce two new books by Claremont Institute Fellow, R. J. Pestritto. In Woodrow Wilson and the Roots of American Liberalism, Dr. Pestritto offers a penetrating account of Wilson's historicist political philosophy and its influence for American politics. Woodrow Wilson: The Essential Political Writings is the first one-volume collection of Wilson's seminal political works and will be especially useful for educators who teach Wilson and progressivism in the classroom.

Both books are now available. We encourage our friends and supporters to purchase and read them, equipping them with knowledge of the intellectual foundation of modern liberalism. Without this knowledge, no successful strategy can be formulated for dismantling the liberal administrative state and restoring the principles and institutions of American constitutional government.

And I doubt pat Powers knows that the Federal Reserve was created under the Wilson administration, along with the IRS. And Cory Heidelberger needs to learn that Republicans are also a part of the movement, including both Bush presidents. It is another lie from the left to blame conservatives for the actions of RINOs or to justify Democrat actions just because a Republican also did it. It is far past the time to stop being distracted with the Republican/Democrat feud and understand that the real battle is liberty versus the ever-expanding big government agenda of the Progressives. And that ideology is the religion being preached at most universities, including Augustana.

Rounds seeks more federal funds

You would think that Porkulus gave South Dakota more than enough federal funding. But our GOP Governor is asking for more:

The governor has asked for federal assistance in South Dakota counties affected by March snowstorms and subsequent flooding.

Gov. Mike Rounds is requesting a presidential disaster declaration for 14 counties and two American Indian reservations inthe northern half of the state.

He says a preliminary survey found more than $3.5 million in emergency costs and damages.

A presidential declaration would provide federal money for up to 75 percent of the eligible costs to repair public facilities like roads, bridges and sewage systems.

So how much of that money is coming from California taxpayers?

Herseth Sandlin: EPA not being scientific

Does Herseth Sandlin finally understand that the radical left’s agenda is not based on truth:

Corn farmers and pro-biofuel groups are asking their supporters to contact the Environmental Protection Agency about the most recent efforts to consider South American farming in rating the carbon footprint of U.S.-produced corn ethanol and soy diesel.

Ethanol supporters are crying foul to the EPA's proposed revisions to the nation's Renewable Fuels Standard that will change how the greenhouse gas emissions from all biofuels are calculated. The new EPA formula will theoretically add any effect of farmland growth in Brazil to the carbon footprint of corn ethanol production in states such as South Dakota.

Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin issued a statement earlier this month that said EPA officials "may be accepting questionable models of land use that are not well-grounded in sound science, and that haven't been fully tested in the scientific world."

Why Sotomayor is not qualified

Rush Limbaugh has the research:

RUSH: One more little bit of information here about Appellate Court Judge Sonia Sotomayor: "The Supreme Court has reversed Judge Sotomayor in four instances where it granted certiorari to review an opinion she authored." Now, I say this again: "The Supreme Court has reversed Judge Sotomayor in four instances where it granted certiorari to review an opinion she authored. "In three of these reversals, the Court held that Judge Sotomayor erred in her statutory interpretation," meaning she goofed up on the law. She was overturned four times when she wrote the opinion, the lead opinion, and in three of the four cases the Supreme Court held that she erred in her statutory interpretation. The cases are Knight v. C.I.R., Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. Dabit, New York Times, Inc. v. Tasini, and Correctional Servs. Corp. v. Malesko. The cases are 2008, 2006, 2001, and 2001. So there you have it.

Obama’s anti-constitutional agenda

The Progressive movement is about destroying America’s constitution because they want to "change" America into state-controlled utopian society. And Obama picked a person who will help him destroy the separation of powers that will make him, and evey future Progressive president, the dictator of America:

RUSH: Have you seen, and do you remember if you have seen it a picture of the lady holding the scales of justice? Do you know what's remarkable about the lady in that rendering? She's blindfolded. She doesn't know whether the people before her... Justice does not know whether the people before it are black, white, Hispanic, male, female, rich, poor, Martian, or whatever. There is nothing about Sonia Sotomayor that is blindfolded where justice is concerned. This is a huge concern. Now, what are the Republicans going to do? I happen to think that this appointment by President Obama is more about Democrat Party politics than it is about the US Supreme Court. It's a close second because he does have an anti-constitutional view.

If he gets her confirmed he will have an anti-constitutionalist on the court. That's what he wants. Forget this empathy stuff. That's to get the squishies among us to think it's okay. He wants an anti-constitutionalist out there. But this is also a huge wedge issue for Obama. This is a two-run homer. You might even call it a grand slam. She's a what? A, a woman. B, what? A Hispanic. Boy. She's a two-prong minority. I guarantee you that a majority of Republicans are going to be scared to death to oppose her or even say anything about her because the Dems are going to use race left and right. They use race nominating her. They use race and minority status nominating her (identity politics) and then they are going to use race, identity politics, minority status, feminism, to criticize me and any other Republican that dares oppose her.

So you've got a great wedge issue here for Obama in the nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor. The Republicans, particularly in the Senate now, are going to be in a huge box, a huge political box -- and don't forget, the Republicans are under the illusion that how they treat and react to Sotomayor will affect how they are able to get the Hispanic vote. Now, this is where the Republicans are really, really missing the boat. We tried this. Who did...? Every Bush Hispanic nominee who was male they set out to destroy. Miguel Estrada, Alberto Gonzales, the Democrats set out to destroy them. The Hispanic aspect is irrelevant except when they nominate one, particularly now a woman. So the Republicans are going to have to forget about this.

They have got a choice here, the purpose of which is to get an anti-constitutionalist on the court, and the second aspect of the choice is to shut them up, to cower them, to get them cowering in fear in the corners of the committee hearing room and saying nothing. Because Obama knows that the moderate Republicans who run the Republican Party, led by General Powell, are obsessed with not causing any waves, not making any waves. And they're obsessed with this big tent, and they're obsessed with inclusiveness (whatever the hell that means) and they're obsessed with the Hispanic vote. So whether Rahm Emanuel picked it or whether one of the Clinton people nominated her is irrelevant. Obama's got a twofer here.