Cory Heidelberger has a post on South Dakota workers being third from the bottom in average pay. But you will not she him or any of his comments mention the tax increases we are paying in order to lift teacher pay from the bottom. Here is my comment he blocked:
So it is not just South Dakota Teachers that receive low pay. So Cory, how about legislation that increases taxes on tourists and give it to South Dakota workers and property tax breaks for the wealthy?
Tax and spend liberals from both parties like to promote coveting to justify their saving the poor from themselves. But in the case of increasing teacher pay, even the poor is paying more taxes. As Cory points out, South Dakotans pay over 2% higher rate for state and local taxes than Montana and Wyoming. Wyoming's after tax amount is 21% higher than South Dakotas. So why are the Democrats in favor of even more tax increases than the tax and spend liberals of the SDGOP? Do they really thing they can tax the poor out of poverty?
I have not written a letter over the past several months as my wife and I have been focused on a grandchild that got placed in Iowa's foster care system in late November 2015. I would like to now present our traumatic experience.
On Jan. 6, an Iowa court ordered an Interstate Compact Home Study so that we can be considered for placement. By May, the state of South Dakota had yet to receive that request, because the case manager for Iowa's Department of Human Services had been sitting on it. It finally was sent to South Dakota on July 6.
During the six months, our grandchild was still in foster care. At our expense we made three visits so that the child would know that she has a family. Then we heard about a Permanency Hearing Scheduled for Aug. 3. That sounded serious enough for us to hire an attorney in Iowa.
After the hearing, we learned the plan that day was to terminate parental rights and immediately put the child up for adoption. A court report confirmed that it was the foster mom who was planning on making the adoption. Our Motion to Intervene has temporarily stopped that plan.
Upon doing research, I found that this common practice is referred to by some as "legalized kidnapping". This was set in place by former President Bill Clinton in 1997 with the "Adoption and Safe Families Act". It set foster care adoption targets for the states and provided $4,000 to $6,000 per child bonuses for those states that achieved their targets. The federal government also provided "innovative grants" to reduce barriers to adoption, which now includes grandparents such as my wife and I.
Look's like Hillary's husband set up her village that she promotes to raise children. It consists of removing parental rights so that the states can steal the kids from their families and then be adopted out by strangers. All for the love of taxpayers' money by the states and the adopting parties. That is the other side of the foster care story.
What do Hillary Clinton, former Republican Whip Tom DeLay, and the founder of Wendy's have in common?
As First Lady, Hillary made adoption and foster care one of her priorities. She worked across the partisan aisle, with two unlikely partners: former Republican Minority Whip Tom Delay of Texas and business leader Dave Thomas of Wendy's, a lifelong Republican.
Together, they held events at the White House to raise awareness, and built support for legislation that would encourage adoptions, provide more aid for foster families, and help foster children find permanent, safe, loving homes.
The first piece of legislation was the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997, which provided support and services for adoptive families, and increased foster adoptions by 64 percent by 2002.
She was also a member of the Congressional Coalition on Adoption and partnered with Democrats and Republicans alike to remove barriers to adoption and support the adoption of children in foster care.
At the State Department, Secretary Clinton brought the issue to the world stage. She appointed the first ever special advisor on international children's issues and worked with other countries to improve foster care programs worldwide.
Adoption and foster care are not likely to be an issue in any political campaign. They aren't hot button issues or ones that gather big headlines; but they're important to Hillary Clinton.
That is what her life has been about: building coalitions, working with partners, doing whatever it takes to make a real difference on issues that make a real difference in people's lives –beginning with the very youngest among us.
That's the Hillary Clinton I know.
This is the typical propaganda that the media uses to put a happy face on the globalists fascist agenda. Here is how we are supposed to view their efforts in regard to foster care:
Then in 1997 President Clinton passed the "Adoption and Safe Families Act." The public relations campaign promoted it as a way to help abused and neglected children who languished in foster care for years, often being shuffled among dozens of foster homes, never having a real home and family. In a press release from the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services dated November 24, 1999, it refers to "President Clinton’s initiative to double by 2002 the number of children in foster care who are adopted or otherwise permanently placed."
It all sounded so heartwarming. We, the American public, are so easily led. We love to buy stereotypes; we just eat them up, no questions asked. But, my mother, bless her heart, taught me from the time I was young to "consider the source." In the stereotype that we’ve been sold about kids in foster care, we picture a forlorn, hollow-eyed child, thin and pale, looking up at us beseechingly through a dirt streaked face.
Now it’s time to wake up to the reality of the adoption business.
Very few children who are being used to supply the adoption market are hollow-eyed tykes from Appalachia. Very few are crack babies from the projects. [Oh… you thought those were the children they were saving? Think again]. When you are marketing a product you have to provide a desirable product that sells. In the adoption business that would be nice kids with reasonably good genetics who clean up good. An interesting point is that the Cape Cod & Islands office leads the state in terms of processing kids into the system and having them adopted out. More than the inner city areas, the projects, Mission Hill, Brockton, Lynn, etc. Interesting…
With the implementation of the Adoption and Safe Families Act, President Clinton tried to make himself look like a humanitarian who is responsible for saving the abused and neglected children. The drive of this initiative is to offer cash "bonuses" to states for every child they have adopted out of foster care, with the goal of doubling their adoptions by 2002, and sustaining that for each subsequent year. They actually call them "adoption incentive bonuses," to promote the adoption of children.
