<$BlogRSDUrl$>

Saturday, August 02, 2003

Congratulations to Jason Van Beek of South Dakota Politics for surpassing the 15,000 hit milestone today, one day after Rush Limbaugh's 15 year anniversary.
Argus Leader is promoting Bush’s Impeachment
Greg Belfrage is getting a lot of complaints regarding this Clark Butler Argus Leader letter to the editor:

Clark Butler
Sioux Falls
published: 7/29/2003
President George W. Bush began a deadly war against a very small, poorly defended country that was no proven threat to us or to anyone else. This war, with grave global consequences, has caused the deaths of thousands, including the killing and wounding of hundreds of U.S. and allied soldiers, plus the near destruction of all of Iraq. As yet, there is no end in sight.

Added to this human suffering, is the horrendous monetary cost of several billion dollars a month to be paid by the American taxpayer. Our own needs for public health, education, etc., go unheeded.

All this carnage is in the pursuit of one man. Bush ordered this war begun on the basis of evidence he knew to be false, or he knew to be doubtful, at best.

This, to put it bluntly, can not stand. Bush should either resign or be impeached.


Today’s Argus Leader has this letter:

Elaine K. Bachtell
Sioux Falls
published: 8/2/2003
Hats off to Clark Butler, that's one of the best letters ever written to the Argus Leader. Good job.

The only thing he missed is that President George W. Bush wants those oil fields over there. He and all his congressmen are filthy rich, and like the old saying goes, "The more you have, the more you want."

People are starving over here, but he spends all that money on war. I agree, impeachment is the way to go. If he was any kind of man, he would say he was wrong and step down.


End of letter

These are only 4 days a part(note the second letter refers to the first). I have been writing letters to the Argus Leader for years and I have never had a letter printed in 4 days. It takes more like 14 or 24 days. This is evidence of the extreme left-wing propaganda this paper is all too happy to print. At the same time they censor letters that provide the other viewpoint.

Email Executive editor Randell Beck, rabeck@argusleader.com and editor Chuck Baldwin, cbaldwin@argusleader.com. If you will, copy sibbyonline@hotmail.com.

Additional note:
The Argus Leader also printed on 9/24/02 Clark Butler's false accusations against the NRA endorsement of John Thune, who lost the Senate race by only 524 to Tim Johnson. This is how some people in South Dakota end up voting for far left extremists like Tom Daschle.

Friday, August 01, 2003

Welcome to Sibby Online
First I would like to thank Jason of South Dakota Politics for referring his traffic to this web site. I have to apologize for the lack of construction, but I am new to blogging. I will be upgrading.

Second, I like to apologize for South Dakota’s Senator Tom Daschle. He does not represent most of us here in South Dakota. A few of us, such as Jason, have become informed on what this guy does in Washington DC. I do not approve of most of it. Unfortunately, the largest newspaper in South Dakota, the Sioux Falls Argus Leader, has been misinforming too many citizens of this great State of South Dakota. The paper is owned by Gannett, who also owns USATODAY.

If you take the time, my web site provides insight on just how the left-wing media elitists can destroy the ability of the people to learn the truth. My mission is to fix that shortcoming before the 2004 election cycle. Please leave email at sibbyonline@hotmail.com.

Thursday, July 31, 2003

Breaking news on the Energy Bill
It is reported, just minutes ago, that the Senate passed an energy bill, which does not include drilling in ANWR. The Republicans decided it was best to compromise in order to get the bill through their chamber. It passed 84-14. Daschle’s reaction:

"Never in our dreams did we imagine that we could pass a Democratic bill in a Republican Congress," said Senate Democratic leader Tom Daschle of South Dakota.

Daschle simply doesn’t understand how compromising for the good of America is more important than a political party. Watch him take all the credit and not recognize that it was the President’s blessing that helped Senate Republicans decide to make this happen.

