Sibby Online

Anti-war feminists are communists

Here is the introduction to a Sarah Rode column [Note to Todd Epp: Sarah is a female]:

"Feminists are never as militant as they are when promoting peace," said historian Sondra S. Herman. Code Pink offers a prime example as they descend on the Capital to protest victory. Their name mocks Homeland Security alerts which inform law enforcement and citizens of increased terrorist threats. Their website states, "While Bush’s color-coded alerts are based on fear, the Code Pink alert is based on compassion and is a feisty call for women and men to ‘wage peace.’" The tactics employed in their "compassion" and "feistiness" while "waging peace" are more than even Rep. Nancy Pelosi can stomach.

Code Pink women activists are vehemently anti-war and claim to be the mothers, wives and daughters of the troops fighting in Iraq. Favorite tactics from the Code Pink bag of tricks include street theatrics, hunger strikes and staged fainting in Capitol Hill offices, and protests at campaign stops across the country -- basically anything that gains media attention. They point to men as the cause of war and women as the solution. Their stated purpose is to end the "occupation in Iraq," although their goals go beyond that. Their leadership and mission are rooted more in communist ideals than in moral objection to unjust war.

While Code Pink activists condemn President Bush for his "fear-based politics that justify violence," they applaud brutal dictators like Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro. Three of their top leaders, Cindy Sheehan, Jodie Evans and Medea Benjamin, took a trip to Venezuela last year to meet and socialize with Dictator Chavez. He endorsed their efforts to subvert American authority and denounce the President of the United States as imperialistic. Jodie Evans reported after the meeting, "He called Cindy (Sheehan) ‘Mrs. Hope.’"

And Sarah ends her column with this:

In their efforts to discredit America, Code Pink leader Medea Benjamin and her husband, Kevin Danaher, organize trips for young anti-Americans to build coalitions in countries such as Iran, Syria, Venezuela and Cuba, among others. It is interesting that such radical feminists would see Iranian policies as superior to American policies, particularly when it comes to women. Ironically, Mr. Danaher wrote in 2003 (one month before the Iraq war began), "Without helping citizens around the world achieve real democracy, we will not be safe."

President Bush would agree with that statement, and his policies back it up. He stated in his address to the nation in January 2007, "The changes (troop surge) I have outlined tonight are aimed at ensuring the survival of a young democracy that is fighting for its life in a part of the world of enormous importance to American security."

If radical feminists truly want a secure nation, they should give democracy in Iraq a fighting chance. If feminists actually care about women’s rights, they should applaud the liberation of Iraqi women from Saddam Hussein’s evil regime and their new-found political rights in the fledgling democracy. If feminists really want peace in Iraq, they should support the military in its efforts to create an environment that allows for Iraqis to develop their democracy. If feminists care at all about America, they should stop dishonoring the troops and start acting like real women.

If Todd Epp cares at all about about America, he should start acting like a real man and face the truth.

Commies and celebrities who love them

That is the title of a Doug Powers column. Here is the first part of it:

Not long ago, Sean Penn traveled to Venezuela for a visit with that nation's president, Hugo Chavez, whose office obviously has a goal of hosting more leftist American celebrities than Spago.

The ideals of Chavez, along with Fidel Castro and others, have become political flight simulators or sorts for on-the-road whiffle-brained celebs who want to toy with communism but will never commit to boarding the actual plane.

Sure, Chavez claims he isn't a communist – but then again, Hillary Clinton also claims that national health care isn't socialized medicine. You know what they say: "If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and seizes and redistributes assets of other ducks and fines or imprisons the ducks who refuse to take part…"

Why was Sean Penn in Venezuela? To figure out how to put America back on the left track. In the high-level meeting, one of the world's greatest actors – along with Penn – presumably tried to figure out how to keep George W. Bush from bringing further fascism to the United States and using the war and thirst for oil to extend his evil tenure beyond constitutional limits.

Then, just days after that important meeting, Chavez, lauded by some in the American left as a model of democratic leadership, did what all democratically elected officials do and overhauled that nation’s constitution which could culminate in Chavez being president of Venezuela for life.

