On his Friday program, conservative talker Rush Limbaugh reacted to an article by Breitbart's Matthew Boyle about the aims of the Republican leadership to pass an immigration reform bill that includes an amnesty provision and what conservatives are doing to prevent that.
“Now I would describe people pushing this against the will of the people as ‘thugs,’” Limbaugh said. “I’ve always thought of thugs as bullies. In the modern vernacular, most of the time I use the word ‘thug,’ I happen to be talking about union thugs or jack-booted government thugs.”
Plus, whether you agree with public incentives for job and economic development or not, by definition, the public incentive (to be an incentive) likely takes more risk than some of the private money. It is that way with SBA programs, GOED programs, Department of Entergy, etc. programs.
So taxpayers money are used for projects that would not be started if one risked his own money. That is why economic development through government is not as efficent as a system that is truly free market. That is why the only logical solution is to shut down South Dakota's GOED.
First, I'd like to know who's paying the transportation to Pierre, and really for the entire anti-Common Core campaign. I expect Bollin and other folks are on the payroll. This is the sort of astro-turf campaign we've come to expect from the righties. The fact that a bunch of rather sheep-like citizens made fearful by a lot of cuckoo talk and can be mobilized to look like a grassroots effort is nothing too surprising(eg., see the Tea Party). The fact is anti-Common Core campaigns are being run by a national cabal, bankrolled by powerful righty interests with deep pockets. The fact that some folks that look to be "grassroots" come to Pierre can't hide the big moneys are behind this fax grassroots effort.
Second, the idea of "show and tell" is going to be interesting. All they are going to be able to "show and tell" is manufactured nonsense, since Common Core hasn't really been implemented yet. In other states these "grassroots" anti-Common Core mostly consist of the same people who lead and support efforts to cut funding for public education and support privatization of education. This effort is all about weakening public education, so the private and religious schools can reap the benefits.
Melody Schopp, South Dakota’s secretary of education, made some misleading statements in your Jan. 13 front page report on the upcoming Common Core legislative battle. She gave the impression that individual student information does not go to the federal government. As you will see, if she does not have a conflict of interest, she certainly is biased.
What your readers may not know is Schopp is a member of the Council of Chief State School Officers, which is a private, non-governmental organization based in Washington, D.C., that holds the copyright on Common Core. Its website admits that, in partnership with the United States Department of Education, it put together the Common Education Data Standards Initiative that involves collecting student data “from early childhood through K-12 education to post-secondary education and the workforce.”
Schopp’s CCSSO is also in partnership with the “Data Quality Campaign” that says the above-mentioned student data is linked “with other critical agencies such as health, social services and criminal justice systems.”
This spring, Schopp is requiring, as allowed by state law, all South Dakota public schools to administer the Smarter Balance assessment tests. SBAC received a grant from the federal Race to the Top program that makes SBAC bound to “make student-level data” available to the Department of Education “on an ongoing basis” and “must provide timely and complete access to any and all data collected at the state level” to the Department of Education.
And for any parents who are concerned about the Fourth Amendment privacy rights of their children and their family, Schopp has stated in writing that there are “potential consequences if a parent were to prohibit the student from taking the assessment,” including the enforcement of “the state’s truancy laws.”
So who exactly is Schopp working for? When Schopp says Common Core was state-led, we now should understand that means the state government of South Dakota has agreed to be an arm of the federal government and corporate special interests. Can we have the Legislature stop this agenda? Only if you speak up; now is the time.
I don't see him doing any push-ups, but Democratic candidate for governor Joe Lowe is pushing his opponent, Governor Dennis Daugaard, on his treatment of hospitals and poor folks who need health coverage. Lowe opens the week with a press release decrying the Governor's refusal to take a huge infusion of federal cash to expand Medicaid.
Lowe opens not with the moral argument, but a practical market argument: pay people for the work they do!
I have the quaint opinion that doctors, nurses, and hospitals should be paid for their work. Dennis thinks they should just expect that they'll get stuck with the bill a certain percent of the time and should hope they can make up for it by overcharging someone else [Joe Lowe, press release, 2014.01.20].