And this is why Republican crony capitalists love it:
A whole new industry was put into motion. A sweet marketing scheme that even Bill Gates could envy. Now, if you have a basket of apples, and people start giving you $100 per apple, what are you going to do? Make sure that you have an unlimited supply of apples, right?
The United States Department of Health & Human Services administers Child Protective Services. To accompany the ASF Act, the President requested, by executive memorandum, an initiative entitled Adoption 2002, to be implemented and managed by Health & Human Services. The initiative not only gives the cash adoption bonuses to the states, it also provides cash adoption subsidies to adoptive parents until the children turn eighteen.
Everybody makes money.If anyone really believes that these people are doing this out of the goodness of their hearts, then I’ve got some bad news for you. The fact that this program is run by HHS, ordered from the very top, explains why the citizens who are victims of DSS get no response from their legislators. It explains why no one in the Administration cares about the abuse and fatalities of children in the "care" of DSS, and no one wants to hear about the broken arms, verbal abuse, or rapes. They are just business casualties.
Here are some of the details behind the business plan:
The way that the adoption bonuses work is that each state is given a baseline number of expected adoptions based on population.
For every child that DSS can get adopted, there is a bonus of $4,000 to $6,000.
But that is just the starting figure in a complex mathematical formula in which each bonus is multiplied by the percentage that the state has managed to exceed its baseline adoption number. The states must maintain this increase in each successive year. [Like compound interest.] The bill reads: "$4,000 to $6,000 will be multiplied by the amount (if any) by which the number of foster child adoptions in the State exceeds the base number of foster child adoptions for the State for the fiscal year." In the "technical assistance" section of the bill it states that, "the Secretary [of HHS] may, directly or through grants or contracts, provide technical assistance to assist states and local communities to reach their targets for increased numbers of adoptions for children in foster care." The technical assistance is to support "the goal of encouraging more adoptions out of the foster care system; the development of best practice guidelines for expediting the termination of parental rights; the development of special units and expertise in moving children toward adoption as a permanent goal; models to encourage the fast tracking of children who have not attained 1 year of age into pre-adoptive placements; and the development of programs that place children into pre-adoptive placements without waiting for termination of parental rights."
In the November press release from HHS it continues, " HHS awarded the first ever adoption bonuses to States for increases in the adoption of children from the public foster care system." Some of the other incentives offered are "innovative grants" to reduce barriers to adoption [i.e., parents], more State support for adoptive families, making adoption affordable for families by providing cash subsides and tax credits.
Another incentive being promoted is the use of the Internet to make adoption easier.
There is no typical foster or adoptive family—foster families can be single, married, homeowners, or renters. They can come from all racial, ethnic and religious backgrounds, and sexual orientations.
Yes, this is how the social engineers are trafficking children into the LBGT community. And received taxpayers' money in doing so:
After the adoption is finalized, the State and federal subsidies continue. The adoptive parents may collect cash subsidies until the child is 18. If the child stays in school, subsidies continue to the age of 22. There are State funded subsidies as well as federal funds through the Title IV-E section of the Social Security Act. The daily rate for State funds is the same as the foster care payments, which range from $410-$486 per month per child. Unless the child can be designated "special needs," which of course, they all can.
So this is how the Democrats have setup a business plan that takes advantage of the poor, take their children away, and put them into homes of the wealthy so they can access to taxpayers' money. Sounds like something the Republicans would do, and they are as reported by the New York Times in 1997:
President Clinton is preparing to sign into law the most sweeping changes to the nation's adoption and foster-care system in nearly two decades.
The changes, approved by Congress last week as it wrapped up its work for the year, are intended to make it easier to remove children from abusive families and speed up their adoption.
The new legislation marks a fundamental shift in child-welfare philosophy, away from a presumption that everything should be done to reunite children with their birth parents, even if the parents have been abusive. The legislation would instead give more weight to the child's health and safety.
Senator John H. Chafee, the Rhode Island Republican who was a leading sponsor of the legislation, said on the Senate floor before the measure passed by a voice vote: ''We will not continue the current system of always putting the needs and rights of the biological parents first.'' Although that is a worthy goal, he said, ''it's time we recognize that some families simply cannot and should not be kept together.''
And who makes the determination which families are allowed to stay together? Ones wealthy enough to hire an attorney and stand up for their rights. This is another example of how Democrats lie about standing up for the poor and how the Republicans lie about standing up against big government. Most of America have been deceived by that propagnada. Politics is simply a game of lying, and so is Iowa's foster care system. Yes, there are cases where foster care is needed, but because the size and scope of the federal government has gone beyond the Constitution, the system has now become corrupt. And that corruption finds its way into the state and local governments. This is not a conspiracy theory. I have witnessed the process first hand, and so has others.
Cory Heidelberger makes this conclusion regarding Sanford Health pulling out of the DakotaCare network:
If two oligopolizing health care providers are going to leave us with only one broad health insurance network, the market is failing us. The public option—the recommendation from President Obama and candidate Clinton that we offer Medicare to citizens under 65—is now all the more warranted in underserved South Dakota.
When my husband had his heart attack, I didn’t shop around to see if there was a cheaper way to get him to Sioux Falls than by helicopter. Instead, save his life! Now! And so prices go up – the epi-pen costs are a classic example – and up and up… And everyone just sighs and says it’s one more price for freedom. Bull. It’s greed. Give me single payer. I want every American on Medicare. We can make it work.