Wednesday, July 30, 2003

South Dakota’s “far left” Catholics and the abortion issue
WorldNetDaily has an excellent Hugh Hewitt column titled, “A bishop takes a stand”. It opens with this:

The Most Rev. Charles J. Chaput, is the archbishop of Denver, and widely admired among those who hope and pray for renewal in the American Catholic Church.

Bishop Chaput has taken an unprecedented step: He has commented upon a political debate pitting Republicans against Democrats in the United States Senate. The debate is over the nomination of Alabama Attorney General William Pryor to the 11th Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals, and it has been marked by a vicious campaign against Pryor that appears to many, including me, to be rooted in hostility to Pryor's faith – a robust, traditional Roman Catholicism.



Hewitt then quotes from the Denver Archdiocese webpage:

According to Sen. Durbin (as reported by EWTB), "Many Catholics who oppose abortion personally do not believe the laws of the land should prohibit abortion for all others in extreme cases involving rape, incest and the life and health of the mother." This kind of propaganda makes the abortion lobby proud, but it should humiliate any serious Catholic.

At a minimum, Catholic members of Congress like Sen. Durbin should actually read and pray over the "Catechism of the Catholic Church" and the encyclical "Evangelium Vitae" before they explain the Catholic faith to anyone.

They might even try doing something about their "personal opposition" to abortion by supporting competent pro-life judicial appointments. Otherwise, they simply prove what many people already believe – that a new kind of religious discrimination is very welcome at the Capitol, even among elected officials who claim to be Catholic.


Hewitt then uses the above statement to make this comment that includes Tom Daschle, the “far left” leader of the Senate Democrats:

If Pryor is defended by the authorities of his Church, a repeat of this ugly episode of religious bigotry will not occur. If he is not defended, and the Democrats succeed in sinking his nomination because he is a serious man of faith, other serious Roman Catholics can give up on being confirmed to the federal bench. Dick Durbin, Patrick Leahy and Tom Daschle – all Catholics – will have succeeded in implementing a "religious test" for office despite the Constitution's explicit ban on such tests.

Not only does Daschle’s “far left” status pose a moral dilemma for Daschle regarding the filibusters of judicial appointments based on an abortion litmus tests, it also is a violation of the Constitutional right of religious freedom.

It has been a week since I emailed David Kranz, the political reporter for the Sioux Falls Argus Leader, regarding another roadblock by Senate Democrats regarding the ban on partial-birth abortions. I sent Kranz the Washington Times report that included:


Senate Democrats are slowing the progress of legislation banning partial-birth abortion as Senate Republicans try to bring the measure to conference with the House, Republican officials say.

Both chambers overwhelmingly passed bills that would ban the procedure, and now they must be reconciled in conference. The House appointed its conferees, but a Senate Republican leadership aide said Republicans have tried twice in behind-the-scenes talks to appoint conferees, and Democrats have said "no" because they first want to offer procedural motions.


I asked Kranz, “Have you heard what Tom Daschle is doing to break up this log jam?” The email was opened a week ago, but I have not received a response.

Since Kranz is also a Catholic, he is in the same moral dilemma as the “far left” Daschle. Kranz has the First Amendment right to report on Daschle’s actions that are now being argued to be a violation of the First Amendment right of religions freedom. Not only does Kranz have the right, he has a journalistic obligation to the people of South Dakota to provide full disclose of the “behind-the-scenes talks” that is going on in Washington DC that maybe involving Tom Daschle. Otherwise, Kranz will be putting his personal and political feelings above moral, constitutional, and journalistic values.

Tuesday, July 29, 2003

The “far left” of South Dakota
Today’s New York Times reports the concern centrist Democrats have for those on the far left in their party:

“The moderate Democratic group that helped elect Bill Clinton to the White House in 1992 warned today that Democrats were headed for defeat if they presented themselves as an angry "far left" party fighting tax cuts and opposing the war in Iraq.”

