Sibby Online

Obama's Director of fundraising lies about their involvement in crony capitalism for $3

Rufus Gifford, National Finance Director of Obama for America sent out a fundraining email that includes this:

From the beginning, we've refused to take money from D.C. lobbyists and corporate special interests. Our operation is fueled by people inspiring each other to take ownership of this campaign.

That's why we've been emailing this week, and that's why I'm obligated to remind you once more that the deadline is coming up in a matter of hours.

If you're able to, will you chip in just $3 today?

No DC lobbyists or corporate special interests? Well Solyndra is still a hot topic:

The loan restructuring is one element congressional investigators are focusing on as they look into the federal loan guarantee Solyndra received under the economic stimulus law.

Under terms of the February loan restructuring, two private investors — Argonaut Ventures I LLC and Madrone Partners LP — stand to be repaid before the U.S. government if the solar company is liquidated. The two firms gave the company a total of $69 million in emergency loans. The loans are the only portion of their investments that have repayment priority above the U.S. government.

Argonaut is an investment vehicle of the George Kaiser Family Foundation of Tulsa, Okla. The foundation is headed by billionaire George Kaiser, a major Obama campaign contributor and a frequent visitor to the White House. Kaiser raised between $50,000 and $100,000 for Obama’s 2008 campaign, federal election records show. Kaiser has made at least 16 visits to the president’s aides since 2009, according to White House visitor logs.

That makes this interesting:

In light of the Solyndra bankruptcy, terms like “economic stimulus package” and “green jobs” now appear to be Team Obama code words for “kickbacks to political supporters so huge they would make a third-world despot green with envy.”

Solyndra is (or, more accurately, was) a California solar energy company that was the crown jewel of Obama’s first economic stimulus package, which cost $787 billion. Solyndra’s chief investor, George Kaiser, was also a bundler for Obama’s 2008 campaign, gathering over $50,000 in campaign contributions. Kaiser, together with Solyndra executives and board members, donated $87,050 to Obama’s campaign.

Sad that politicians are willing to go through so much deception for $3.

Solyndra, a bi-partisan example of crony capitalism

Many have attacked the Obama administration for costing the taxpayers over a half billion dollars that resulted from the bankruptcy of Solyndra. Example:

Because of the prejudice against fossil fuels in administration quarters, and undoubtedly because so many Democrat fundraisers and lobbyists are lining their pockets on "green projects," the government, which should not be providing debt capital for new tech energy start-ups, has jumped into this area, feet first, and landed on its nose, at huge cost to us.  The risk should be taken by high-flying investors, not the taxpayers.  Moreover, the evidence is overwhelming that the administration utterly lacks people with the business acumen to make the decision between competing technologies and companies.  Successful silicon valley investors simply are not hanging around looking to jump ship for a slot at the Department of Energy or this White House.  As a wise man once said about taking advice from stock brokers, if they are so smart, why aren't they making the money for themselves?

The evidence already establishes not only the connection between Solyndra's investors and lobbyists with the Democrats, but as well that its representatives met multiple times with Obama's closest aide, Valerie B. Jarrett, "to push for loans, tax breaks and other government assistance."

But cronyism is not the only shortcoming in this picture: as the New York Times article linked above makes clear, aside from the possibility of political corruption, the question of incompetence in the doling out of half a billion in funds to this company is damning[.]

We all know that it is the Republicans who are known for their crony capitalism. The Mitchell Daily Republic published a column by Dana Milbank that ties the GOP to the Solyndra crony capitalism:

And this week, the government faced the prospect of a shutdown because House Republicans added a provision to the spending bill to draw more attention to — what else? — Solyndra.

“Because of some of the horrible weather we have had over the past several weeks, we have all agreed to add emergency funds that we didn’t originally plan in this bill, and Republicans have identified a couple of cuts,” explained Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, including “a cut to a loan-guarantee program that gave us the Solyndra scandal.”

What McConnell neglected to mention is that Solyndra was cleared to participate in this loan-guarantee program by President George W. Bush’s administration. He also did not mention that the legislation creating the loan-guarantee program, approved by the Republican-controlled Congress in 2005, received yes votes from — wait for it — DeMint, Hatch and McConnell.

