Sibby Online

Hillary Clinton, the next President to further "the iron law of oligarchy", which has been undermining the democratic republic?

Here s the latest email scandal involving Hillary Clinton:

There may be no immediate end in sight to Hillary Clinton's new email troubles.

 The Wall Street Journal reported Sunday afternoon that federal agents are getting ready to parse through roughly 650,000 emails from former Democratic Congressman Anthony Weiner's laptop.

Officials are trying to determine how many relate to the Democratic presidential nominee's previous investigation into her private server while serving as Secretary of State, according to The Journal, which cited people familiar with the matter. CBS News reported late Sunday that FBI officials had obtained a warrant for the electronic missives.

Weiner did not immediately respond to CNBC's request for comment, but the Clinton campaign wasted little time in blasting the new report.

The former Secretary of State and her surrogates have been in damage control mode since news first leaked on Friday, and have launched a coordinated campaign demanding more information from federal officials—who themselves have been vague about what they know.

Brian Fallon, Clinton's press secretary, said in a tweet linking to the WSJ story that the FBI's probe was "shameless and misleading."

The Federal Bureau of Investigation announced Friday it was looking into newly uncovered emails related to its investigation of Clinton, leading Clinton supporters to criticize the FBI and giving new life to Republican nominee Donald Trump's campaign, which had been floundering recently.

The news also took the air out of the U.S. stock market, with the three major U.S. indexes unable to regain previous gains at Friday's close.

Note that bad news for Hillary, is also bad news for the capitalistic Wall Street. And all of this information is available due to another Democrat's alleged sexual immoral and perhaps illegal acts:

Anthony Weiner’s lurid communications from his latest sex scandal prompted the FBI to reopen its probe into Hillary Clinton’s private e-mail server — a bombshell development that rocked the presidential race Friday.

FBI Director James Comey told members of Congress in a letter that “in connection with an unrelated case, the FBI learned of the existence of e-mails that appear to be pertinent’’ to his probe.

A law-enforcement source told The Post the e-mails came from an electronic device seized from Weiner and his wife, top Clinton aide Huma Abedin, as part of the federal investigation of Weiner’s ­sext messages to a 15-year-old girl.

Like Watergate, Hillary's Emailgate also involves cover up:

The political organization of Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe, an influential Democrat with longstanding ties to Bill and Hillary Clinton, gave nearly $500,000 to the election campaign of the wife of an official at the Federal Bureau of Investigation who later helped oversee the investigation into Mrs. Clinton’s email use.

Campaign finance records show Mr. McAuliffe’s political-action committee donated $467,500 to the 2015 state Senate campaign of Dr. Jill McCabe, who is married to Andrew McCabe, now the deputy director of the FBI.

The Virginia Democratic Party, over which Mr. McAuliffe exerts considerable control, donated an additional $207,788 worth of support to Dr. McCabe’s campaign in the form of mailers, according to the records. That adds up to slightly more than $675,000 to her candidacy from entities either directly under Mr. McAuliffe’s control or strongly influenced by him. The figure represents more than a third of all the campaign funds Dr. McCabe raised in the effort.

Mr. McAuliffe and other state party leaders recruited Dr. McCabe to run, according to party officials. She lost the election to incumbent Republican Dick Black.

 

A spokesman for the governor said he “supported Jill McCabe because he believed she would be a good state senator. This is a customary practice for Virginia governors… Any insinuation that his support was tied to anything other than his desire to elect candidates who would help pass his agenda is ridiculous.”

Among political candidates that year, Dr. McCabe was the third-largest recipient of funds from Common Good VA, the governor’s PAC, according to campaign finance records.

and...

Mr. McAuliffe has been a central figure in the Clintons’ political careers for decades. In the 1990s, he was Bill Clinton’s chief fundraiser and he remains one of the couple’s closest allies and public boosters. Mrs. Clinton appeared with him in northern Virginia in 2015 as he sought to increase the number of Democrats in the state legislature.

Dr. McCabe announced her candidacy in March 2015, the same month it was revealed that Mrs. Clinton had used a private server as secretary of state to send and receive government emails, a disclosure that prompted the FBI investigation.

At the time the investigation was launched in July 2015, Mr. McCabe was running the FBI’s Washington, D.C., field office, which provided personnel and resources to the Clinton email probe.

That investigation examined whether Mrs. Clinton’s use of private email may have compromised national security by transmitting classified information in an insecure system. A review of Mrs. Clinton’s emails concluded that 110 messages contained classified information. Mrs. Clinton has said she made a mistake but that she never sent or received messages that were marked classified.

At the end of July 2015, Mr. McCabe was promoted to FBI headquarters and assumed the No. 3 position at the agency. In February 2016, he became FBI Director James Comey’s second-in-command.

As deputy director, Mr. McCabe was part of the executive leadership team overseeing the Clinton email investigation, though FBI officials say any final decisions on that probe were made by Mr. Comey, who served as a high-ranking Justice Department official in the administration of George W. Bush.

