Sibby Online

Hildebrand, abortion, lies, and cover ups?

On June 5, 2006, Steve Hildebrand makes this statement at his PAC’s web site commonsensesd.org:

Anti-choice Democrats have started a public feud to get me fired. They want to muzzle me because they know I’m a threat to their agenda.

They’ve gone and sold this story to the press – getting the Argus Leader and the Rapid City Journal to write stories and make this inter-party fight a public battle.

In yesterday’s, Rapid City Journal they say I’m causing a divide in the Democratic Party in South Dakota.

But what they don’t say is that they are the ones making abortion the issue, not me.

If you take at look at a cached version of Common Sense South Dakota contact phone number, it says 605-221-5642. If you take a look at the South Dakota Campaign for Healthy Families web site, the group that is in opposition to the abortion ban, you will find the same phone number …. 605-221-5642. Steve Hildebrand is not being honest. Hildebrand is making abortion an issue. Hildebrand is the pro-abortion movement in South Dakota.

And if you look at the current contact information for Common Sense South Dakota, you will not find the phone number…wonder why? Cover up?

All of this should not be surprising considering Hildebrand would name his far-left movement common sense, and call the killing of a family's children...healthy.

Chad Schuldt unhinged

This is really too much. First there is this anonymous comment about abortion:

The government shouldn't get involved with things like saving babies from being murdered by their parents. They have better things to worry about, right? Is that what you meant, or did I misunderstand you?

Read this and get a clue!

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men."

Recognize it? I think it's from our Declaration of Independence. Yep, it sure is.

The government has EVERY right AND obligation to stop the killing of those that can't defend themselves!

Here is Chad Schuldt’s response:

Anonymous ... if you're going to act all tough on this blog, personally insulting myself and my readers, I am going to demand you reveal your real identity.

If you choose to not do that, I will just find out who you are. Your digital fingerprints are all over my server logs.

That's not a threat. That's a promise. I will find out who you are and let the world know about it unless you are willing to reveal your name yourself.

This is not a demand to stop commenting or posting. But if you're going to spew personal insults, you need to put your name next to it.

Somebody quotes the Declaration of Independence and Chad Schuldt is personally insulted. Done like a true anti-American. Chad Schuldt can dish it out, but he can’t take it, even at a fraction.

And hypocrite? I also witnessed many personal attacks directed at Bob Ellis by Schuldt's anonymous minions. No threats from the Hildebrand slimer. Chad needs some serious help. God have mercy on him.

Chad Schuldt a liar

That I knew. But know Ken Blanchard has his suspicions. Excerpt:

I can interpret this only in one of three ways: Chad is too stupid to read; Chad is too lazy to read before shooting his mouth off; Chad is a liar. Just right now I can't tell in which direction charity would point.

I don’t think Schuldt is stupid, just misguided. And lazy, that is debatable. A member of the lying left? Read the whole thing.

The lying left and torture

From Dennis Prager:

When you hear the words "oppression," "genocide," "racism," or even "torture" or "rape," do you immediately recoil as you always did? I don't. While I hate those evils as much as ever, I no longer assume the term always describes the reality.

For example, the liberal press' unending preoccupation with American abuses of Iraqi detainees had a number of deleterious consequences. One was a further undermining of Arab and Muslim support for America's liberation of Iraq. But the longest-lasting negative effect was probably the cheapening of the word "torture."

It undermined the war against torture to characterize what some Americans did to some Iraqis in the Abu Ghraib prison – actions that were indeed sick, un-American and shameful to our military – as "torture." Labeling abuses as "torture" filled me with pity for all the people around the world who had experienced real torture.

I kept thinking about those whose bodies were burned, whose fingernails were torn out, who were hung by their arms in a way that broke their shoulders (a common Chinese communist torture), who were put into human shredders (in Saddam's Iraq) or who had burning hot steel rods shoved into their rectums. How did these poor souls react to seeing the Western media routinely describe humiliating and frightening naked men for the sadistic amusement of guards as "torture"?

The lying left and redeploy

From Mark Steyn (read the whole thing):

You gotta hand it to these guys: "redeployment" is ingenious. I'll bet the focus-group consultants were delirious: "surrender," "lose," "scram," "scuttle ignominiously," "head for the hills" all polled poorly but "redeploy" surveyed well with all parts of the base, except the base in Okinawa, where they preferred "sayonara" -- that's "redeploy" in any language. The Defeaticrats have a clear message for the American people. Read da ploy: no new quagmires.
This is the most artful example of Leftspeak since they came up with "undocumented immigrant." In fact, if it catches on, I'll bet millions of fine upstanding members of the Undocumented-American community now start referring to themselves as Redeployed Mexicans.