That was Eve Fisher. Another brainwashed Madvillite tries to add religion to the discussion. When I was allowed to comment, I would turn the table by saying that promoting coveting is a sin, not a Biblical Christian position of righteousness. Eve Fisher believes she deserves healthcare, but somebody else has to pay for it. That is coveting.
Warren Gunnels, Sanders’ policy director, retained Gerald Friedman, an economist at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, to come up with a fiscal score of the Sanders plan. Friedman estimates that the plan would require $13.8 trillion in new government spending in the decade spanning 2017 through 2026. But that estimate is misleading, for reasons I’ll outline below.
And that is:
As a result, even by Friedman’s own optimistic projections about what single-payer health care could save, Berniecare would increase federal spending by $28.3 trillion over ten years. If Friedman is wrong, and the plan fails to reduce the growth of health care spending, it would result in $32.7 trillion in new federal spending.
An update takes it to $44 million:
I’ve slightly tweaked the above calculations using updated figures from the Congressional Budget Office’s 2016 Budget and Economic Outlook. John Goodman points out that if the point of single-payer is to save money through price controls, you don’t have to impose single-payer: just a price-control law. Ryan Ellis elaborates on the impact of Sanders’ proposal to hike the estate tax. Chris Conover estimates that Sanders’ open bar-style plan—free health care for everyone with weak rationing—would require $44 trillion in new federal spending over a decade, not $28 trillion.
So Eve Fisher's coveting could amount to $44 million over the first ten years. That would be an enormous sin. Countering Cory's propaganda with an argument that turns their lies around and shows the left's hypocrisy will get you banned from their discussions.
Let’s see… the South Dakota Education Association represents more than 5,000 teachers in our state. We have over 9,000 teachers. That means around 4,000 teachers not in SDEA but enjoying their local education associations’ representation in collective bargaining. If we can extrapolate $172 from West Virginia to South Dakota, we can estimate around $690,000 in free collective bargaining services rendered for non-union teachers in South Dakota.
That’s the free ride that IM 23 advocates are talking about. If you’re getting services from a union, you ought to pay for them. Funny—anti-union conservatives accuse Bernie Sanders supporters of wanting free stuff.
First off, the problem with all teachers getting paid the same, regardless of merit, is the root cause of this issue. Cory is against merit pay as it violates is socialist worldview.
Second, the Associated School Boards and Associated Administrators are funded by the taxpayers, which includes the non-union teachers and the rest of us taxpaying citizens. They were just as influential, if not more so, than the SDEA in the enormous multi-million dollar tax increase that is now going into the pockets of those union teachers. If on average the 5,000 union teachers gain $5,000 annually, that amounts to $25 million. Since the teachers are paid with tax dollars, the union dues come from are tax dollars. So in the already socialist structure, taxpayers are funding those who lobby to increase our taxes even further. So now Cory wants to force the taxpayers to fund even more union members by passing IM23. There is no limit to the socialists' greed and coveting.
Funny how propagandists like Cory can twist the facts into a lie. And when guys like me confront his lies, he gets mad and resorts to banning comments. Electing Cory Heidelberger would be a step into turning the entire state of South Dakota into Madville, where special interest cronies get special rights and the rest of us lose them. And just shut up if you don't like it.
Voters need leaders who are willing to communicate, to meet voters where they are, online and off. District 3, I can do that for you.
If that was really true, then he would not be blocking my comments. Cory, who is rabidly pro-abortion, is even saying he is pro-life. I tried to challenge his position, but my comment must of went to spam.
All citizens should have equal opportunity to publish their thoughts online and to invite conversation… and all candidates should work hard to use that opportunity.
Except those who call him out on his propaganda. Will the voters of District 3 see thru is false claims? I even let Larry Kurtz comment on this web site, even though he says stuff that makes Trump look sensible, But I think Cory banned him to, along with Tara Volesky. Are there others?
Apparently there is some dispute as to what the Governor’s office said and meant in the text provided to and quoted by the Mitchell Daily Republic that I cite below. The Governor’s office says it has not revised timeframe for reaching the target salary of $48,500 to a decade; rather, as I explained in my original post, this year’s target statewide average teacher salary is $48,500, and that statutory target will increase by the index factor each year. That target is an average, not a mandate for each school district; some schools will reach that target, some will pass it, and some will remain behind.
However, that does not change the evidence that, in the large swath of South Dakota covered by the Mitchell Daily Republic, none of the schools are meeting the target, meaning the average teacher salary in those districts is below the expected outcome.
I tried to tell Cory that the Mitchell School District is above the $48,500 target via comment, but my comments are still being blocked. Mitchell's average is being promoted as $52,322, or nearly eight percent above the target. Since Mitchell employs many teachers, their impact on the area average is much larger than the impact of a small school. But what is Cory's point:
It looks like Governor Daugaard needs a new set of legislators who can hold him accountable for his promises.
Throw out all incumbents, elect all challengers, and you get a Democratic majority that won’t roll over and pass inferior legislation. We can hold other bills at bay until the Governor provides the revenue and the formula necessary to fully fund regionally competitive K-12 teacher salaries.
Actually, we don’t even need a majority to do that. Even a nice one-third in each chamber—12 Democratic Senators, 24 Democratic Representatives—could put a nice parliamentary crimp on things until the Governor agrees to follow through on the bill we were sold last winter.