This doesn’t mean that Bush is to blame for Solyndra or that the Obama administration should be absolved. Obama, whose administration gave the company the loan guarantee, deserves the black eye that Republicans have given him over the half a billion dollars squandered on the company. But the Republican paternity of the program that birthed Solyndra suggests some skepticism is in order when many of those same Republicans use Solyndra as an example of all that is wrong with Obama’s governance.

“Loan guarantees aim to stimulate investment and commercialization of clean energy technologies to reduce our nation’s reliance on foreign sources of energy,” Bush’s energy secretary, Sam Bodman, announced in a press release in 2007. The release said the Energy Department had received 143 preapplications for the guarantees and narrowed the list to 16 finalists, including Solyndra.

Bush’s Energy Department apparently adjusted its regulations to make sure that Solyndra would be eligible for the guarantees. It hadn’t originally contemplated including the photovoltaic-panel manufacturing that Solyndra produced but changed the regulation before it was finalized. The only project that benefited was Solyndra’s.

The loan-guarantee program for these alternative energy companies, in turn, was created as part of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 — sponsored by Rep. Joe Barton, RTexas, who has been a leader in the congressional probe of Solyndra’s ties to the Obama administration.

Among those in the Republican majority who supported the bill was Rep. David Dreier, R-Calif., who on Sept. 22 said on the House floor that Republicans were removing $100 million from the loan-guarantee program “to ensure that we never again have another boondoggle like Solyndra.”

The complaints were much the same in the Senate, where DeMint said the Solyndra case exposed the “unintended results when our government tries to pick winners and losers.” That’s a valid criticism, but it would be more valid if DeMint hadn’t been a supporter of the loan-guarantee legislation in 2005.

But that was before Obama’s presidency, and views back then were different. They were more like the March 2008 press release from Bush’s Energy Department, announcing that it was funding research projects on photovoltaic technology:. “These projects are integral to President Bush’s Solar America Initiative, which aims to make solar energy cost-competitive with conventional forms of electricity by 2015.”

Among the winners listed in the press release? Solyndra.

Yes, the valid criticism is the crony capitalism where the government picks winners and losers. And both political parties are doing it. And who are the losers...taxpayers, consumers, labor, and small business.

Washington Post pulls a Cory Heidelberger, pro-atheist distorts Bible to claim Jesus was a socialist

The Washington Post runs a column in their so-called Faith section by a Gregory Paul that makes this point:

Many conservative Christians, mostly Protestant but also a number of Catholics, have come to believe and proudly proclaim that the creator of the universe favors free wheeling, deregulated, union busting, minimal taxes especially for wealthy investors, plutocrat-boosting capitalism as the ideal earthly scheme for his human creations. And many of these Christian capitalists are ardent followers of Ayn Rand, who was one of - and many of whose followers are -- the most hard-line anti-Christian atheist/s you can get.

Sounds like something Cory Heidelberger would say. And note that Gregory Paul is pro-atheist, so he should appreciate Ayn Rand.

There are so many misconceptions and distortions it is difficult where to start. Let me start with criticism from a Dr. Thomas Ice:

When the question is posed: "Is Jesus a socialist?"  The clear answer is "Of course not!"  The claim that Jesus was a socialist was recently posed by Gregory Paul in The Washington Post who tries to argue for a biblically mandated socialism from the early chapters of Acts.  Paul's claims are nothing new and have likely arisen out of the overall debate our nation is involved in concerning socialism vs. free markets.  President Obama and his crowd want socialism, while the rest of the nation wants to move away from government control of the economy.

First off, I would like to clarify Ice's point that "the rest of the nation wants to move away from government control of the economy". I disagree and I will use Ice's definition of socialism to make my argument:

The Oxford English Dictionary defines socialism as "a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole."  Since it is a political and economic theory it always means that in reality the government owns or regulates the economy.  When the government regulates but does not own the means of production, it is called fascism, as in Nazi Germany.  When the government owns and controls the means of production it is called communism, as in the former Soviet Union.  Both version fit within the broader idea of socialism.