The only teensy-weensy problem is this: If America ever adopts the Kerry plan, the Murtha plan or some variation thereof, does anyone think al-Jazeera, the BBC, Le Monde, Der Spiegel et al. will use the word "redeploy" in their headlines? Or will they use a word closer to what's actually going on?

In a sense, the Democrats have already psychologically redeployed. Last week they unveiled their "New Direction for America." It's a six-point plan, two of whose points are "Cut College Costs" and "Ensure Dignified Retirement." On the first point, it's true the education system remains a problem: Many hardworking Americans are trapped in low-paying dead-end jobs as U.S. congressmen because an inadequate education left them with the impression Okinawa is in the United Arab Emirates. On the second point, I'm all in favor of a "dignified retirement": Why not try it on John Kerry as a pilot program? As for the other four points, none has anything to say about national security or foreign policy.

The Defeaticrats' "New Direction for America" foresees a future for this country as a kind of Lesser France. That would be problematic enough: The dependency culture favored by the Dems has mired much of Europe in permanent double-digit unemployment, a moribund economy and unsustainable social programs. Presumably, Nancy Pelosi and company would respond by saying their pledge to "give America a raise" -- i.e., increase the minimum wage -- shows their party is in tune with real people's real needs rather than a lot of foreign adventuring that has nothing to do with how real people really lead their really real lives. Sorry, it doesn't work like that. Not even the Democrats can redeploy from the whole planet.

The truth about fakey Chad Schuldt

First Bill Harlan spanks Chad Schuldt for his inability to grasp reality and now this from SDP:

On the other hand, there's Chad Schuldt, for whom every day is Groundhog Day, as he seems to be wrong in the exact same manner so terribly often. First, note the passion. Chad can't muster an argument. All he can do is get mad. Chad's politics are pure passion. If an argument upsets him, it must be an illegitimate argument. Chad is convinced that he cares more than everybody else, and that is all the proof he needs that he is right. He does not need reasons for his positions. It is enough that he cares. Thus his total misreading of my post. First, one can "respect immigrants" and find the multicultural left in deep error. In fact one can respect immigrants and be a conservative! Also, just because the multicultural left "respects immigrants" doesn't mean they don't hate America and what it stands for. I really don't have time to explain "multiculturalism" to Chad. He might want to note that this was a qualifier in front of "left" as in "the multicultural left." That means a part of the left, not all of it. And there are those who are committed to "multculturalism" who really do love America. Just as the political right is divided on immigration, so is the left to a certain extent. I realize that makes it complex, and that is likely to confuse Chad, but politics is not nearly as nicely differentiated between good guys and bad guys as he thinks it is. But for Chad there are only good guys who care (e.g., him) and then bad guys who don't care (e.g., everyone to the right of Joe Lieberman, and we aren't so sure about him). The good guys are always totally right, and the bad guys are always totally wrong. Thus Chad is freed from the task of thinking.

Public education's anti-family agenda

From Gary Bauer:

In 1990, I co-authored "Children at Risk," a book exposing the cultural forces in education that endanger our children and showing parents what they can do to defend their families against an ever-encroaching liberal agenda.

Sixteen years on, and things have scarcely improved. In fact, judging from some recent developments, it's become clear our children are at greater risk than ever from an education establishment gone wild.

…

Teacher William McBeth, who at the age of 71 decided to have a sex-change operation and become Lily McBeth, has just been allowed to resume teaching his fourth-grade class – against the protestations of most of the school's parents.

In New York, along with the ABCs, all public-school kindergartners will now learn about HIV. That's right, a new state law requires elementary-school teachers' lesson plans to include a project that tells kindergartners to play "doctors" and discuss HIV. While education officials insist teachers won't mention that HIV is transmitted through sexual contact until students reach the fourth grade, one perceptive parent asked, "How do you talk about AIDS without talking about sex and drugs?" You don't; so they will.

To understand how such absurd policies gain sanction, one need look no further than the nation's largest teachers' union. It was recently revealed that the National Education Association gave $65 million last year to liberal interest groups that have nothing to do with education, including $51,000 to People for the American Way and $15,000 to the Human Rights Campaign. How does donating to the Human Rights Campaign, which lobbies for "lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender equal rights," fulfill the NEA's stated mission of securing better work conditions and wages for public school teachers – unless, of course, you're Lily McBeth?

Is it any wonder our children lag behind their counterparts in other countries in numerous basic educational categories? Many teachers seem more concerned with political indoctrination than with teaching children the basic knowledge and skills they will need to participate in an ever-competitive world.

Sadly, the liberal indoctrination of our children does not end at high-school graduation – in fact, it only gets worse as they ascend to the highest levels of academia.