The fact that Penn can say "We have a dictatorship in this country" (the USA) and then go stand side by side with Hugo Chavez to laud the perfect system without being hit by lightning is a true test of our faith.

Now that Chavez has declared himself president for life and shut down any opposing opinions in the Venezuelan media, Chavez rump-smoochers from Hollywood will have plenty of time to discuss with Hugo the best way to go about bringing that brand of freedom and democracy to the United States and the rest of the world.

Viva la boneheads!

Progressives are communists

Joseph Farah provides this admission from Hillary Clinton:

Hillary Clinton says she doesn't really like the descriptive "liberal," preferring to be characterized as a "progressive."

"You know, it (liberal) is a word that originally meant that you were for freedom … that you were willing to stand against big power and on behalf of the individual," she said at the CNN/YouTube debate. "Unfortunately, in the last 30, 40 years, it has been turned up on its head, and it's been made to seem as though it is a word that describes big government, totally contrary to what its meaning was in the 19th and early 20th century."

She continued: "I prefer the word 'progressive,' which has a real American meaning, going back to the progressive era at the beginning of the 20th century. I consider myself a modern progressive."

Farah explains how the false prophets who are leading the Democrat Party are using the flowery label of "Progressive" to hide their true agenda:

Yet, what no one else has observed with regard to this quote is what it actually reveals about Hillary.

It relates directly to Hillary's political roots and her recently released Wellesley thesis on her radical hero Saul Alinsky.

While Hillary may defend liberalism today, I don't think she ever considered herself one. Having some first-hand familiarity with the "New Left" of which Hillary was a part in the 1960s, I can tell you the radicals of that movement had no use for liberals.

Liberals were sellouts to them. Liberals were at best "useful idiots." Liberals were people who could not be found when the going got tough.

That's the way Hillary and her hero Saul Alinsky viewed liberals. It was the same way the Old Left – the Communist Party – viewed liberals.

Hillary quoted Alinsky in her thesis as explaining the difference between a liberal and a radical: "The liberal refuses to fight for the goals he professes."

I'm sure Hillary still sees herself today as a "radical." But she could never use that term and remain a viable politician. So she has adopted another term – "progressive" – which means the same thing to those in the know.

This is the favored term even today of the Communist Party. They don't call themselves liberals, either. They call themselves "progressives." They always have. Nothing has changed.

In fact, who were the leaders of the Progressive Movement of the early 19th century with whom Hillary so closely identifies? Among the most notable leaders were W.E.B. DuBois, a Communist Party member, and Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood and an advocate of racial eugenics, an idea that inspired Adolf Hitler to kill six million Jews.

I don't exaggerate. These are people and ideas that get Hillary's adrenalin pumping.

Just another post to add to my "Communists not liberals" category. And if Todd Epp doesn’t like it, then he needs to change his allegiances. There is nothing progressive about abandoning America’s traditional principles. And to be fair, there are those in the Republican Party who also agree with the left and also have abandoned traditional American principles. These people are mislabeled as "moderates". There is nothing moderate about abandoning America’s traditional principles. There is no better time than now to restore America. Somehow the American people must understand that electing the one who raises the most money is not always in our best interests.

The Democrats’ Soviet playbook

That is the name of this Craige McMillan column:

Sowing the seeds of anti-Americanism by discrediting the American president was one of the main tasks of the Soviet-bloc intelligence community during the years I worked at its top levels. This same strategy is at work today, but it is regarded as bad manners to point out the Soviet parallels.

– Lt. Gen. Ion Mihai Pacepa

The longer I live and observe, the more apparent it becomes that the political left in America – and, indeed, the West – has never originated a single idea on their own. Rather, they have been empty vessels with big, loud mouths – filled with the thoughts, deceits and calculated hatreds of their own enemies – whom they have obliged by "shouting from the rooftops" their newfound "intellectual acumen."

It really doesn't matter if we're talking about members of the press, tenured college professors, or today's crop of permanent wanna-be leaders of the free world (whose only real job has ever been to seek power over others). Their main product is short, trite phrases, devoid of meaning but designed to twist debate.