Governor Daugaard claims that we don't dare expand Medicaid because he continues to "have doubts about the federal government’s ability to deliver on their promises." Lowe says that claim is inconsistent Tea-Party pandering:
If you follow that logic, South Dakota should not accept highway funds, school funds, college funds or any other billions in federal money that flow through the state budget. He's using a double standard.
That double standard points to another big difference between Dennis and me. He's apparently afraid of the Tea Party. I'm not [Lowe, 2014.01.20].
Lowe is hoping any Tea Party vote for which Daugaard may be angling will be neutralized by the 48,000 South Dakotans he's trying to help:
We have 48,000 people left in the cold by Dennis's double standard. It's mean-spirited and short-sighted. It's damaging to people's health, it's damaging to our medical providers, and in the long run it's more expensive [Lowe, 2014.01.20].
Governor Daugaard, you and the Legislature have two months to take this issue off the election table. Expand Medicaid, and you help people, pay hospitals, stimulate the economy, and take a really useful argument away from your political opponents.
Sorry I copied the whole post, but I wanted to make sure I had their argument in context. And I would make my argument over at the Mad site, but I have been banned from making comments.
I just so happened to know someone on Medicare who recently required an emergency operation. The bill from the hospital was over $39,000. Medicare paid a little over $6,000 and is making the patient who gets about $800 a mong in Social Security (about $10,00 per year) chip in over $1,200. So instead of being out the full $39,000, thanks to the government's Medicare program, the Corporate Medical establishment is out $32,000. So the South Dakota Democrats want expand another government program that will use additional federal debt so the hospitals only have to shift $32,000 instead of $39,000? A reduction of 15%.
And the Democrats claim not to be afraid of a Tea Party movement that points out that the Constitution prohibited federal involvement in funding the states' medical schooling and yes...highways. That all changed when FDR packed the Supreme Court with socialists who systematically destroyed the American Constitutional Republic. Well Daugaard and the rest of the SDGOP establishment are also not afraid of the Tea Party, as they accept $2 billion in federal debt backed money for highways, schools and yes medical costs, and all in the name of a "Planned Global Economy" which includes things like federal EB-5 programs. But in reality they are planning a global economic failure.
Bottom line, Cory, Lowe and the rest of the Democrats are willing to be 85% Republican when it comes to making hospitals cost shift low-income medical bills. That is pretty much an argument that is 85% double standard to charge the other side for being guilty of using double standards. More and more it becomes obvious that both political parties are wrong. How many have the courage to stand on their own two feet and say that?
Troy Jones likes to spin truth into lies. Can he take Daugaard's $4.266 billion budget and say it is a not a 15.5% increase over the $3.693 billion spent in the year ended June 30,2013. Instead of spending time covering the rear ends of the SDGOP Establishment, maybe his time would be better spent on finding out where the extra $573 million is going.
When you have an Attorney-General more concerned with sweeping the misdeeds of his fellow party members under the rug than actually conducting legitimate investigations of serious misconduct, this is what you get. South Dakotans, by and large, are happy to have bad news just go away, with any flimsy excuse for dismissal sufficient to their needs. It's why we are so comfortable with a one-party state and fundamentalist religion.
That was made by "toclayco". Cory attacked Pat Powers for allowing anonymous comments and have deleted comments I made on his web site in the past because they were considered conspiracy theories. Anybody believe the totalitarian will delete the anonymous conspiracy theory? Of course there is the argument that RINOs, that wear the cloak of Christian conservative, give both conservatives and Christians a bad rap that is false. The RINO's ways are more in line with an atheist liberal Democrat.
When Rounds announced his exploratory committee in September 2012, Rushmore PAC burst with excitement and photos of their man for Senate. Of course, Rounds's Peter Norbeck PAC gave Lederman's Rushmore PAC $2000 in August, 2012, so how could Lederman not be excited? Lederman's PAC also shared the joy of Rounds's official campaign announcement at the end of November, 2012.
But this morning when I search the Rushmore PAC website for "Mike Rounds," I find nothing. The three breathless September 2012 articles are gone.