If my memory is correct all by one Democrat voted for the "inferior legislation". And adding more liberal tax and spend Democrats to the mix is going to fix the problem? Cory's main agenda is playing party politics. He is very good at spinning facts in order to promote Democrats and/or to denigrate Republicans. My explanations that show crony capitalism being a bipartisan policy gets into the way of fooling people with his propaganda.
The real issue that needs to be discussed is that small rural schools are getting the shaft and large urban schools are making out like bandits. Mitchell's teacher pay is eight percent above the target, plus they are wasting $18 million dollars on an extravagant fine arts center, while small schools are paying their teachers far less. This issue is how the big take advantage of the small. Crony capitalism is built on big government working with big business. My attempts to bring that point to the discussion of the so-called Dakota Free Press was returned with personal insults and now my third ban from commenting on the web site. And these people cry about men not being allowed to go into the women's bath room.
If Cory was a populist Democrat, he would have covered the urban crony capitalists oppressing the rural areas of South Dakota. Instead he plays partisan politics, which is based on propaganda. Cory's agenda is one of a far-left Neo-Marxist Democrat. Sadly he is forced to support a global crony capitalist for president. That must be frustrating for him. Sad he has to take it out on those who are trying to get him to understand reality.
We cannot elect a man who exploits are fears of ISIS and other terrorists.
So again we have Cory being a hypocrite. He is also helping the Democrats use false propaganda in order to support Islamic fascism. Note Bidens use of the word "fears" regarding Trump's policy position on ISIS. Hillary also "hit" on that point last night:
He's taken the Republican Party a long way...from "Morning in America" to "Midnight in America." He wants us to fear the future and fear each other. Well, a great Democratic President, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, came up with the perfect rebuke to Trump more than eighty years ago, during a much more perilous time. "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself." Now we are clear-eyed about what our country is up against. But we are not afraid. We will rise to the challenge, just as we always have. We will not build a wall. Instead, we will build an economy where everyone who wants a good paying job can get one. And we'll build a path to citizenship for millions of immigrants who are already contributing to our economy!
Over 127,000 United States citizens were imprisoned during World War II. Their crime? Being of Japanese ancestry.
Despite the lack of any concrete evidence, Japanese Americans were suspected of remaining loyal to their ancestral land. Anti-Japanese paranoia increased because of a large Japanese presence on the West Coast. In the event of a Japanese invasion of the American mainland, Japanese Americans were feared as a security risk.
Succumbing to bad advice and popular opinion, President Roosevelt signed an executive order in February 1942 ordering the relocation of all Americans of Japanese ancestry to concentration camps in the interior of the United States.
Evacuation orders were posted in Japanese-American communities giving instructions on how to comply with the executive order. Many families sold their homes, their stores, and most of their assets. They could not be certain their homes and livelihoods would still be there upon their return. Because of the mad rush to sell, properties and inventories were often sold at a fraction of their true value.
So we have Hillary and the Democrats misusing American history in order to protect their position that is in support of Islamic fascism. The Democratic beloved great president took strong action in dealing with a national security risk. Today, the Democratic leadership is allowing our enemy to wreck havoc in our communities and then use those actions to spread fear of guns in order to disarm us. And they are even resorting to the use of false propaganda, through the misuse of American history, to attack those who disagree with them and want to stand strong for America.
In addition, the Democrats are saying that diversity will allow us to work together. If that was true, then Cory would not ban me from his web site in order to discuss possible solutions to the issues he brings forward. I seem to get into the way of their deceptive fear mongering of white male patriotic Christian conservative Republicans. Are we the ones meant for the concentration camps Obama has built?
Cory and Bill Clinton are 100% wrong. ISIS needs a means to infiltrate American borders, and Clinton's policy provides that. As I will discuss later in this post, the Clintons are part of the global economic and power elite. In order for them to get America to go along with global governance, America can no longer be great. The Muslim Brotherhood, in concert with the Black Lives Matter movement, could help bring about that destruction of America the great. Cory is too much of a partisan to see that as a possibility. Nor is such discussion welcome on his so-called Dakota Free Press.
As Cory supports Islamic fascism by accusing the opposition of promoting fear, he is himself promoting fear of Russians:
“Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing,” Mr. Trump said, staring directly into the cameras. “I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press.”
Mr. Trump’s call was an extraordinary moment at a time when Russia is being accused of meddling in the U.S. presidential election. His comments came amid questions about the hacking of the Democratic National Committee’s computer servers, which researchers have concluded was likely the work of two Russian intelligence agencies [Ashley Parker, “Donald Trump Calls on Russia to Find Hillary Clinton’s Missing Emails,” New York Times, 2016.07.27].
Of course, whether or not you believe that may depend on how credible you find the big cybersecurity firms like CrowdStrike, FireEye and Mandiant (the big names that always pop up in situations like this). For what it's worth, these guys have something of a vested interest in playing up the threat of big hacks from nation-state level hackers. For a good analysis of why this finger-pointing may be less than credible, I recommend two articles by Jeffrey Carr, one noting that these firms come from a history of "faith-based attribution" whereby they are never held accountable for being wrong -- and another highlighting serious questions about the designation of Russia as being responsible for this particular hack (he notes that some of the research appeared to come pre-arrived at that conclusion, and then ignored any evidence to the contrary).