Mr. McAuliffe has been under investigation for months by the FBI’s Washington field office, a probe that includes an examination of donations made on behalf of a Chinese businessman, according to people familiar with the matter. His lawyers have denied any wrongdoing and /said the investigation is seeking to determine if Mr. McAuliffe may have violated a law requiring people to register as agents of a foreign entity.

So here is where we go into a Mike Rounds-like EB-5 scandal:

A Department of Homeland Security watchdog report issued Tuesday blasted the agency’s No. 2 official for repeatedly intervening on behalf of well-connected participants in an investor-visa program, including Gov. Terry McAuliffe (D-Va.) and Tony Rodham, a brother of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

The inspector general report faults Deputy Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas for creating “an appearance of favoritism and special access” as a result of highly unusual steps he took while serving as director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, which oversaw the investment-based program known as EB-5.

And...

Mayorkas’s involvement in a McAuliffe-backed effort to win funds for a fledgling electric car company called GreenTech Automotive became an issue of contention when McAuliffe mounted a successful bid for the Virginia governorship in 2013. The inspector general report cites that as one case in which USCIS employees believed political influence was at work.

“Mayorkas intervened in an administrative appeal related to the denial of a regional center’s application to receive EB-5 funding to manufacture electric cars through investments in a company in which Terry McAuliffe was the board chairman,” the IG report said. “The intervention was unprecedented and, because of the political prominence of the individuals involved, was well as USCIS’s traditional deference to its administrative appeals process, staff perceived it as politically motivated.”

The report also draws attention to the role played by Rodham, who ran an EB-5 visa investment known as Gulf Coast Funds Management, which directed funds to GreenTech. Rodham’s sister was secretary of state during much of the time that Gulf Coast and GreenTech were pressing USCIS for approvals to accept investments that could lead to green cards for foreigners willing to front up more than $550,000 in principal and fees.

So clearly Hillary fits right in with the GOP crony capitalist system, and South Dakota Democrats who have rightly been critical of South Dakota's EB-5 scandal should take note of this. They have also been critical of the Rounds' nepotism. Hillary Rodham Clinton seems to have been made from the same GOP cloth.

While doing some reading yesterday, I ran across the "iron law of oligarchy":

The iron law of oligarchy is a political theory, first developed by the German sociologist Robert Michels in his 1911 book, Political Parties.^[1] It claims that rule by an elite, or oligarchy, is inevitable as an "iron law" within any democratic organization as part of the "tactical and technical necessities" of organization.^[1]

Michels' theory states that all complex organizations, regardless of how democratic they are when started, eventually develop into oligarchies. Michels observed that since no sufficiently large and complex organization can function purely as a direct democracy, power within an organization will always get delegated to individuals within that group, elected or otherwise.

Using anecdotes from political parties and trade unions struggling to operate democratically to build his argument in 1911, Michels addressed the application of this law to representative democracy, and stated: "Who says organization, says oligarchy."^[1] He went on to state that "Historical evolution mocks all the prophylactic measures that have been adopted for the prevention of oligarchy."^[1]

According to Michels all organizations eventually come to be run by a "leadership class", who often function as paid administrators, executives, spokespersons, political strategists, organizers, etc. for the organization. Far from being "servants of the masses", Michels argues this "leadership class," rather than the organization's membership, will inevitably grow to dominate the organization's power structures. By controlling who has access to information, those in power can centralize their power successfully, often with little accountability, due to the apathy, indifference and non-participation most rank-and-file members have in relation to their organization's decision-making processes. Michels argues that democratic attempts to hold leadership positions accountable are prone to fail, since with power comes the ability to reward loyalty, the ability to control information about the organization, and the ability to control what procedures the organization follows when making decisions. All of these mechanisms can be used to strongly influence the outcome of any decisions made 'democratically' by members.^[2]

Michels stated that the official goal of representative democracy of eliminating elite rule was impossible, that representative democracy is a façade legitimizing the rule of a particular elite, and that elite rule, which he refers to as oligarchy, is inevitable.^[1] Later Michels migrated to Italy and joined Benito Mussolini's Fascist Party, as he believed this was the next legitimate step of modern societies.

The Washington Times applies this to the current presidential race:

There is much hand-wringing these days about the evils of campaign finance, with many Americans — and all liberals — concluding the answer is to impose limits on spending (tantamount to limits on speech) and to bring elections more and more under the control of federal bureaucrats. This of course would simply move the country closer to oligarchy, with those in power controlling who will be allowed to challenge their power.

No, the evil in the system is the system, a marathon of frenzied debates, polls, breathless television commentators, vast advertising budgets, and endless travel — all requiring huge pools of cash in amounts that preclude most people, even highly qualified people, from competing. Into this mess walked Donald Trump, who could simply write a check for his nomination effort and dispense with the fundraising rigamarole. He didn’t have to listen to anybody, and it shows.

Does anybody think Donald Trump will be the last billionaire to seek to leverage himself or herself into the White House in an era when so much of the process comes down to money? Not likely. Thus does the push toward oligarchy proceed.