So most believe in some form of government involvement, as Republicans push a fascist form of government in the name of capitalism. And since today's capitalism is based on government regulation of privately owned business, then we would have to say it is a fascist form of socialism. [The more communistic approach would be Cory Heidelberger advocating government ownership of land.]Today's capitalism is not free market Laissez Faire. Now that may fit Ayn Rand's economics, but it would be wrong to say that "Christian capitalists" support the agenda of atheists. The first problem is that many, in the name of Christianity, are not following Biblical principles. So what does the Bible say about this issue? Ice gives us the main argument against the Bible portraying Jesus a socialist:

Since the God of the Old Testament is the same God of the New Testament, there must be continuity between the two on any matter.  Wayne Grudem observes: "The Bible regularly assumes and reinforces a system in which property belongs to individuals, not to the government or to society as a whole."  Grudem further notes that individual property rights are assumed in the eight and tenth commandments and throughout the case law given them through Moses.  How can one steal or covet a neighbor's possessions if there is not personal property?

The Biblical law on Coveting poses a huge problem for those who advocate a welfare state.

Ice then exposes a big lie found in Gregory Paul's column:

Paul says the reason Ananias and Sapphira were killed by the Holy Spirit in Acts 5 was because they refused to hand over all of their property to the authorities because the community was to own all.  Such a view, in light of the context, is preposterous!  Paul ignores verse 4 in which Peter says to the couple, "While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own?  And after it was sold, was it not under your control?"  Such statements by Peter do not support Paul's notion that Ananias and Sapphira were killed for not being good socialists.  Instead, they fall within the viewpoint of the rest or the Bible that the couple's land was their private property, as well as the money received from the sale of their land.  The problem with what Ananias and Sapphira were doing was lying about the amount they were giving to the early church.  Ananias and Sapphira made it look like they had offered their entire proceeds from the sale of their land when in reality they had kept part back for themselves.  Such deceit was not a fruit of the Holy Spirit and the Lord demonstrated early on that indeed the Spirit of God was in their midst because only Ananias and Sapphira would have known that they lied to the apostles.

Ice further explains the Biblical error the left uses on the issue of the poor:

Therefore when Jesus makes statements about the poor and against the rich, they fail to see from the contexts what He intended.  Instead, they bring in their socialist notion of class warfare as if the poor and the rich are not equally sinners and in need of Christ's gracious provision.

If the poor are coveting the wealthy's property, then an argument can be made that the poor are commenting sin by advocating social welfare. Further, if the left do care about taking care of those who can't take care of themselves, then they should be on board with the idea that all able bodied citizens need to help create the wealth needed to care for those who can't.

Ice concludes with this:

Therefore there are too many so-called "evangelicals" who are advocates of socialism like Jim Wallis of Sojourners, Brian McLaren, Ron Sider, and Tony Campolo, to name just a few.  These ideas are being gradually sown into so-called "evangelical" colleges and universities as "social justice" issues.  Regardless of what these ideas may be or where they come from, one thing is clear, the Word of God is not their source.  In fact the source of such ideas are clearly satanic.  According to Bible prophecy the world is being prepared for a time in which socialism will indeed come to dominate the world under the rule of antichrist.

And we must understand that this New World Order is being brought about by capitalists and communists, all in the spirit of socialism. True Christians who are serious about following Biblical principles would avoid the social gospel of the left and the Dominion Theology of the Religious Right. As I said earlier, many in the name of Christianity give a false doctrine. Unfortunately, the left will use the false doctrines of the Religious Right to give Christianity a bad name. Then they themselves use false doctrine and we then have columns like the one the Washington Post ran that completely distorts truth.

Here is a look at, "The Bible on the Role of Government".

Perrynomics might just be Obamanomics, and business as usual in the South Dakota GOP

For Tea Party Religious Right folks who think Rick Perry is their saviour from Obama's policies, you need to take note of this:

"I'm a pro-business governor -- I don't make any apologies about it," Rick Perry told the crowds in Iowa this week. He's right, but we can get more specific. Perry is pro-Merck, pro-Boeing, pro-Mesa Wind, pro-Texas Instruments, pro-Convergen, and pro-dozens of businesses that donate to his campaigns and hire his aides as lobbyists.