Still, the claim that the data came from the Russians has become something of a story itself. And, of course, who did the hack and got the info is absolutely a news story. But it's an entirely separate one from whether or not the leaked emails contain anything useful or newsworthy. And yet, because this is the peak of political silly season, some are freaking out and claiming that anyone reporting on these emails "has been played" by Putin and Russia. Leaving aside the fact that people like to claim that Russia's behind all sorts of politicians that some don't like, that should be entirely unrelated to whether or not the story is worth covering.
And yet, we already have stories arguing that "Putin weaponized Wikileaks to influence" the US election. That's ridiculous on multiple levels.Wikileaks releases all kinds of stuff, whether you agree with them or not. And the idea that this will actually impact the election seems... unlikely. Is the (not at all surprising) fact that the DNC is fully of cronyism and favoritism really suddenly going to shift voters to Trump? Of course, Wikileaks implicitly threatening someone with legal action for saying there's a connection between Russia and Wikileaks is pretty ridiculous as well.
The media is now reporting on the unproven myth, creating by the false flag propaganda, that Russia is supporting Trump in order to change the subject from the issue of the Democratic leadership undermining Bernie Sanders in order to get their global crony capitalist into the White House. This shows again how the media is working for the economic elite. Republicans need to discard the notion that "capitalism" is "conservative". Today's capitalism is an implementation of liberal corporate capitalism, which has replaced a free market with an "administered" market via a partnership between big government and the private business sector.
If the Democrats are truly concerned about foreign influence on American elections, then they should note this:
For over 14 years, Daniel Estulin has investigated and researched the Bilderberg Group’s far-reaching influence on business and finance, global politics, war and peace, and control of the world’s resources and its money.
His book, “The True Story of the Bilderberg Group,” was published in 2005 and is now updated in a new 2009 edition. He states that in 1954, “the most powerful men in the world met for the first time” in Oosterbeek, Netherlands, “debated the future of the world,” and decided to meet annually in secret. They called themselves the Bilderberg Group with a membership representing a who’s who of world power elites, mostly from America, Canada, and Western Europe with familiar names like David Rockefeller, Henry Kissinger, Bill Clinton, Gordon Brown, Angela Merkel, Alan Greenspan, Ben Bernanke, Larry Summers, Tim Geithner, Lloyd Blankfein, George Soros, Donald Rumsfeld, Rupert Murdoch, other heads of state, influential senators, congressmen and parliamentarians, Pentagon and NATO brass, members of European royalty, selected media figures, and invited others – some quietly by some accounts like Barack Obama and many of his top officials.
Always well represented are top figures from the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), IMF, World Bank, Trilateral Commission, EU, and powerful central bankers from the Federal Reserve, the ECB’s Jean-Claude Trichet, and Bank of England’s Mervyn King.
As you see, the Democrats (specifically the Clintons, that is why Hilary was Secretary of State) are part of the agenda whereby the world's power elites influence our elections. And so are some of the Republican Establishment. Cory cannot allow his readers to understand that the Establishments of both parties are covertly working together. That might cause them to pause in their hate fest for a moment.
And Cory's faith in NATO is daft and dangerous:
Early in its history, Bilderbergers decided “to create an ‘Aristocracy of purpose’ between Europe and the United States (to reach consensus to rule the world on matters of) policy, economics, and (overall) strategy.” NATO was essential for their plans – to ensure “perpetual war (and) nuclear blackmail” to be used as necessary. Then proceed to loot the planet, achieve fabulous wealth and power, and crush all challengers to keep it.
I have made efforts to provide Cory and his ban of indoctrinated Neo-Marxists with reality, but they can't handle it as the Madville's latest ban on my comments continues at their so-called Dakota Free Press. The truth seems to get into the way of their hate fest, that is fueled by Heidelberger's propaganda.
I would gamely suggest that, given a city-induced Senate vacancy, Governor Daugaard might be just as inclined to pick me for District 3. The Governor knows Al Novstrup has squishily resisted his big remaining policy priority, Medicaid expansion. He knows I’m ready to beat back Republican baloney and support the human, economic, and fiscal benefits of Medicaid expansion at a moment’s notice. The Governor might be inclined to give a Medicaid-expansion backer like me the nod to scare other GOP candidates around the state into toeing his line on his policy priorities.
Yesterday, I exposed Cory's racist comment regarding Trump because he is "pale". After banning me from commenting for about the third time, there is little doubt that Cory would go to great lengths to "scare other GOP candidates around the state into toeing his line on his policy priorities". Of course the two do have a lot in common. They both support allowing men going into girl's bathrooms and both are tax and spend liberals. Maybe Cory is onto something, or maybe he is just on something.
Starting yesterday Cory Heidelberger again began deleting my comments. Today they are being blocked. It seems that Cory and the Democrats are nervous about supporting a crony capitalist for president who has the backing of the global economic elites. Cory seems particularly disturbed by my main premise that both parties are controlled by these economic elites. Such bipartisan positions is not welcomed on a blog that wants to use false propaganda to paint Democrats has "intelligent" and Republicans as "wingnuts", racists, and crony capitalists.
We need to deal with illegal aliens that come into the country and it has nothing to do with discrimination…. It doesn’t matter what country they come from if they come here illegally [Rep. Herman Otten, in Ferguson, 2016.07.23].
Translation: I didn’t pay attention to the question or the bills being discussed, so I’m going to talk about an issue that wasn’t addressed by any of the discriminatory bills discussed by Hart, LaPlante, and Saba. I’m just going to rail against immigrants in general, because it’s not discrimination if we fear all immigrants.