No clearer picture of this phenomenon could be painted than "Propaganda Redux," an essay by Gen. Pacepa, the highest-ranking defector to the West during the Cold War.

Pacepa points out that the Communist war against American presidents – and thus America – began with Truman, for whom they coined the name "butcher of Hiroshima." Eisenhower was portrayed as "a war-mongering 'shark' run by the military-industrial complex, Johnson as a mafia boss who bumped off his predecessor, Nixon as a petty tyrant, Ford as a dimwitted football player and Jimmy Carter as a bumbling peanut farmer." (Does anyone find these Soviet characterizations similar to the ones that appeared in our own newspapers?)

"The European leftists, like any totalitarians, needed a tangible enemy, and we gave them one," Gen. Pacepa writes. "In 1978, when I left Romania for good, the bloc intelligence community had already collected 700 million signatures on a 'Yankees-Go-Home' petition, at the same time launching the slogan 'Europe for the Europeans.'"

Gen. Pacepa gives a thumbnail sketch of the "dezinformatsiya" war by the communists against America, a war conceived by Yuri Andropov during his tenure in the KGB. He acknowledges that the Communists spent billions of dollars financing leftist movements in the U.S. and Europe. These leftists, he wrote, "were like putty in our hands."

Pacepa points out that today's mainline Democrat politicians seem to have adopted the Soviet playbook. During World War II, he writes, "Republican challenger Thomas Dewey declined to criticize President Roosevelt's war policy." Can one imagine today the same courtesy extended to our men and women on the battlefield by a power-hungry politician in a tight race? There are precious few examples, but Joe Lieberman does come to mind. Read the general's column – and his prescription for America.

Note: For a good overview of "dezinformatsiya," check this entry from the Intelligence Encyclopedia.

Todd Epp the communist

Back in 2005, Todd Epp went on this full disclosure kick regarding bloggers. I disclosed that my family has land in the path of the TransCanada pipeline. So instead of respecting my full disclosure, Todd Epp immediately assumes that my position on this issue is only in regard to my family’s land and calls me a liberal NIMBY. If you read my "entire" post, you will see that I am approaching the issue of eminent domain from a property rights standpoint for "all" American landowners. And here is Todd Epp’s view on eminent domain:

Today, the WSJ has two articles looking at the second anniversary of the Kelo case that upheld the use of eminent domain statutes to comdemn land for economic development purposes, not just for public projects like roads, schools, and the like.

While I’m not a big "property rights" uber alles nut—I think people should have superior rights to property—I also don’t think the government—any governnment—should be in the business of using the law to help crony capitalists. In Kelo, the project that the Supremes upheld was essentially state sanctioned class warfare, with the rich getting their way over the poor.

So how can Todd Epp call my pro-property rights position against eminent domain "liberal", while his position against eminent domain is based on an anti-capitalist worldview, or in other words…a communist position. Funny how Todd Epp is now supporting "big oil" getting richer at the expense of South Dakota farmers. You would think that would raise his anti-capitalist hair. And in his words, "God, I love the irony of this." And i havn't even mentioned that American land is being sought by a Canadian company yet.

Communists attacking Christians

Bob Ellis introduces a report on a memorial for victims of communist atrocities:

A congressionally authorized "Memorial to the Victims of Communism" is going up on Tuesday in Washington, DC, according to WorldNetDaily.

According to the article, it will go up at the intersections of Massachusetts and New Jersey Avenues, about two blocks from Union Station and within view of the Capitol.

Many in our own country have for years ignored the oppression of those forced to live under communism, and some, such as Ted Kennedy and John Kerry, have actually been active in fighting our efforts to combat communism and have even aided our communist enemies against us.

Much of the blood of the 100 million victims is on our American hands because of our indifference and because of our treason against freedom. In a sense, the monument is as much an indictment of our moral failure as it is a memorial to those victims.