After years of placating conservative groups that repeatedly undermined his agenda, House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) took direct aim at some of his tea party critics Thursday, accusing them of working against the interests of the Republican Party.
Calling the groups “misleading” and without “credibility,” Boehner pointed to the string of bipartisan deals that passed the House on its last legislative day of 2013 as the sort of “common ground” that should provide a new path for congressional work.
With his assault on outside groups that have opposed him time and again over the past three years, Boehner gave voice to a growing feeling among congressional Republicans that their nominal allies at advocacy groups and think tanks have turned into puritanical partisans whose posture on many issues has undermined the GOP’s standing on Capitol Hill. Boehner’s remarks came amid increasingly strident clashes between establishment Republicans and Washington-based groups that claim the tea party banner, most prominently Heritage Action for America, the Club for Growth and FreedomWorks.
The Mitchell Daily Republic ran an editorial backing the GOP Establishment. (Link not available at the time this post was written) The GOP tent is not big enough for those who believe that the Constitution of the United States is more important than continuing to go down the path where the national debt will destroy America. Reversing directions is simply not an option any more. Moving ahead with Big Government in partnerships with BIg Business is the agenda for both Demcoratic and Republcian parties, with the mainstream media providing the propaganda designed to deceive most Americas. So we now have the media celebrating the work of Establishment Democrats and Establishment Republicans feeding us money borrowed from future generations, that is if the children will have much of a future.
Those of us who have seen the fur under the wool coat are causing too much trouble with our outspoken ways that issue warning calls to the general public. And the same thing is happening at a state level right here in South Dakota. Dakota War College, the SDGOP Establishment's mainstream self-proclaimed "journalist" blog has the story of the SDGOP's reaction to those who would dare tell South Dakotans the truth about what goes on in Pierre:
We won in the criminal case. Those acting illegally in the shadows can no longer hide.And the larger civil case against the robocallers is looming, and will becoming much more active in coming months.
Rushmore PAC was drug into the criminal matter because of our civil action against Willard and his unindicted co-conspirator, US Senate Candidate Stace Nelson. And we’re ready to fight!
Willard was found guilty. But US Senate Candidate Stace Nelson has so far managed to avoid being held accountable for his role. Rushmore PAC has stepped in to demand the real story behind the anonymous attacks which violated South Dakota campaign laws.
Our court action will finally force Nelson to testify, under oath, as to his role in the anonymous attacks and campaign finance fiasco.
We here at the Rushmore PAC believe that voters need to educate themselves and to be very wary of candidates who won’t play by the rules for lower level state legislative races. Because if they can’t play by the rules in Pierre, how are they going to behave in Washington?
Almost 30 candidates for the South Dakota Legislature have no campaign finance reports on the secretary of state's website a week after the submission deadline and just days before Tuesday's election.
And the Secretary of State responds with this:
Candidates are required to submit reports of the donations they receive and how they spend that money before each election. Legislative candidates in competitive primaries had until 5 p.m. on May 25 to submit their campaign finance reports to the secretary of state.
Gant said candidates not filing on time "is a problem that we've had for a number of years." He can fine candidates $50 for every day their campaign finance report is late, but he does not plan to fine candidates whose reports trickle in over the next few days.
So we do have a lot of campaign law violations in South Dakota's "lower level state legislative races" over the years, but Lederman and his fellow SDGOP Establishment types decide to after Stace Nelson. So the SDGOP Establishment members who are running the 49th most corrupt state, are picking and choosing who to prosecute. And if that is not enough, this year Senator Lederman was also reported to have some campaign law issues in his war chest:
State investigators are looking at whether campaign finance laws or other laws were crossed by a former member of the South Dakota Attorney General’s staffregarding a telephone company’s business practices and legal ability to operate in South Dakota.
Attorney Scott Swier, of Avon, represents Native American Telecom. The company is accused of improper business practices by another company before the state Public Utilities Commission.
Native American Telecom serves as a source of revenue for Free Conferencing Corp., based in Long Beach, Calif.
Free Conferencing gave $16,500 to Swier last year to distribute as campaign contributions to legislators and legislative candidates.
Swier formed a political action committee to make the donations.