More translation, now of Sibby: Whatever Cory posts doesn’t matter; I want to preach my false equivalency and distract everyone from matters of public interest that voters will actually consider. Let’s talk about me, me, me instead!
As I was saying, Hart, LaPlante, and Saba represent Democrats’ willingness to fight discrimination. Budmayr represents the Republican need to distract people from their party’s enmity toward equality. Otten represents general clueless Trumpishness. Would anyone care to comment on those specific distinctions?
My comment that dealt with those specific distinctions was deleted, along with my point that Cory and his readers try to make the discussion about me instead of dealing with the points I bring. My response was that the Democrats are promoting illegal activities, and they also discriminate and promote hatred with their "white privilege" cultural Neo-Marxist propaganda, which Cory used today in covering Michelle Obama's speech from last night:
Cory made a veiled attack on whites with the "Accept no pale imitations."
The Democrats have resorted to promoting a crony capitalist simply because she is a woman and against an anti-establishment candidate simply because he is a white man of privilege. Here is how the Cultural Neo-Marxist agenda began:
Marxism failed to spread to the rest of Europe and the world. The hoped for supporters of the revolution, the allegedly "exploited workers" of the capitalist countries, remained largely indifferent and refused to support the Marxist revolutionaries.
It was at this time around 1920 that several socialist intellectuals in Europe began to rework the theoretical basics of Marx. Naturally they couldn't come to grips with the fact that Marx might have been grossly wrong in his worldview. There had to be some other reason why the revolution had not occurred. That reason was supposedly found by two brilliant Marxist theoreticians, Antonio Gramsci in Italy and Georg Lukacs in Hungary. They posited that Western civilization, built as it was on the Judeo-Christian religion, had instilled evil values into man — values of individualism, personal industry, family solidarity, monogamy, private property, patriotism, belief in a Creator God, etc. These values had brainwashed the workers of the world, which kept them from realizing their true destiny, which was to revolt and usher in a classless society. Gramsci and Lukacs insisted that the glorious socialist revolution would be impossible until these Judeo-Christian values had been destroyed. Then the workers would rise up and complete the vision of Marx.
The Obamas' and Cory's agenda is certainly not about "family values" and not about a "belief in the greatness of America". Instead it is about destroying America, and there is where Trump supporters come in. I am surprised by how many have come to see the reality of what has happened to America. What most still do not understand is how the "globalists" control both of the two political parties. And in addition, the globalists are destroying America by hijacking the schools, both public and private:
It’s the sleeper issue of the 2008 campaign-the assault on American sovereignty. Will America remain an independent nation? Or will we lose our identity because of policies of “open borders” and transnationalism which transform us into mere residents of Bill and Hillary Clinton’s “global village?”
Our media have made their decision. In fact, a recent Time article gives our young people their marching orders: “Kids are global citizens now, even in small-town America, and they must learn to act that way.”
If President Bush is to have a worthwhile legacy, he must stand in the way of this insidious process, even at this late date in his presidency. For our part, in domestic and foreign affairs, we must continue acting like Americans-and we must insist that our leaders protect America’s borders, national identity, and national language, English.
Personally, we must teach our young people that America, a unique and unprecedented experiment in human freedom and self-government, must not only survive but prosper and expand.
Yet the Time article, “How to Bring Our Schools Out of the 20th Century,” argues that the solution to all of our problems is “global education” so students can compete in the “global economy” and become “global citizens.” This spells America’s doom.
The Time article makes it clear that, in the Brave New World of global education, the Founding Fathers have been replaced with British and French thinkers, 9/11 conspiracy theories have replaced facts about the global Islamic threat, and U.S. History has taken a backseat to World History. Students are being taught to think across borders, be sensitive to other cultures, and learn foreign languages. The new role for educators is to eradicate American nationalism.
And in South Dakota, the two political parties combined forces to increase taxes that funds that education system. It is through the so-called "social justice" agenda that the cultural Neo-Marxism is being indoctrinated into the heads of the kids. The purpose is to destroy America, but ironically, that is also the same agenda sought by the global crony capitalist elites. How can that be?
Before the globalist can have their way, America has to be destroyed or else we will refuse to join the one-world system. So for the time being, they are allowing the Marxists to push their agenda.
The globalists want Hillary and hate Trump, just like Cory. But Cory does not want his readers to know that the global crony capitalist are behind Hillary. And he does not want his readers to know that illegal immigration is what the globalists want in order to destroy America and have access to cheap labor. So he has decided to ban my comments yet again.
I really feel bad for Cory. He seems to want to do the right thing, but he insists it has to be done with an agenda that will yield the exact opposite of what it promises, which is one who lacks wisdom and discernment. The idea to take back big government from big business by implementing more big government is not working and instead is playing right into the hands of the so-called "One Percenters". My efforts to make him and his readers understand that have not been welcomed. This is why I believe that the problems cannot be fixed politically, regardless who should get elected. Instead we must await the second coming of Jesus Christ. Until then, we must spread His Gospel.
Presidential candidate Donald Trump walked into the middle of the Mexican invasion of American and this happened:
Hundreds of demonstrators filled the street outside the Orange County amphitheater where Donald Trump held a rally Thursday night, stomping on cars, hurling rocks at motorists and forcefully declaring their opposition to the Republican presidential candidate.
Traffic came to a halt as a boisterous crowd walked in the roadway, some waving American and Mexican flags. Protesters smashed a window on at least one police cruiser, punctured the tires of a police sport utility vehicle, and at one point tried to flip a police car.