And here is another WorldNetDaily report detailing the atrocities communists are committing against Christians in Vietnam:

Two more members of a mostly-Christian population in the Central Highlands of Vietnam have died at the hands of authorities, according to a U.S.-based foundation whose leaders recently issued a plea to President Bush to ask Vietnamese President Nguyen Minh Triet about such tragedies when the two meet later this month.

The death toll from the communist government's persecution of Christians there actually is rising by three, but one of the deaths happened some time ago, only to be reported recently. The two other deaths have happened just in recent weeks, according to officials with the the Montagnard Foundation.

As WND reported, that group just days ago sent an open letter to Bush asking him to pressure the president of Vietnam to stop the "persecution, torture, killings and imprisonment" of the Degar Montagnards, a group of people who sided with the U.S. during the Vietnam war and have been persecuted since.

Little is being said by the Drive-by media about those consequences of the McGovern anti-war Democrats and our surrender to the communists in Vietnam . Here is more:

The open letter to Bush had been written by Kok Ksor, the president of the foundation, and describes how the attacks began as soon as the communists took over South Vietnam after the U.S. military pullout.

"One of those victims was my uncle, a civilian congressman for the Montagnards who was publicly executed in 1975," Ksor wrote. "Ever since the Vietnamese government has continued land exploitation, Christian persecution, torture, killings and imprisonment of our people. Religious persecution continues today as authorities torture house church Christians who resist joining the 'official' church."

"Mr. President, We ask that you: Strongly urge Vietnam to release all of the estimated 350 Montagnard Degar Prisoners from Vietnamese prisons…," the letter said, citing a Human Rights Watch report documenting those cases.

One can only imaging the atrocities that will happen if we do what the Democrats want today…surrender to the Islamic Jihadists in Iraq.

But the anti-war movement is just one part of the Cultural Marxist movement. Again, I post the introduction to a must read Linda Kimball column:

There are two misconceptions held by many Americans. The first is that communism ceased to be a threat when the Soviet Union imploded. The second is that the New Left of the Sixties collapsed and disappeared as well. "The Sixties are dead," wrote columnist George Will (Slamming the Doors, Newsweek, Mar. 25, 1991)

Because the New Left lacked cohesion it fell apart as a political movement. However, its revolutionaries reorganized themselves into a multitude of single issue groups. Thus we now have for example, radical feminists, black extremists, anti-war ‘peace’ activists, animal rights groups, radical environmentalists, and ‘gay’ rights groups. All of these groups pursue their piece of the radical agenda through a complex network of subversive organizations such as the Gay Straight Lesbian Educators Network (GSLEN), the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), People for the American Way, United for Peace and Justice, Planned Parenthood, Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS), and Code Pink for Peace.

Both communism and the New Left are alive and thriving here in America. Code words by which they can be recognized are: tolerance, social justice, economic justice, peace, reproductive rights, sex education and safe sex, safe schools, inclusion, diversity, and sensitivity. All together, this is Cultural Marxism disguised as multiculturalism.

And Kimball explains why the communists are after Christians:

By the end of WWI, socialists realized that something was amiss, for the world’s proletariat had not heeded Marx’s call to rise up in opposition to evil capitalism and to embrace communism instead. They wondered what had gone wrong.

Separately, two Marxist theorists—Antonio Gramsci of Italy and Georg Lukacs of Hungary—concluded that the Christianized West was the obstacle standing in the way of a communist new world order. The West would have to be conquered first.

Thus we see the secularization of America. Kimball then explains what created the so-called "moderate mainstream" movement in the Republican Party:

Both political correctness and Critical Theory are in essence, psychological bullying. They are the psycho political battering rams by which Frankfurt School disciples such as the ACLU are forcing Americans to submit to and to obey the will and the way of the Left. These devious devices are but psychological versions of Georg Lukacs and Laventi Beria’s ‘cultural terrorism’ tactics. In the words of Beria, "Obedience is the result of force…Force is the antithesis of humanizing actions. It is so synonymous in the human mind with savageness, lawlessness, brutality, and barbarism, that it is only necessary to display an inhuman attitude toward people to be granted by those people the possessions of force." (The Russian Manual on Psychopolitics: Obedience, by Laventi Beria, head of Soviet Secret Police and Stalin’s right-hand man)

Double-thinking ‘fence-sitters’, otherwise known as moderates, centrists, and RINOs are an obvious result of these psychological ‘obedience’ techniques. These people—afraid of incurring the wrath of name-calling obedience trainers--- have opted to straddle the fence lest they be found guilty of possessing an opinion, one way or another. At the merest hint of displeasure from the obedience-trainers, up goes the yellow flag of surrender upon which it is boldly written: "I believe in nothing and am tolerant of everything!"