The PAC’s only source of money was the company.
State law prohibits direct donations from businesses and other organizations to candidates. State law restricts the maximum donation from an organization to a PAC to $10,000 in one year.
One of the PAC’s contributions went to state Sen. Dan Lederman, R-Dakota Dunes. His re-election campaign received $1,000 from it.
State Sen. Dan Lederman said he doesn’t think there’s news in the money his campaign and his political action committee received last year from the South Dakota Telecommunications PAC.
Asked why he and two other senators were the only ones to get $1,000 campaign contributions (see list), while many others received smaller amounts, Lederman said: “I don’t know why they decided to pick us.”
Picking and choosing who to prosecute and who not to is bad enough, but how about the idea of using laws that violate the Constitution? Anonymous speech is protected by the First Amendment, and here is why:
Many people don't want the things they say online to be connected with their offline identities. They may be concerned about political or economic retribution harassment or even threats to their lives. Whistleblowers report news that companies and governments would prefer to suppress; human rights workers struggle against repressive governments; parents try to create a safe way for children to explore; victims of domestic violence attempt to rebuild their lives where abusers cannot follow.
Instead of using their true names to communicate these people choose to speak using pseudonyms (assumed names) or anonymously (no name at all). For these individuals and the organizations that support them secure anonymity is critical. It may literally save lives.
Anonymous communications have an important place in our political and social discourse.The Supreme Court has ruled repeatedly that the right to anonymous free speech is protected by the First Amendment. A much-cited 1995 Supreme Court ruling in McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission reads:
Protections for anonymous speech are vital to democratic discourse. Allowing dissenters to shield their identities frees them to express critical minority views . . . Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. . . . It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation . . . at the hand of an intolerant society.
The tradition of anonymous speech is older than the United States. Founders Alexander Hamilton James Madison and John Jay wrote the Federalist Papers under the pseudonym "Publius " and "the Federal Farmer" spoke up in rebuttal. The US Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized rights to speak anonymously derived from the First Amendment.
The right to anonymous speech is also protected well beyond the printed page. Thus in 2002 the Supreme Court struck down a law requiring proselytizers to register their true names with the Mayor's office before going door-to-door.
Clearly Lederman and the rest of the SDGOP Establishment, who have a solid majority, are using South Dakota's campaign laws to uncover the identities of anonymous speech in order to punish them. And "them" being what is now a persecuted minority...those conservatives who still believe in the fundamental principles of the Constitution.
The other new transparency measure should receive cheers all around. Michigan is finally forcing disclosure of the much-hated “robocalls.” Candidates have used these for years to start rumors about their opponents, without you ever knowing where the story originated. Now organizations will have to put their name on their work.
In addition to the new accountability measures, SB 661 increases the amount we are allowed to donate to campaigns and causes in which we believe. Michigan’s limits haven’t been updated in almost 40 years, and we are far behind the national average. Our state is long overdue for a more modern system.
Not everyone chooses to donate to a campaign, and even fewer choose to donate the maximum amount allowed. But it is our right as Americans to participate in the political process as much as we like and speak our mind without government limitations. We deserve the freedom this bill offers.
The bill also defends our right to speak out for and against specific issues without the fear of payback or retribution. Anonymous “issue ads” are an American traditionstretching all the way back to the anonymously written Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers. Without them, many of us would never feel comfortable exercising our right to free speech because of the fear of intimidation.
I have not listened to the South Dakota robo calls the Williard was convicted on, but my understanding is the calls' content were about exposing the legislative voting records in regard to veteran issues. If that is the case, then the calls should have been protected by the constitution. If they were simply attacking the families of political opponents for being a bunch of hillbillies who practise incest, then that would be a different argument.
“These guys all think they’re tough guys when they hide behind these anonymous attacks, but when you call them out on it ... what we saw is how desperate these guys were to cover their own asses and exact revenge on their political opponents,” Arends said.