Because Tom Daschle opposed the war in Iraq and fought tax cuts, looks like Daschle is “far left” as defined by his own party. Based on the logic of Randell Beck’s 7/27/03 column regarding those on the far left, Daschle must own a dog-eared copy of the Socialist Worker.

The NY Times column also makes this comment regarding George McGovern:


“Al From, the founder of the organization and an ally of Mr. Clinton, invoked the sweeping defeats of George McGovern in 1972 and Walter F. Mondale in 1984 as he cautioned against a return to policies — including less emphasis on foreign policy and an inclination toward expanding the size of government — that he said were a recipe for another electoral disaster.”

Noel Hamiel, the publisher of the Mitchell Daily Republic mentioned in his 6/7/03 column that, “Kranz’s long and friendly relationship with George McGovern is well known”. During the 1980 South Dakota Senate race between McGovern and Jim Abdor, McGovern was accused of being far left and lost that race. At that time Kranz was the managing editor of the Mitchell Daily Republic. After the McGovern loss, a MDR opinion piece stated that now Tom Daschle is the heir to George McGovern.

Based on the logic of the above mention Randell Beck column, perhaps David Kranz, his star political reporter, has a dog-eared copy of the Socialist Worker.

Monday, July 28, 2003

Tony Dean loses Scheel's sponsorship
When asked about losing the Scheel's sponsorship Tony Dean responds:

"I assume the loss of the sponsor had much to do with my role in the Senate race. At least that's what I was told. However, when I sent contracts for the coming year, they just didn't respond. The Sioux Falls showing wasn't profitable anyway. We just ended up trading dollars."

I also noticed that Tony Dean Outdoors is no longer broadcasted on KDLT at 10:30PM on Sunday nights. Tony Dean's web site shows he has only one TV broadcast, other than cable, and that is in North Dakota. Not a good showing for someone with aspirations to run for the South Dakota Congressional seat.

Sunday, July 27, 2003

Another Randell Beck spin job
Today’s Argus Leader has another classic Randell Beck column that should be renamed “The Randell Beck Spin Zone”. Take for example this comment:

“Thus, I hear regularly from those who hate Tom Daschle or Bill Janklow so passionately that they spin out of control when their names, pictures or comments appear in the Argus Leader. Doesn't matter to them that South Dakotans have voted both men into office since, oh, the turn of the last century.”

Beck is trying to leave the impression that they receive equal complaints from the left as they do from the right. The word on the street is that this is not true. Canceled subscriptions due to liberal bias occur on a regular basis, whereas cancellations due to conservative bias are rare.

In the marketing area, an overwhelming number of people refuse to purchase the Argus Leader because of liberal bias. Refusing to purchase the Argus Leader due to a conservative bias is unheard of. Some estimate that a third of marketing calls are turned down due to the liberal slant of the Argus Leader.

So, I argue that the Argus Leader probably receives far more complaints about its pro-Daschle bias verses accusations of a pro-Janklow bias.

So after Beck puts on the spin, he makes this outrageous statement:


“Those folks are primarily interested in seeing their own views - and only their views - reflected in what they read. If that's you, I humbly suggest that you stop reading this column immediately and pull out your dog-eared copy of The American Conservative or Socialist Worker.”

Here is the flaming elitism of Randell Beck. He attempts to put certain viewpoints into the extreme, and then places himself in the normal middle. Then he puts himself above those so-called extremists. He even goes to the extreme assumption that his complainers are close-minded.

This is the approach the left uses when they are confronted with viewpoints that cannot be refuted…so they go after the messenger. Common sense (learned from the street) will tell us that most of the complaints Beck has to deal with are from conservatives. The above mentioned statements by Beck were no doubt directed at conservatives.

He is also snubbing his nose at those who are complaining about the left-sided bias of David Kranz. As if censoring our letters to the editor, regarding that bias, wasn’t enough disrespect…not only to ourselves personally, but also for the First Amendment and the freedom it was established to protect.

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?