Perry promises to "get Americans back to work," but his policies -- from backroom drug company giveaways to green energy subsidies -- eerily mirror the unseemly big business-big government collusion that has characterized President Obama's presidency.

And this sounds a lot like South Dakota GOP economic policies:

Perry pushed the Legislature to create the Texas Enterprise Fund, giving the governor, lieutenant governor and House speaker the power to hand out multimillion-dollar grants to businesses seeking to relocate to or expand within the state. Two years later, Perry and the Legislature created another subsidy bank, called the Texas Emerging Technology Fund, using taxpayer money to invest in high-tech companies. Perry made government a venture capital fund.

Muckrakers at the Los Angeles Times and the Austin American Statesman have shown a strong correlation between Perry's biggest campaign contributors and the money handled by these funds and Perry's other public-private partnership. Almost half of Perry's "mega-donors," according to the Times, have received profitable favors from the Texas government. Poultry magnate Joe Sanderson, for instance, gave Perry's campaign $165,000 and received $500,000 from the Texas Enterprise Fund to open a facility in Waco, the Times reports.

There is a difference between being pro-business and being pro-free markets. And that difference is government intervention.

Scientists take brainwashing to higher level

This is how a brain loses its brain:

The researchers found they were able to control whether volunteers conformed to social pressure by using powerful electromagnetic pulses that changed the activity of a small part of the brain.

Volunteers whose posterior medial frontal cortex, an area in the middle of the brain that is associated with reward processing, were exposed to the magnetic pulses suffered reduced levels of conformity.

The researchers believe this part of the brain dates back a long way in the evolution of animals and is responsible or automatically "correcting" our performance when we fall out of line with a group.

They say that by suspending this mechanism, it allows people to think and behave differently. They now believe it may be possible to develop drugs or behaviour changing techniques that could increase or decrease people's conformity.

Cory Heidelberger perpetuates a serious injustice against women taken from the pro-abortion movement

Cory Heidelberger takes me to task for a post I put up regading Priscilla Coleman's research on the impact abortions have on mental health:

Just the fact that we have to take time to shout back at such fraudulent science is a small victory for the Colemans, Reardons, Sibsons, and Unruhs. But we can’t stop shouting. We must continue to fight this regime of fraud and and moral oppression that will use any means necessary to pervert the Constitution into their puritanial world order.

Troy Jones responds with this:

Words to describe people who oppose abortion and believe it the killing of a defenseless human being:

“American Taliban”: Considering we are a nation at war with the Taliban, isn’t it a bit over-the-top to compare people with whom you disagree with our enemies in war?

“moral oppression”: Is desiring your government protect the defenseless moral oppression?

“pervert the Constitution”: If you believe all persons deserve protection, is advocating for protection for the defenseless a perversion? Argue this baby is not a person if you want but to compare Pro-Life advocates to sex offenders. . . .

“their puritanial world order.”: If you knew personally very many Pro-Life advocates, to dismiss the entire group as puritanical is not fair.

The Washington Post had already used Cory's line against Colemen, who responded with this:

On Sunday, November 7, the Washington Post published an opinion by Dr. Brenda Major titled “The Big Lie about Abortion and Mental Health.” I would like to offer another perspective on the dishonesty permeating the scientific study of abortion and mental health and the dissemination of information on the topic. Like Brenda Major, I am a tenured full professor at a well-respected American university who has published peer-reviewed scientific articles in reputable journals. (In fact, my publication record far exceeds Dr. Major’s on the topic of abortion and mental health.)

Dr. Major is absolutely correct that an informed choice regarding abortion must be based on accurate information. An unbiased and valid synopsis of the scientific literature on increased risks associated with abortion would include depression, substance abuse, and anxiety disorders (including PTSD), as well as suicide ideation and behaviors. The body of literature on the subject is made up of hundreds of studies — including 30 in just the last five years — published in major medical and psychological journals throughout the world. The conscientious reader is encouraged to check the studies out. No lies, just scientifically derived information that individual academics, several major professional organizations, and abortion providers have done their best to hide and distort.