No it is the SDGOP Establishment who is attacking whistleblowers. Arends turned his back on fellow veterans and their First Amendment rights to anonymously expose the voting records of legislators in regard to veteran issues, so that he can gain brownies points with the SDGOP Establishment who has led South Dakota to next to last when it comes to fighting corruption in government. He not only defends the current governmental system, but he is now one of the SDGOP Establishment's foot soldiers sent out to attack those citizens who would dare hold legislators accountable, which is one of the areas that South Dakota gets and "F". Looks like the SDGOP Establishment is not happy with being the second most corrupt state. They must be looking to be the top dog. And how they are handling the Northern Beef scandal is further proof of that.
And I will end this sad story with what a conservative legislator told me. The SDGOP Establishment advises their legislative memebers not to worry about voting against their constituent wishes, because they won't find out. Now we know the real critieria the SDGOP Establishment uses to decide who gets prosecuted regardless of constitution's First Amendment protection of anonymous whistleblowers.
In a recent new article entitled "Thesis x Antithesis = Synthesis", we instructed you that the Masters of the Illuminati concluded that the Hegelian theory, that "Controlled Conflict Brings About Controlled Change" was the path to achieving the New World Order. Hegel proposed that societies were governed by the following formula:
The existence of one type of government or society, named Thesis, would provoke the appearance of the opposite of that type of government or society, which Hegel named Antithesis.
Thesis and Antithesis would naturally begin to battle one another, since they were exactly opposite systems and, therefore, would see matters differently.
If Thesis and Antithesis battled each other for a long period of time, with neither side annihilating the other, that battling would result in both sides changing to a hybrid system of government and society, which Hegel called Synthesis.
A constant battling, or threat of battling, was the key.
Now, in the early 1800's, the Illuminati faced a problem. They were living in the Thesis system, where governments were either Monarchy or Democracy, economies were Free Enterprise, and religion was Christian.The new Synthesis system they so desperately wanted to achieve, which they called the New World Order, was a government ruled by an absolute dictator, an economy which was Fascist, and a religion that was Occultic, i.e., Satanic. What they were missing was the Antithesis system, which, according to Hegel, was to be exactly opposite Thesis. After waiting for two decades to see if an opposite system would arise naturally, the Illuminati decided to create the Antithesis. In 1848, "a highly select body of secret initiates who called themselves the League of Twelve Just Men of the Illuminati, financed Karl Marx to write the Communist Manifesto" ("The Broken Cross: Hidden Hand In the Vatican", pp.16)
Thus, the Communist Manifesto theoretically created the Antithesis System to the Thesis. Its government was not a democracy or a Monarchy, but was a "Dictatorship of the Proletariat". Its economy was not Free Enterprise -- where private individuals owned both the raw materials and the Means of Production, the factories -- but was communally owned [hence the name, Communism]. Finally, the religion of the Antithesis was Atheistic, which was the exact opposite of Christianity,which starts with a belief in the Triune Godhead.
The only thing now lacking was to select the "lucky" country which was to be the one in which this Communist government was to be established. Evidently, the supernatural, demonic vision given Albert Pike in 1870, was responsible for the Illuminati selecting Russia to be that country. Perhaps the demon who gave Pike the vision knew God's prophecy in Ezekiel 38-39, which foretold of a Russian led invasion of Israel in "the latter days". Or, to put it more succinctly, God's power forced Satan to select Russia to be the recipient of the new Antithesis government, now called Communism!
At this point, I encourage you to reread "Thesis x Antithesis = Synthesis" carefully, because it gives much background material for which I simply do not have the space here to repeat.
Once Russia was Communist, the next phase of the plan was introduced. This phase calls for the threat of conflict between America and Russia, with no side militarily defeating the other. Thus, after World War II, with Russia being built up as a superpower because of World War II aid, the peoples of the world were subjected to one crisis after another between American and Russia. As a result of 40+ years of planned conflict between Thesis (America) and Anti-Thesis (Russia), the time has now come for the planned merger into the new Synthesis, the New World Order.All along, the leaders of Communism have been participants in the Plan to create the New World Order. They have been loyal soldiers to this cause, along with Western Capitalists and Western political leaders. Gorbachev's statement [in NEWS1007] so very clearly reveals the truth of this scenario. The Masters of the Illuminati, working with Western Capitalists, created Communism, and they think they still control it.