"Dump the Trump," said one sign. Another protester scrawled anti-Trump messages onto Costa Mesa police cruisers.
"I'm protesting because I want equal rights for everybody, and I want peaceful protest," said 19-year-old Daniel Lujan, one of hundreds in a crowd that appeared to be mostly Latinos in their late teens and 20s.
Research done at Sanford Health is about to be shared on one of the world’s biggest stages.
A delegation that includes CEO Kelby Krabbenhoft, philanthropist T. Denny Sanford, researchers and the Sanford board of trustees is in Vatican City for a major international conference on the progress of regenerative medicine, stem cell therapy and its cultural impact.
Four research scientists will present on breakthroughs made at Sanford with a significant potential to treat rare diseases, type 1 diabetes and a range of other conditions and illnesses.
Pope Francis is scheduled to appear, pending world events.
The conference, Cellular Horizons, is the third of its kind in a seven-year-old initiative created by the Pontifical Council for Culture and the New York-based Stem for Life Foundation.
It will bring together an invitation-only group of leading cell therapy scientists, physicians, patients, ethicists and leaders of faith, government and philanthropy.
Sanford Health received an invitation to the event through a relationship with the Stem for Life Foundation and is expected to share key developments.
Here is an important clarification:
“The previous pope and the current pope are considered more modernist and have some background in science and recognized education is required in in terms of research and treatments,” Pearce said.
“When you hear of stem cells, everyone starts to jump to conclusions of embryonic and fetal. This is hosted at the Vatican, so it has nothing to do with embryonic and fetal stem cells. It’s adult stem cells and other therapies that are cutting-edge and next-generation treatment. So let’s use the influence of the church to expedite getting treatment to people.”
Monsignor Tomasz Trafny, head of science and faith for the Pontifical Council for Culture and an adviser to Pope Francis on scientific issues, visited Sioux Falls last year to learn about the work being done at Sanford Research.
I am not sure Sanford will stop at adult stem cells. What is more likely is the Pope will abandon conservative doctrine, and push false Christians into accepting the New World Order. Even Time knows he is the New World Pope.
I was watching the news last night and Newt Gingrich was being interviewed by Bill O’Reilly, and in the middle of the discussion Newt revealed something quite interesting: the reason why the Republican Party hates trump is because he has not gone through the “initiation rites” and is not a member of the “secret society.” Here is a clip:
What did he mean by this? which “rites” and which “secret society”? Could it be the Bohemian Grove, the cult that every Republican president as been a member of since its creation?
When South Dakota Gov. Dennis Daugaard vetoed a bill this week that would have required transgender students to use bathrooms and locker rooms that match their sex at birth, it wasn't his first break with members of his Republican Party.
The same governor who orchestrated a massive cut in state spending early in his first term has since won a pair of tax increases to fund roads and higher salaries for teachers. He has also considered expanding Medicaid in South Dakota, even though Republicans hold every statewide office and supermajorities in both legislative chambers.
Confidants say the moves aren't surprising for a thoughtful, analytical governor who charts his own course, and that Daugaard's approach to politics and policy hasn't changed during his tenure. Despite his initial positive reaction to the transgender student bathroom bill, he discussed it with three transgender individuals, who he said helped him see the issue "through their eyes."
"He is not an ideologue," said Dusty Johnson, Daugaard's former chief of staff. "He is a pragmatist who cares about people and getting things done."
He has taken flak from conservative elements in the party, and his Medicaid and education funding proposals have been the subject of attack ads on TV and radio.
"He always held himself out as a pillar of the conservative cause, and then after getting re-elected, he's embraced an entirely different philosophy," said Republican Sen. Brock Greenfield.
The tax hikes approved Tuesday will mark the first permanent increase to South Dakota's sales tax rate in nearly half a century once signed. Daugaard said he was "elated," about the passage of the bill, which aims to improve South Dakota's lowest-in-the-nation teacher pay.
He has become obvious that Daugaard is a fiscal tax and spend socialist. Daugaard's false conservative credentials come from the social conservatives such as the pro-life cause. Dusty's use of pragmatism shows the hypocrisy found in the social conservative movement as it compromises and then denies the Christian foundation:
Pragmatism denies the existence of God or a higher authority to which humanity is held responsible, so "what works" refers only to mankind, and ethics is based on the best for mankind. But, like all utilitarian-based philosophies, "what works" is nearly indefinable. Does it refer to what is best for the acting agent? Another person? Society at large? Who determines "what works"? Who gets to decide who the "scholars and deep thinkers" are? And what if their decisions don't "work" for a large segment of the population?
By denying God the pragmatic so-called progressive denies truth:
The Bible and pragmatism have a handful of similarities. The Bible teaches that careful consideration will help us act in the right way (Hebrews 5:14). It teaches that we should follow the teaching of the wise (1 Timothy 5:17). And that man's knowledge is limited (Job 38:4). That is where the similarities end. The Bible has a lot to say about the core beliefs of pragmatic relativism, but not in a supportive way.
Knowing truth - The reality of the physical world, the validity of our sensory input, and the ability we have to correctly interpret the world is a given in the Bible. But the biggest problem the Bible has with pragmatic relativism is in the belief that the truth cannot be known. In John 8:32, Jesus says, "and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free." Psalm 25:5 says, "Lead me in your truth and teach me, for you are the God of my salvation; for you I wait all the day long." And James 1:5 tells us how to find truth: "If any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask God, who gives generously to all without reproach, and it will be given him."