Dr. Major’s opinion piece followed on the heels of a highly biased “Task Force Report on Abortion and Mental Health” from the American Psychological Association. Six colleagues and I sent a petition letter to the APA criticizing their methods and conclusions; as a group, the seven of us in 2008 had published nearly 50 peer-reviewed articles indicating abortion is associated with negative psychological outcomes.

These two examples are just the latest in a long line of efforts to divert attention from sound published data on the emotional consequences of abortion. The literature now echoes the voices of millions of women for whom abortion was not a liberating, health-promoting choice: A conservative estimate from the best available data is 20 to 30 percent of women who undergo an abortion will experience serious and/or prolonged negative consequences. Yet a socio-political agenda seeks to keep the truth from women in order to ensure that the big business of abortion continues unimpeded.

Any interpretation of the available research that does not acknowledge the strong evidence now available in the professional literature represents a conscious choice to ignore basic principles of scientific integrity. The human fallout from such a choice: misinformed professionals, millions of women struggling in isolation to make sense of a past abortion, thousands who will seek an abortion today without the benefit of known risks, and millions who will make this often life-altering decision tomorrow without the basic right of informed consent. In publishing Major’s opinion without soliciting other voices on the topic, the Washington Post has perpetuated a serious injustice.

And so Cory has also "perpetuated a serious injustice" against women.

Tea Party Zombies Must Die

This is how the Huffington Post promotes the violent reaction to the Tea Party movement:

A new video game is giving players a chance to explore a post-apocalyptic Fox News studio and kill off zombies that resemble famous conservatives including Michele Bachmann, Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, Bill O’Reilly and Glenn Beck.

The game, called "Tea Party Zombies Must Die," is project by StarvingEyes Advergaming, a website that provides games for online viral campaigns.

Other characters in the first-person shooter include the "Generic Pissed Off Old White Guy Zombie," the "Pissed Off Stupid White Trash Redneck Birther Zombie" and the "Express Racist Views Anonymously On The Internet Modern Klan Zombie," who dons the remains of a KKK robe as he wanders around with a sign that describes President Barack Obama as a Muslim

According to National Review Online, players get "informative tidbits" between levels about how Obama's health care plan lowers the deficit, and "how most Republicans think the president is a Muslim."

Jason Oda, the head of StarvingEyes, told MRC TV the game was a personal project and downplayed the criticism coming from conservative circles.

"I am not worried about it affecting business," Oda said.

Notice the left does not include Ron Paul, the one who best fits the Tea Party movement's political ideology. Many of the players who are called "conservatives" are actually GOP Establishment big government capitalists, and not limited government free market advocates.

Can you image the outrage if someone put out a video game that targeted Obama?

Planned Parenthood and the 10 commandments

Not only does Planned Parenthood care not about the Commandment on murder, they also care less about bearing false witness. And this also points to the courts being on board with that:

Planned Parenthood won a major victory today in its ongoing court battle against South Dakota’s so-called “informed consent” law, which seeks to compel doctors to deliver ideological and medically inaccurate statements to their patients.

The South Dakota law – H.B. 1166, which was enacted in 2005 and challenged in court by Planned Parenthood – requires a doctor to tell a woman who is seeking an abortion that she faces an “increased risk of suicide ideation and suicide.”

“As the major medical organizations have found, and as the court agreed today, the scientific and medical evidence shows that women who choose abortion are not at increased risk for mental health problems,” said Sarah Stoesz, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota. “This law just one of many reprehensible barriers that South Dakota lawmakers have attempted to place between women and their access to safe, legal, reproductive health care.” 

First off, abortion is not about "reproduction" health care, it is about preventing reproduction. But in regard to the suicide issue, we have this:

A new study published in the British Journal of Psychiatry by leading American researcher Dr. Priscilla Coleman of Bowling Green State University finds women who have an abortion face almost double the risk of mental health problems as women who have their baby.

Coleman’s study is based on an analysis of 22 separate studies which, in total, examine the pregnancy experiences of 877,000 women, with 163,831 women having an abortion. The study also indicated abortion accounts for one in ten of every adverse mental health issue women face as a whole.

