Sibby Online

Marxists using education to fool our youth

UDATE: I have a request from a reader to more fully explain Pat Powers' wife job. See this link.]

South Dakota Marxist Pat Powers will not like his wife's job being exposed for what it is (time to remind our youth that they are being ripped off by both political parties via the national debt):

Right now, a year and a half after Barack Obama's election as president, many Americans are experiencing what I experienced a second and a half after being confronted by an armed robber. Maybe in the broad sweep of history, years are like seconds. Or, perhaps we've all just been so indoctrinated and confused by leftist education, media and culture that it takes a while to recognize a smiling revolutionary for what he really is. In any event, for millions of us, the two seconds of denial and wishful thinking are ending as we approach the November midterms, while finally coming to grips with the outrageous reality staring us in the face:

We're being robbed. Though we've tried in vain to view what's happening as something other than what it is, the truth is, our wealth, our liberty, our lives, our happiness – and our country itself – are being stolen. If you think that's even a slight exaggeration, you really haven't been paying attention.

Obama and the far-left leaders of Congress are standing before us, not with ski masks, but with the masks of arrogant deceivers. They smile, they reassure, they act as though they care about us – but it's all one big cynical pretense. Virtually everything they do, and want to do, is irrational and destructive, violating the laws of the land, of economics and of common sense. They want to dramatically raise taxes during a deep recession. They want to make your electricity bill "skyrocket" (to use Obama's word). They want to leave our children with a level of debt that is, quite literally, impossible to repay. They want to leave America's southern border unprotected, even though there's a full-scale invasion of our nation from the South, not to mention a full-scale drug-war raging just across the border, with tens of thousands dying – yes, you read it right, tens of thousands.

Each new Obama appointment brings further outrage: Obama's "safe schools" czar, Kevin Jennings, founder of the gay activist group Gay, Lesbian, Straight Education Network, is notorious for promoting homosexuality in schools! Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, the head of our taxing system, is a tax cheat! Labor Secretary Hilda Solis goes on national TV to tell illegal aliens, if they're not getting paid fairly by their American employer, to contact her and she'll help them! John Morton, the Department of Homeland Security's top man for immigration enforcement, says he doesn't want to prosecute illegal aliens referred to his agency by Arizona authorities!

No wonder Pulitzer-winning columnist Charles Krauthammer decries "the arrogance and near-lawlessness of this administration," and former congressman and GOP presidential candidate Tom Tancredo calls Obama – seemingly intent on deconstructing America in every way – "a dedicated Marxist."

Be thankful to Obama for the Tea Party movement

Joseph Farah:

However, I did make a remarkable and controversial claim in 2008 that, in an odd way, the election of Obama, while sure to result in horrific pain for the country, could actually be, in the long term, better for America than the election of McCain.

I'm sure that is still hard to see for many Americans – especially those losing their jobs, losing their freedom and watching helplessly as the Constitution is shredded on a daily basis.

Yet, I'm still surprised how many Americans cannot yet see the silver lining beneath the Obama Nation's dark cloud.

Again, I saw it coming. I predicted it. I explained that a unique phenomenon in modern American political history would arise as a direct result of the election of Obama. What I foresaw was the genesis of a massive, unprecedented, spontaneous grass-roots movement of ordinary Americans who had never before carried a protest sign or marched in a rally. I did all but name it.

What I prophesied soon became known as the tea-party movement.

Thune's budget proposal, favored by common sense South Dakotans, at odds with SDGOP leadership

Senator John Thune proposed new legislation this week:

Thune’s legislation--“The Deficit Reduction and Budget Reform Act of 2010”--proposes other changes to the federal budgeting process including discretionary spending caps, the establishment of a legislative line-item veto and the creation of a biennial federal budget. And, in another move that is sure to echo positively through the Republican base, he calls for an end to the unobligated stimulus spending as of September 30, 2010.

And Thune made this statement regarding the view of South Dakotans:

Thune said South Dakotans are calling out for more fiscal restraint and responsibility in Washington, D.C. The most common concern he hears back home is about the "alarming spending rates" by Democrats and President Obama and the need to control the nation's "incredible" debt, Thune said.

Thune made the national debt an important issue during the South Dakota GOP convention in June. Sam Kephart was there:

During his speech to the GOP state convention in Huron a few weeks ago, and now in a recently published Associated Press article, Gov. Mike Rounds delivered what can best be described as self-congratulatory feel-good reflections about the hard work both he and our senators and representatives put in this past legislative session to balance South Dakota’s budget.

The Princeton online dictionary says “a budget is balanced when current expenditures are equal to receipts,” so technically he’s right, but morally it’s bunkum.