We all remember Colorado "ethnic studies" professor Ward Churchill, who made headlines last year when it was discovered he had published essays stating that the United States got what it deserved on 9-11 and calling World Trade Center victims "Little Eichmanns," a reference to the Nazi Holocaust engineer. But did you know that a former deputy foreign secretary of the Taliban is now a student at Yale University – the same school that bars the ROTC from its campus because of the military's "Don't ask, don't tell" policy on gays? Has Yale forgotten that the Taliban routinely threw homosexuals into ditches and bulldozed concrete walls over them? Don't ask. Do the feminists at Yale know that the Taliban used to pull out the fingernails of Afghan women who committed the crime of wearing fingernail polish? Don't tell.

Most women are not anti-family feminists

From The Times Online:

Female liberation is a myth, delegates are told at the British Psychological Society conference

WOMEN may well have come a long way since the sexual revolution of the Sixties and Seventies, but research suggests that the enormous strides that they have made in the workplace have not been matched in the bedroom.

The portrayal of complete female sexual liberation in television shows such as Sex and the City could be a myth, according to research suggesting that many women regard one-night stands and casual sex as wrong.

The idea that women might seek to have a one-off sexual encounter purely in the pursuit of pleasure is simply not believed by most women, who regard others who have one-night stands as desperate, pitiful or extremely needy.

Sibby is right about anti-American left

And I am talking about the anti-American so-called "progressives". Now there is a book that provides the documented proof:

The Cold War may be over, but there is more interaction between anti-American radical groups, American "progressive" organizations and hostile foreign governments than most Americans realize, reveals an explosive new book by a retired intelligence officer, who, for the first time, tracks the interlocking connections between them.

In "Radical Road Maps: Untangling the Web of Connections Among Far-Left Groups in America," James Hansen dissects 29 such organizations and reveals their links, their goals, how they operate, why they have been so successful and how they impact American politics and culture.

Hansen brings his nearly 30 years of experience as an operations officers and analyst for the Central Intelligence Agency and as a senior official in the Defense Intelligence Agency counterintelligence office to the task of chronicling the connections of radical groups – a systematic process never before attempted. A graduate of the University of Michigan, he is the author of "Correlation of Forces: Four Decades of Soviet Military Development and Japanese Intelligence: The Competitive Edge."

Hansen makes the case that both the media and government officials are complicit in the cover-up of what some of the most notorious radical groups really represent.

"Today, radical groups such as the troika of the Workers World Party, International Action Center and Act Now to Stop War and End Racism have sponsored and organized the largest demonstrations against the U.S. war in Iraq," the author says. "The radical troika is helped by a host of liberal groups that participate in these demonstrations, that ignore any warnings of the troika's true character, or that otherwise give radicals a stage or a media outlet. To this day, liberals in the print and broadcast media have obscured the nature radical groups while liberal members of the U.S. Congress have gone out of their way to accommodate and support various radical groups."

Among the other groups that get special attention from Hansen are the American Civil Liberties Union, National Lawyers Guild, Institute for Policy Studies, Center for Constitutional Rights, Center for National Security Studies, Revolutionary Communist Party USA, People for the American Way, Democratic Socialists of America, Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, MoveOn.org, Media Matters and the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force. He also takes a close look at individuals such as George Soros and Ramsey Clark.

Employing analytical intelligence techniques and diagrams that seek to clarify the web of connections to expose the radical core, military intelligence expert Hansen helps pave the way for a counteroffensive against what he sees as an anti-American con job.

David Horowitz, former leftist and best-selling author, has this to say about "Radical Road Maps": James Hansen has written a much-needed guide to the fifth-column Left, which wants America to lose the war on terror and will do everything in its power to help the terrorists to win."

"In an era of peace, these aberrant affiliations seem harmless; but in the age of terrorism, these groups become an unwitting – and often more witting – propaganda tool and fifth column for terrorists seeking to mollify and then destroy Western freedoms," says Elizabeth Bancroft, executive director of the Association of Former Intelligence Officers. "An important reminder of how easily dissent can become malignantly distorted, metastasize, and kill its host."

"Radical Road Maps" is a handbook designed to help Americans understand how extremist groups are penetrating every element of society. By understanding each group's philosophy, techniques and overall effectiveness, citizens will be equipped to make educated decisions at the ballot box and in everyday life.

Schuldt goes anti-God again

Chad Schuldt said he is against allowing public education to use the Bible as a textbook. But the anti-God Schuldt has no problem with public education allowing Planned Parenthood’s agenda that includes comprehensive sex education. Again, let me remind you of PP’s attitude toward religion:

Abstinence-only education is one of the religious right's greatest challenges to the nation's sexual health. But it is only one tactic in a broader, longer-term strategy. Since the early 1980s, the "family values" movement has won the collaboration of governments and public institutions, from Congress to local school boards, in abridging students' constitutional rights. Schools now block student access to sexual health information in class, at the school library, and through the public library's Internet portals. They violate students' free speech rights by censoring student publications of articles referring to sexuality. Abstinence-only programs often promote alarmist misinformation about sexual health and force-feed students religious ideology that condemns homosexuality, masturbation, abortion, and contraception. In doing so, they endanger students' sexual health.