“Results indicate quite consistently that abortion is associated with moderate to highly increased risks of psychological problems subsequent to the procedure,” the study says. “Overall, the results revealed that women who had undergone an abortion experienced an 81 percent increased risk of mental health problems, and nearly 10 percent of the incidence of mental health problems were shown to be directly attributable to abortion.”

The peer-reviewed study indicated abortion was linked with a 34 percent chance of anxiety disorders, and 37 percent higher possibility of depression, a more than double risk of alcohol abuse (110 percent), a three times greater risk of marijuana use (220 percent), and 155 percent greater risk of trying to commit suicide.

When compared to unintended pregnancy delivered women had a 55% increased risk of experiencing any mental health problem.

Dr. Coleman said she conducted the study “to produce an unbiased analysis of the best available evidence addressing abortion as one risk factor among many others that may increase the likelihood of mental health problems. There are in fact some real risks associated with abortion that should be shared with women as they are counseled prior to an abortion.”

Not only are the pro-abortion advocates on the opposite side of Biblical principles, but they are also outside scientific evidence.

South Dakota educators making false allegations to justify higher taxes

The Argus Leader ran a report titled, "Frozen university salaries stoke fears of faculty drain" last week. Excerpt:

Salaries for university professors in South Dakota already lag behind those in neighboring states. Professors at the state's six public universities average $79,308 in salary this school year. At the University of Nebraska in Lincoln, it's $110,948. Four years ago, the latest figures available according to officials, North Dakota's public university system averaged $82,538 for professors.

With the three-year wage freeze only exacerbating the situation, administrators say they are watching a number of experienced faculty members pack and leave for better pay. That exodus of experienced instructors can't help but affect the quality of education offered by the state's universities and ultimately deplete the state's ability to provide an educated work force for businesses.

Governor says he understands

State officials and Board of Regents members say they understand the toll that the wage freeze is exacting and intend to address it as best they can in the next legislative session.

Daugaard's spokesman, Tony Venhuizen, said the governor is just beginning to formulate next year's budget, "and deciding on a salary policy number is an important part of that process."

Jason Dilges, chief financial officer for the state, said the governor understands that another year of a salary freeze could be devastating.

"We can't go four years," Dilges said. "We will see the quality of the work force deteriorate if we do."

Anecdotally, at least, university officials already see the damage being done.

Today, Bob Mercer provides facts that counter the anecdotal propaganda of the greedy Educrats:

Despite the absence of salary increases for what’s now become three years in a row, most faculty members stayed in their jobs at state universities in South Dakota.

Indeed, the percentages of faculty turnover during the past three fiscal years — 5.31 percent in 2009, 4.08 percent in 2010 and 5.41 percent in the 2011 fiscal year that just ended June 30 — were at their lowest points in more than a decade.

Those circumstances appear contrary to anecdotal suggestions on campuses that faculty members have been leaving for higher-paying opportunities elsewhere.

Sad that the education lobby continues to indoctrinate the masses with the idea that they do not have enough money. The South Dakota Supreme Court recently ruled against the education lobby's attempt to sue for more money. Again, the facts counter the lack of funding propaganda. Cory Heidelberger recently got a job in Spearfish to teach French, as he complains about paying taxes. The Mitchell School system is plush with brick and mortar and can afford to give all middle school and high school students laptops. Their entertainment programs are also plush with a new and seldom used football stadium.

It will be interesting but sad to hear the propaganda as the Educrats push to increase South Dakota's sales tax by 25% by teaming with the Big Health lobbyists who are implementing Obamacare in South Dakota via the passage this year of SB38 & SB43. In Cory Heidelberger like fashion, the Mitchell Daily Republic wants to add that sales tax, as they refuse to pay sales tax themselves.

Yes, the name of the game is greed. Sad it has reached the point where misrepresentation and lies have dominated the news reporting. And the core basis to today's propaganda is the Governor's deception on the faux $127 million budget cut. I jumped on it right away, repeated it to the Mitchell paper several times, gave Bob Mercer, Dusty Johnson, and others the documented proof...yet the false $127 million budget cut stands as proof that we need to raise taxes. Higher taxes will hurt the economy at a time when it looks like Obamanomics has pulled a FDR and turned a recession into a Great Depression. The solution is not government, government is part of the problem...so said Ronald Reagan.