What realm of self-proclaimed economic conservatism do our governor, Lt. Gov. Dennis Daugaard and most of the state Legislature dwell in?

We did not really balance the state budget. We accepted a one-time federal handout, aka stimulus funds, from President Obama to cover our deficit instead of cutting spending. Worse, the Obama budget “patch over” money is money borrowed from China, Japan or elsewhere that our children and grandchildren will end up having to pay back, with interest.

Using gifted federal money that’s clearly borrowed from others using long-term U. S. Treasury debt is hardly balancing the budget. It’s more akin to taking out a 30-year second mortgage to pay off current credit card debt.

So why isn't the media pointing out the half billion dollar increase (nearly 40% jump) in federal spending that the Republican leadership of South Dakota gladly put into the 2010 and 2011 budgets? Senator Mike Vehle favors spending all the federal money he can get his hands on. Kephart points out the immorality of that greed:

Second, the stimulus funds are hardly “free money.” Are any of our state political leaders familiar with the term TANSTAAFL? It’s an acronym for “There ain’t no such thing as a free lunch,” although I suppose if you were walking down Capitol Avenue in Pierre one day and a roasted pigeon flies into your mouth, that might qualify. Who’s going to repay the $100 million (plus accrued interest) in stimulus funds we used to “balance” our budget? A faceless, nameless future generation who had no say in our struggle to balance our budget?

Given the realities of an ongoing global credit crunch and the inevitable side effects of irrational multi-year, trillion-dollar federal deficits, how much longer will South Dakota be able to depend on “free” money? In short order, Washington will likely have to seriously curtail — or worse, abruptly cut off — monies flowing into various states’ agencies and many of their public/private partnerships. South Dakota has no “Plan B” for that eventuality, and that’s a major failure in leadership.

Thomas Jefferson said it is immoral for one generation to pass on the results of its extravagance, in the form of debts, to the next generation. The only thing the Office of the Governor and the state Legislature succeeded in doing is kicking the problem past November’s general election and into next year.

It is wrong headed to only blame Democrats for being fiscally irresponsible. The leadership of the South Dakota Republican Party are no better. And while South Dakota's Department of Transportation gets over $100,000 of the $500,000 stimulus monies, Mike Vehle pushed to add gas taxes and license plate fees to pay for fixing our washed out rural roads. And in both county Lincoln Day diners in District 20, Republican Senate Majority Leader Dave Knudson congratulated District 20 for sending such a fine Senator to Pierre. Time for a change in leadership in Pierre, and in the South Dakota GOP.

Both Parties think we are stupid, that is why they don't want us to have the truth

Again, both parties are the problem, and the truth is the solution:

Our founders envisioned a Congress following the Constitution with conviction to the values to make us great. Instead our government has devolved into a system that only provides the first three letters of those words.

Republicans didn't accept responsibility when President Bush refused to veto spending bills that increased the national debt dramatically. Democrats will not even acknowledge President Obama's runaway spending. It's spending that makes all other presidencies look fiscally sound.

Do both political parties think the American people are stupid?

Unfortunately they do. Not only do they think we are, they are depending on us remaining stupid.

That is why it is critical Americans start shutting off the cable and stop texting for a few minutes and start educating ourselves on the vital issues we face as a nation. The con artists on both sides of the aisle are getting away with murder while we are busy entertaining ourselves. They can no longer do as they wish if we are to survive.

If we allow all the conveniences and indulgences to distract us, as they did in ancient Rome, our politicians will run our country straight into the ground. Sadly we will have no one to blame but ourselves. We were too busy focused on "me" versus "us."

We are getting the government we deserve.

...

Truth is truth. We need to work with the truth, not spin or tout someone's opinion on any given issue. We don't need the best, most convincing marketing campaign. We don't need the negative ads we see during election years. We need the truth. Then we need to talk to each other and come together on what we want.

The tea party is a perfect example of what happens when America comes together: Republicans, Democrats and independents who are white, black and all shades in between. They are Jewish, Christian, atheist and agnostic. They're all different type of nationalities. They aren't hyphenated Americans – just Americans.

They are people who want what is best for the country without regard for who gets the power or the credit.

Otherwise, I would suggest that the current group of losers in Congress get together and form the Con-o-crat Party or the Republi-con Party. At least that way the people know what they are getting. That would offer real "consumer protection."

Charity, not government, is the proper response to poverty

Patrice Lewis:

Remember this clear and easy definition of what constitutes a right: Rights don't cost anyone anything. They are not achieved by picking someone else's pocket. They are not granted by government largesse through entitlement programs.