And Kimball ends with our mission:

It is said that courage is the first of the virtues because without it fear will paralyze man, thus keeping him from acting upon his moral convictions and speaking truth. Thus bringing about a general state of paralyzing fear, apathy, and submission—the chains of tyranny—is the purpose behind psychopolitical cultural terrorism, for the communist Left’s revolutionary agenda must, at all costs, be clothed in darkness.

The antidote is courage and the light of truth. If we are to win this cultural war and reclaim and rebuild America so our children and their children’s children can live in a ‘Shining City on the Hill’ where liberty, families, opportunity, free markets, and decency flourish, we must muster the courage to fearlessly expose the communist Left’s revolutionary agenda to the Light of Truth. Truth and the courage to speak it will set us free.

And one vehicle for this mission is the Focus on the Family’s Truth Project.

Communists happy with Democrat’s surrender

From WorldNetDaily:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid get high marks for attempting to set deadlines to end the Iraq war from the Communist Party USA national committee, which just ended its annual meeting in New York.

National Chairman Sam Webb admitted he was skeptical about what the Democrats might do following last November's midterm election in which they swept to power in both houses of the Congress.

"Now, four months later, it may be a stretch to say a sea change in political relationships has occurred, but it is not too far off the mark," he told the official People's Weekly World.

Congress is now "a site of real debate, contending forces and sharp struggles," Webb said.

He was particularly pleased with the passage in the House of the Employee Free Choice Act, a non-binding resolution against escalating the war and a supplemental spending bill setting deadlines for troop withdrawal from Iraq.

While warning that the far right "retains considerable power and muscle," Webb said, "its power is far more circumscribed" as the administration's past sins come home to roost.

Webb and other speakers emphasized the importance of the House passage of deadlines for U.S. withdrawal from Iraq.

Calling approval "a major victory," he sees it leading to a new political dynamic to end the war.

Special offers:

Is Islam inherently violent? New blockbuster, 'Religion of Peace?,' reveals disturbing facts

THE PROBLEM WITH ISLAM: And What Americans Can Do About It

"The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades)"

"Everlasting Hatred: The Roots of Jihad"

More on environmental communists

My previous post tying environmentalists to communists has upset a few on the left. Joseph Farah has now tied another global warming idea of banning light bulbs to the communists:

How many socialists does it take to change your light bulb?

Millions.

All over the world – and right here in the U.S. – there is a movement afoot to ban the incandescent light bulb. It's one of the not-so-bright ideas put forward by Al Gore and his Oscar-winning pseudo-documentary, "An Inconvenient Truth."

If only people would replace incandescent light bulbs with fluorescent bulbs, we're told, we could cut down on energy use and "global warming".

Since socialists know that you are not smart enough to make good choices yourself, they have prepared to make them for you.

Rep. Jane Harman, D-Calif., has already introduced legislation to set dates for banning the bulbs.

This follows action in the European Union, just weeks ago, to phase out incandescent bulbs within two to three years. Australia has taken similar action. Canada is well on the way to a ban. Similar legislation has already been introduced in California Legislature.

But guess where the drive originated?

Fidel Castro started the trend in Communist Cuba two years ago. His buddy in Venezuela, Hugo Chavez, beat the rest of the West to the punch by emulating his hero and inspiration in Havana.

Farah also points out this idea will increase another environmental concern:

Well, there is at least one big problem with fluorescent light bulbs – maybe more.