Knowing God is truth - The truth pragmatists say they are seeking is the very God they foolishly dismissed before they began their search. Exodus 34:6 (NASB) says, "Then the LORD passed by in front of him and proclaimed, 'The LORD, the LORD God, compassionate and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in lovingkindness and truth.'" And Psalm 111:7 (NASB) says, "The works of His hands are truth and justice; all His precepts are sure."
Telling kids that they can choose which gender they want to be identified with denies biological science. It also denies what God has created. Those who reject God and adopt science as their religion and also support the transgender movement are hypocrites. In addition, social conservatives need to reevaluate their blind support for Republicans.
This is who was behind the full court press to have Governor Daugaard veto HB1008:
Today HRC [Human Rights Campaign] responded to the decision by South Dakota Governor Dennis Daugaard to veto HB 1008 -- outrageous legislation attacking the rights of transgender children in public schools by attempting to force them to use restrooms and other facilities inconsistent with their gender identity.
“Governor Daugaard chose to do the right thing and veto this outrageous legislation attacking transgender kids. Today, the voices of fairness and equality prevailed, and these students' rights and dignity prevailed against overwhelming odds and vicious opponents in the state legislature,” said HRC President Chad Griffin. “Unfortunately, another anti-LGBT bill is still pending in the South Dakota Legislature -- and we must keep up the fight to ensure today’s veto holds and this other odious bill never makes it to Governor Daugaard’s desk.”
HRC mobilized its members across South Dakota and the nation to fight back against HB 1008. HRC has also worked closely with local advocates, including the ACLU of South Dakota and the National Center for Transgender Equality (NCTE), to try to stop this outrageous bill from becoming law. HRC provided on the ground support, mobilized members and supporters for a community day of action, conducted patch through calls to the governor’s office, and urged fair-minded South Dakotans to speak out against the bill through several action alerts and a robust social media campaign. HRC’s action, along with ACLU of South Dakota and other coalition partners, helped deliver over 80,000 signatures urging the governor to do the right thing and veto HB 1008.
HRC encouraged the American School Counselor Association (ASCA) to speak out, and the ASCA pleaded with the Senate to abandon the bill. As Governor Daugaard contemplated his decision, HRC also worked with seven national child welfare, medical, and education groups -- including the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Counseling Association, the American School Counselor Association, the Child Welfare League of America, the National Association of School Psychologists, the National Association of Social Workers, and the National Education Association-- to release an open letter to all of the nation’s governors expressing their grave concerns and objections to this type of legislation.
Americans identifying themselves as “gay” or lesbian comprise roughly one to three percent of the U.S. population. Yet the homosexual movement — led by pressure groups like the so-called Human Rights Campaign (HRC) — represent, per capita, one of America’s most powerful and well-funded political lobbies. The HRC and the HRC Foundation alone have an annual budget in excess of $50 million.
They devised a three-pronged approach that included the following major strategies:
(1) Desensitization: “Desensitization,” wrote Kirk and Madsen, means subjecting the public to a “continuous flood of gay-related advertising, presented in the least offensive fashion possible. If ‘straights’ can’t shut off the shower, they may at least eventually get used to being wet.” As the authors put it, homosexuals should be portrayed as the “Everyman.” “In no time,” they said, “a skillful and clever media campaign could have the gay community looking like the veritable fairy godmother to Western Civilization.”
(2) Jamming: “Jamming” refers to the public smearing of Christians, traditionalists or anyone else who opposes the gay agenda. Wrote Kirk and Madsen: “Jam homo-hatred by linking it to Nazi horror. Associate all who oppose homosexuality with images of ‘Klansmen demanding that gays be slaughtered,’ ‘hysterical backwoods preachers,’ ‘menacing punks,’ and a ‘tour of Nazi concentration camps where homosexuals were tortured and gassed.’"
Kirk and Madsen added: “In any campaign to win over the public, gays must be portrayed as victims in need of protection so that straights will be inclined by reflex to adopt the role of protector ... The purpose of victim imagery is to make straights feel very uncomfortable.” In a related move, the authors and their ideological cohorts began to smear anyone who disagreed with their agendas as “homophobes,” “hatemongers,” and “bigots.”
(3) Conversion: Kirk and Madsen called for the “conversion of the average American’s emotions, mind, and will, through a planned psychological attack, in the form of propaganda fed to the nation via the media.” "In the early stages of any campaign to reach straight America," they said, "the masses should not be shocked and repelled by premature exposure to homosexual behavior itself. Instead, the imagery of sex should be downplayed and gay rights should be reduced to an abstract social question as much as possible. First let the camel get his nose inside the tent — and only later his unsightly derriere!"
Kirk and Madsen actually admitted that their task was to manufactured a "gay civil rights" movement founded on the premise of widespread homosexual victimization.
An "anti-homophobic curriculum" should be implemented in the schools: This was a call for government-mandated, pro-homosexual indoctrination.
“The government should ensure all public education programs include programs designed to combat lesbian/gay prejudice. … Institutions that discriminate against lesbian and gay people should be denied tax-exempt status and federal funding”: This meant that many churches, religious schools, and religious businesses would not qualify for tax-exempt status.
Sad that we don't have a governor who has enough discernment to know when he is being jacked around. South Dakota conservatives are under attack by outside groups who use propaganda and bully tactics. And Cory Heidelberger is one of their attack dogs.