If a government program operates under the principle that the homeless have a "right" to food / shelter / jobs / education / transportation / medical care / etc., these can only be obtained through our tax dollars. With few exceptions, government-funded solutions do not allow people to become contributing members of society independent of government assistance. It merely creates a perpetual dependent class receiving endless "rights."

It's the ol' "Give a man a fish and he eats for a day; teach a man to fish and he eats for a lifetime" syndrome. Government entitlements hand out fish galore, but it doesn't teach anyone to fish. Almost by definition, it can't.

Whereas private charities can.

I had a delightful chat with a man named Dave Wall with the Union Gospel Mission in Spokane, Wash. This particular branch of Union Gospel Mission has been around since 1950 and is 100 percent privately funded. It takes no government money whatsoever. Aside from private donations, they operate thrift stores that provide transitional training and employment to their clients as well as fund their mission work.

They minister to the homeless through a three-tiered program: Rescue (emergency needs), Recovery (12 to 18 months of treatment and counseling to overcome the issues that brought them to the Mission) and Restoration (integration back into the community and becoming contributing members).

"Government money always comes with strings attached," Mr. Wall stated. "There are always conditions. It fosters dependency and sustains the poor lifestyle choices that led toward homelessness."

The Union Gospel Mission's goal is to help people through their brokenness. "We understand what brings them here," Mr. Wall says. "They've been wounded, damaged, misdirected, or made poor choices that led them to the streets. Sometimes it's through no fault of their own, and sometimes it is. But it takes more than just rescue. Rescue merely enables."

The government-funded group provides false "rights" (entitlements) by forcibly removing money and resources from one segment of the population and distributing to another. This enslaves the first segment by not allowing them to keep the rewards of their hard work; and it enslaves the second into eternal dependency.

Rebuttal to Cory Heidelberger's denial of Climategate

This is why I am banned by Cory Heidelberger and Pat Powers (its called the truth):

A second technique the warmists have used lately to keep their spirits up has been to repeat incessantly that the official inquiries into the "Climategate" scandal have cleared the top IPCC scientists involved of any wrongdoing, and that their science has been "vindicated". But, as has been pointed out by critics like Steve McIntyre of Climate Audit, this is hardly surprising, since the inquiries were careful not to interview any experts, such as himself, who could have explained just why the emails leaked from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) were so horribly damaging.

The perfunctory report of the Science Appraisal Panel, chaired by Lord Oxburgh, examined only 11 papers produced by the CRU, none of them remotely connected to what the fuss was all about. Last week Andrew Montford, author of The Hockey Stick Illusion: Climategate and the Corruption of Science, revealed on his blog (Bishop Hill – bishophill.squarespace.com) that the choice of these papers was approved for the inquiry by Sir Brian Hoskins, of the Grantham Institute for Climate Change at Imperial College, and by Phil Jones, the CRU's former director – an appraisal of whose work was meant to be the purpose of the inquiry.

Government-run health care is unconstitutional and immoral

Now that Pat Powers has confirmed himself to be a Marxist, here is the quote of the day from Robert Ringer:

Only the most demented Marxist mind would even attempt to concoct a justifiable reason why the use of force is morally superior to charity. The idea that compassion justifies aggression is a perversity that must be exposed for what it is: an excuse for government to increase its power over people. Compassion, on the other hand, leads quite naturally to charity – without government involvement.

Here is his explanation:

Now that BHO has appointed Donald Berwick – a man who has made it clear that universal health care necessitates redistribution of wealth – to oversee the Medicare and Medicaid health-insurance programs, it's yet another reminder that progressive politicians and nonelected bureaucrats believe they have the authority to grant, as well as take away, individual rights.

All this gives new meaning to the word arrogance. Any civil human being knows, in his heart, that people have a natural right to be free to make personal choices about their own lives, their own bodies and their own property. This simple truth is commonly referred to as "Natural Law." It can also be thought of as the Law of Nonaggression.

If one believes it is a violation of an individual's natural right to force him to do something he does not want to do (e.g., give up part of his wealth or property to others) or prevent him from doing something that he does want to do (so long his actions do not harm anyone else), then government aggression can never be morally justified. In a society of moral people, the Law of Nonaggression would be the only law that would be needed.

Where confusion comes about – and trouble begins to set in – is in the progressive's perversion of a unique human trait known as compassion. Compassion is why private charity thrives in America, notwithstanding the fact that the government forces individuals to hand over a substantial portion of their earnings to fund immoral government activities.