They contain the deadly pollutant mercury. You can't just throw them in your garbage can when they burn out or they will break and contaminate land and water. Instead, you'll find out after this switch is mandated that you have to take the dead bulbs to hazardous-waste sites. Either that, or expensive new recycling programs will have to be instituted. In all likelihood, they will involve gasoline-burning trucks rumbling through your neighborhood and highly trained hazardous-materials teams.

In no time, it will be a criminal offense for you to throw away light bulbs in your garbage can – something you routinely do safely with those obsolete incandescents.

Yet that may not be the only problem with fluorescent lights. Studies have linked them with depression, suicide rates, skin cancer, anxiety, sleep disorders, attention-deficit disorders, electro-magnetic pollution, headaches, eye strain and DNA damage from radiation.

Now, I don't know if those studies are all accurate. I don't know if any of them are true. But I don't think Al Gore does either. I doubt very much if Fidel Castro cares. Because this plot has nothing to do with your well-being. It has nothing to do with heat and light. It has to do with money and power.

Money and power is what the far-left is about.

Environmentalists are same as communists

Just how dangerous is Tony Dean? A sportsman who is anti-gun is dangerous to our freedoms, but this report tells us that his extreme views on the environment is much more dangerous:

As the House Energy and Commerce Committee prepares to question former Vice President Al Gore tomorrow morning about global warming, Czech President Vaclav Klaus is warning congressmen that environmental extremism is the modern equivalent of communism.

Responding yesterday to U.S. Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas, and former House Speaker Denny Hastert, R-Ill., the Czech leader said: "It becomes evident that while discussing climate we are not witnessing a clash of views about the environment, but a clash of views about human freedom."

"As someone who lived under communism for most of my life I feel obliged to say that the biggest threat to freedom, democracy, the market economy and prosperity at the beginning of the 21st century is not communism or its various softer variants," said Klaus, responding to questions posed by the two lawmakers. "Communism was replaced by the threat of ambitious environmentalism."

He added, "The so-called climate change and especially man-made climate change has become one of the most dangerous arguments aimed at distorting human efforts and public policies in the whole world."

In a letter to Klaus, Barton, the committee's ranking Republican, and Hastert, ranking Republican on the Energy and Air Quality Subcommittee, asked the Czech president to comment on global warming, based on his background as an economist and political leader, especially since he is familiar with European responses to global warming.

"We believe your perspective on the political, economic and moral aspects of the climate change debate can be useful as we seek to assess the potential impacts of proposed U.S. climate-related regulations on the economic well-being of its citizens and their ability to contribute to future economic vitality and innovation here and abroad," Barton and Hastert said.

Klaus urges policymakers to rely on free-market principles, not government coercion, in formulating public policy. In his written response to the House committee members, the Czech leader said:

"I warn against adopting regulations based on the so-called precautionary principle which the environmentalists use to justify their recommendations, the clear benefit of which they are not able to prove." Klaus added, "Responsible politics should take into account the opportunity costs of such proposals and be aware of the fact that the wasteful environmentalist policies are adopted to the detriment of other policies, thus neglecting many other important needs of millions of people all over the world. Each policy measure must be based on a cost-benefit analysis."

Chuck Baldwin had his chance

Chuck Baldwin writes the typical anti-gun propaganda piece that includes this:

"There's no reason people need to own a machine gun. We don't use those to hunt pheasant or deer," said Deb McIntyre, director of the South Dakota Peace and Justice Center, considered a den of wild and crazy liberals by many South Dakotans.

I just put up a post pointing out that the Argus Leader did report the South Dakota Peace and Justice Center did ruin yesterday’s parade. And now Baldwin is willing to go as far as calling them "wild and crazy liberals". So I must recognize the paper’s progress toward reporting the truth. But again, they have to take the next step and report on their ties to A.N.S.W.E.R., the Communist front group that the SDPJC is working with today. Baldwin had his chance today, but that might have gotten into the way of their anti-gun agenda.

Come on Mr. Lalley, I am pretty sure you are reading this, since you noticed my Satan’s gift to the South Dakota Democrat Party analysis. The people have a right to know, at least that is want you say when it comes to those who have concealed carry permits. How about reporting on card-carrying members of the communist left?