This is an direct attack on families as they disregard the parents. I pointed out the anti-God, anti-family, and anti-American agenda of the so-called progressives and have referred to them as some kind of a cult. Now I see Planned Parenthood has also found the cult to serve as its religion. It is called the Christian Alliance for Progress. And as I have noticed before, the cult of the co-called progressives always use names that do not reflect their true agenda.

Dr. Edward Hinton says this about the cult:

They call themselves the "furious faithful" — religious liberals who are upset with the political influence of Christian conservatives. They despise Jerry Falwell, James Dobson, D. James Kennedy and countless of other Christian leaders. They can’t stand the likes of Pat Robertson, John Hagee, Franklin Graham, Gary Bauer and Ralph Reed. They have criticized Richard Land, Rick Scarborough Ronnie Floyd and Jerry Vines.

But wait a minute — who are they? They are nothing more than a small, inconsequential fringe of loosely organized pawns of political liberalism.

The newest of these religio-political wanna-be’s is the so-called Christian Alliance for Progress, founded by Patrick Mrotek to "reclaim Christianity" from the dregs of conservative religion.

Of course, nobody has ever heard of Mr. Mrotek. He isn’t exactly a household name in Christian circles. So let me tell you about him. His organization supports same-sex marriage, abortion rights and embryonic stem cell research — issues not likely to resonate with most evangelical believers.

Joseph Loconte recently commented in the Wall Street Journal (July 1, 2005) that while the Christian Alliance for Progress claims to be "firmly founded on the teachings of the Gospel," students of the Gospel "may be surprised at how neatly such an agenda fits the Democratic Party platform."

The fakey Democrats are now trying to turn their anti-God, anti-family, and anti-American platform into a so-called Christian religion as a response to the losses they have been suffering on election day. Here is more on their tactics:

The tactics of liberal religionists have changed very little during the past quarter century. Perhaps that is why they have had so little influence. They usually begin with their own version of moral and social outrage. They just can’t believe that professing Christians actually differ with them. After all, they imply they are the ones who truly represent the teachings of Christ on love, mercy and justice. This generally translates into increased taxes, expanded welfare and a liberal social agenda.

Concurrent with their initial "shock," religious liberals immediately launched a vicious attack on conservative Christians. Rarely are they willing to engage us as equal players in the social, religious or political arenas. Rather, they call us everything but "Christian." We are accused of violating the rules of religious political engagement, when in reality, it is liberal religion that jumped into the bed of political accommodation long ago.

Next, religious liberals attempt to redefine religious and social issues. Abortion is repackaged as a "right to choose." Homosexuality becomes an "alternate lifestyle." Gay marriage is a "loving relationship." Ad infinitum. Ad nauseum! Those who appose such re-labeling of moral issues are immediately castigated as social bigots, religious extremists or fundamental fanatics.

Now we know why Schudlt doesn’t want the Bible in school. It would conflict with the so-called religion of Planned Parenthood.

And this should serve as a wake up call to all conservatives:

Unfortunately, it takes massive and embarrassing political defeat for the Democrats to suddenly get "religion." Almost instantly, the rhetoric changed after 2004. Democrats began talking about the "faith factor." Some even suggested that "religious and moral values" might be helpful in the arena of public discourse. House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) even formed a working group to formulate a "faith agenda" for the Democrat Party.

But we have seen this before. This tactic amounts to "when all else fails, act like religion matters." This is designed to accomplish two immediate goals. First, lull the religious conservatives into inactivity. Let them gloat over their success until they become blinded by it. Hope they will become like a baseball team that wins the World Series, only to spend the winter in the banquet circuit and be ill prepared for the next season.

And this should give us the energy we need to stand up to these false prophets:

Finally, evangelicals are not the stupid, backward obscurantists you think we are. We know exactly what you’re up to and it won’t work! There is no way this new alliance or any other quasi-religious organization can defend issues like abortion, homosexuality and gay marriage from the Bible. Such groups might just as well claim to be secular.

If liberals want to debate these issues on biblical grounds, let them go right ahead. Because they will lose, not only the debate, but also any influence they might hope to have among spiritually minded people. They are correct when they insist we do not speak for them and they certainly don’t speak for us. Their new "Alliance for Progress" will simply result in one more organization in regress.

And has I have been saying, there is nothing progressive about an agenda that is anti-God, anti-family, and anti-American. This is no progressive, but instead regressive. What these people really care about is garnering power and money for themselves.

For more insight on Schuldt’s agenda, check out a link I found on his web site to a Jesus General. The web site states it is "The Official Online Organ of the Glorious Conservative Christian Cultural Revolution". But if you read the content, you will learn that that is false. Again, another example of how the left uses fakey titles.