Charity is about each individual giving not according to his ability, but according to his desire – to those whom he deems to be in need and worthy of his charity. CC = compassion and charity. Got it?

The progressive, however, does not get it. He tries to sever the link between compassion and charity, and instead links compassion with aggression – i.e., the use of force. And while it may seem self-evident that compassion and aggression contradict one another, thanks to the emotion of guilt, this combo is an easy sell even to those who possess a basic belief in individual sovereignty.

After all, how can a person not be in favor of taking wealth by force when millions are unemployed … homeless … in need of medical treatment … lacking money for education … the list is endless, because human desires/needs are endless. But a person would have to be omniscient, not to mention divinely moral, to know which needs of which people are superior to the rights of other individuals to keep what is theirs.

The fact that 35 percent of Americans favor government-run health care is irrelevant. Lots of people want lots of free stuff. That's a given. But to take money by force to give them the free services they desire is unconstitutional – and, more important, immoral.

Since the government does not create wealth of its own, the only way it can "help" people – whether it be to give them unemployment benefits, health care or any other commodity – is to commit aggression against others and simply use force to take the resources it needs.

Pat Powers foresakes the Tea Party movement, supports far-left RINO

Here is the anti-conservative far-left propaganda from Pat Powers in regard to the Tea Party movement:

At the end of the day – if the organization wants to thrive and grow, it has to be about winning elections. If you can’t put rear-ends in seats, then how does it grow in authority, and attract people to work in conjunction with it?

I had a conversation with one of my product suppliers for [Pat Powers' expensive campaign store] the other day about the tea party movement on a national basis. This campaign supplier (a significant player on a national basis) noted to me that he has yet to receive a single tea-party related order personally, or through any of his affiliated clients.  He believes it’s because they either don’t’ have any money, or they are spending it on administration, rather than getting people elected.

His thinking is that they’re going to be going away. Me? I hope they can be so much more than an organization whose public fighting fills column inches in the newspaper.

I’ve said it before in relation to their desire to get Glenn Beck into Rapid City, and I’ll say it again in reference to all this in-fighting – IF YOU WANT OFFICEHOLDERS TO BE MORE CONSERVATIVE, THEN YOU NEED TO GET MORE CONSERVATIVE OFFICEHOLDERS ELECTED.

So why is Pat Powers, who claims to be a conservative, attacking Gordon Howie, a Tea Party conservative, and why did he say this about the District 20 Senate race:

Mike Vehle isn’t going anywhere, and neither competitor will pose a challenge to his efforts.

Just like the primary for Governor, Pat Powers attacks the only conservative in the race, and supports a far-left Progressive who believes an ever-growing government is to benefit special interests. Pat Power supports Mike Vehle, the prime sponsor for legislation that raises gas taxes and license plate fees. There is no RINO that is more to the left than Mike Vehle. 

This explains why he is supporting Barb Lindberg's efforts to destroy the Citizens for Liberty Tea Party out of Rapid City:

“We cannot continue to slap the Republican Party in the face. Do we have RINOs in our party? Yes,” Lindberg said, referring to the term ‘Republicans in name only.’ “What are we going to do, keep spitting on them until they leave? We cannot continue these negative attacks on people we oppose.”

Pat Powers has been spitting on me since 2005. Out spoken conservatives are a threat to the big government RINOs that are currently in control of the South Dakota GOP. Pat Powers is one of their lackeys.

Cultural Marxists, the grand dragons of a KKK for colored people

[I see through my feed reader that Pat Powers proved the point made by Alan Keyes. I have to read his far-left propaganda through a feed reader because the power hungry totalitarian has banned me from his web site. This is what I get when trying to access:

Forbidden

You don't have permission to access / on this server.]

Alan Keyes describes the dangers to liberty of allowing Progressives like Pat Powers and Cory Heidelberger to play politics by ignoring the truth and attacking individuals they ideologically disagree with propaganda created by the cultural Marxists:

On my blog this week I posted a piece discussing the telling episode involving USDA official Shirley Sherrod's speech to a local NAACP gathering in Georgia. It begins with reference to the fact that a warlike focus on damaging the opposition contributed to disregard for truth on the part of all those whose actions contributed to the false outcome that hastily threw Sherrod to the wolves, bureaucratically speaking.

As their part in the political wars occasioned by the Obama faction's reckless efforts to force socialism on a reluctant people, the folks at the NAACP passed a resolution hurling deceitful charges of racism at the tea-party movement. (Sherrod's Georgia speech also included lying rhetoric to this effect, by the way.) On the excuse that Obama is a colored person, they joined the farcical effort to portray opposition to the Obama faction's culturally Marxist agenda as "racism." This implies that race is a matter of ideological preference. If true, this would invalidate the argument that racist discrimination violates unalienable human rights. In any case, if it's racist to discriminate against people because of their ideological preferences, then given their treatment of conservatives, the left-leaning leadership of the NAACP (and indeed most leaders in the Democratic Party) would appear to be the grand dragons of a KKK for colored people.

In response to the NAACP's slanderous campaign against the tea party, the folks at Andrew Breitbart's Biggovernment.com eagerly latched on to what appeared to be evidence of real racism in Sherrod's speech. They deny that they consciously falsified the record by taking the seemingly offensive remarks out of context. But when they first posted video of the speech, did they post the substantial portions now accessible at their site?

Worse than possibly deceitful selection on their part, there's the question of Fox News' possible lack of journalistic diligence in its first reporting on the episode. Finally, of course, there comes the Obama faction's hasty willingness to throw one of their own to the jackals without bothering to hear her side of it or examine the record.

The moral of this story is clear. In the wars of political power and ambition, truth is a consistent casualty. But where truth is discarded, so is regard for the just treatment of individuals. Americans should be the last people in the world to feign surprise at this. The connection between self-evident truth and the just treatment of individuals is the basic tenet of our liberty. The ambition-driven carelessness of many of the self-worshipping elites who now usurp leadership in our country causes them to treat the words of the Declaration as a merely rhetorical flourish. But the initially unfair and callous treatment of Shirley Sherrod reminds us of what happens to the lives of individuals once the standard of truth is set aside in the combat for political advantage.

...

However, the warlike attitude toward truth that results from the narrow-minded preoccupation with power now apparent on all sides of the current political leadership in America makes it likely that the definition will include whatever damages the prospects of their ambition or helps that of their opponents. That calculation of selfish advantage is probably the only "truth" they take seriously.

For the rest of us, it's long past time that we awakened fully to the fact that such leaders are dangerous to everyone but themselves. This isn't surprising. The tendency of those in power to abuse that power for their own advantage is one of the practical challenges constitutional government is meant to address. Of course, power-mad individuals want us to believe that we should trust them with unconstrained power because of the good they intend for us, or the harm from which they will protect us. This is the habitual lie with which demagogues prepare their path to tyranny. What's unusual for Americans is that any large number of people is willing to believe them. Unless we rein in such credulousness, we won't be Americans (that is, a people defined by their liberty) for much longer.

Obama's lies includes race-card fraud

Thomas Sowell:

As Obama's own books point out, he has for years cultivated a talent for saying things that people will find congenial.

You want bipartisanship and an end to bickering in Washington? He will say he wants bipartisanship and an end to bickering in Washington. Then he will shut Republicans out of the decision-making process and respond to their suggestions by reminding them that he won the election. A famous writer – Ring Lardner, I believe – once wrote: "'Shut up,' he explained."

You want a government that is open instead of secretive? He will say that. He will promise to post proposed legislation on the Internet long enough for everyone to read it and know what is in it before there is a vote. In practice, however, he has rushed massive bills through Congress too fast for anybody – even the members of Congress – to know what was in those bills.

Racial issues are more of the same. You want a government where all citizens are treated alike, regardless of race or ethnicity? Obama will say that. Then he will advocate appointing judges with "empathy" for particular segments of the population, such as racial minorities. "Empathy" is just a pretty word for the ugly reality of bias.

Obama's first nomination of a Supreme Court justice was a classic example of someone with "empathy" for some racial groups, but not others. As a Circuit Court judge, Sonia Sotomayor voted to dismiss a case involving white firefighters who had been denied the promotions for which they qualified, because not enough blacks or Hispanics passed the same test that they did.

A fellow Hispanic judge protested the way the white firefighters' case was dismissed, rather than adjudicated. Moreover, the Supreme Court not only took the case, it ruled in favor of the firefighters.

Obama's injecting himself into a local police matter in Massachusetts, despite admitting that he didn't know the facts, to say that a white policeman was in the wrong in arresting a black professor who was a friend of Obama, was more of the same. So is Obama's Justice Department overlooking blatant voter intimidation by thugs who happen to be black.

There is not now, nor has there ever been, anything post-racial about Barack Obama, except for the people who voted for him in the mistaken belief that he shared their desire to be post-racial. When he leaves office, especially if it is after one term, he will leave this country more racially polarized than before.

Hopefully, he may also leave the voters wiser, though sadder, after they learn from painful experience that you can't judge politicians by their rhetoric, or ignore their past because of your hopes for the future. Voters may even wise up to race-card fraud.