Which brings us to Bill and Hillary Clinton. They don’t have billions. But they have the Clinton Foundation, a money-gathering machine that does some good works around the world but exists primarily to provide the former president and his ambitious wife with what The Wall Street Journal calls “a shadow super PAC,” designed to serve as a kind of base of political operations. Forget those little urban bosses who once held sway over nominations even in the face of Joe Kennedy’s millions. Now we have a political institution that bypasses those mere citizens in seeking cold cash from foreign nations, many of them unsavory, and global fat cats. The cash is used to fuel the Clintons’ lavish lifestyle, keep them in the national limelight, and succor those paladins-in-waiting who will man their next campaign.

Leave aside the suggestion, which seems to getting more serious, that this was used as a kind of “pay to play” leverage point during Hillary Clinton’s tenure as secretary of State, bringing huge amounts of money into foundation coffers from foreigners with interests before the government and vast stores of cash into the Clintons’ bank account via speaking fees to Bill. Even putting that aside, it represents yet another push toward oligarchy — powerful people cadging a corner on the political market by entrenching their power and raising the barriers to entry for those who might challenge them. If that wasn’t enough, the Democratic National Committee was ready to place a thumb upon the scales of political competition during the primaries.

A century ago the German sociologist Robert Michels wrote a book called “Political Parties,” positing what he called the “iron law of oligarchy” — elites always emerge and zealously protect their power, while the masses ultimately depend psychologically upon autocratic leadership. Is that happening today in America? The Trump candidacy and the Clinton Foundation suggest the answer may be yes.

And the Clinton Foundation is about oligarchy and globalization:

Following the Cold War, the Clinton administration, as part of its evangelism on behalf of “globalization,” defined the foreign policy strategy of the United States as the mission to “enlarge the circle of market democracies.” This curious formulation implied that the rival model was not the authoritarian or totalitarian state, but “non-market democracies.”

Indeed, the Clinton administration applied the Washington Consensus—which then, as in the present Democratic era, favored privatization and liberalization of market regulation for the United States as well as for the inhabitants of what are now called “emerging markets.” Declaring that “the era of big government is over,” Clinton collaborated with the Republican Congress in destroying one New Deal era federal entitlement, Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), and came close to proposing partial privatization of Social Security. Rejecting the single-payer approach to social insurance of New Deal Democrats from Roosevelt to Truman to Johnson, Clinton proposed a health care reform that, like Obama’s later plan, was so deferential to the private sector that it was strangled by its own contortions. And Vice-President Al Gore was identified with the fad of “reinventing government,” which for the most part meant the privatization and outsourcing of government functions—a trend that culminated under George W. Bush with the costly and often lawless privatization and outsourcing of war in Iraq and Afghanistan. In short, from the Seventies to the present, a sort of New Deal in reverse took place, with the blessing of Democrats like Carter, Clinton and now Obama. Deregulation, combined with deliberately lax oversight, reduced the effectiveness of government in the realm of finance, even as it liberated the financial industry to revive practices known only from the history books during the middle of the twentieth century.What is a non-market democracy? For that matter, what is a market democracy? At the height of the New Deal, during the Thirties and the Forties, it was fairly standard practice to refer to the United States and similar advanced industrial nations as “mixed economies,” combining to varying degrees socialism. competitive capitalism, and state capitalism or utility capitalism. Even though the United States never nationalized major industries or banks, as Western European democracies did at times, it combined capitalism with socialism, via social insurance programs like Social Security and Medicare. To define the United States not only as a democracy but as a “market democracy,” as the Clinton administration did, was to imply that America’s home-grown version of social democracy was as illegitimate in the New World as the brand of social democracy incubated in Europe.

So the Democratic members have been fooled by their leadership into thinking that they care about the little person and have them thinking that the solution is voting for Democrats. That is how the iron law of oligarchy works. And my attempts to help Cory Heidelberger understand that has feel on death ears.

And here is how we can understand how the SDGOP fooled the South Dakota Democrats, including Cory Heidelberger, into supporting their tax and spend policy on paying teachers more money during  the last legislative session:

 And as we gaze out further on the Washington Consensus that drives the conceptualization of domestic policy, we find a still more insidious adaptation of financial thought in the notion of “human capital.” Just as “market democracy” replaced “democratic republic” as our dominant national self-image, so has the formation of “human capital” replaced “education” as one of our chief prescriptive social aims. Since the eighteenth century, most Americans had viewed the purpose of education as political—to inculcate the critical thinking and the knowledge necessary for citizens to play their parts in preserving a democratic republic from the machinations of demagogues and tyrants. But in the late twentieth century, the language of the corporate boardroom and the consulting firm replaced the language of Lockean republicanism. The individual was a firm, and the child was a start-up. Teachers were venture capitalists tasked with the mission of how best to invest “human capital” in a classroom full of fledgling enterprises competing with billions of other human firms in the new, borderless global marketplace.

Never mind that in reality, four-fifths of the U.S. workforce toils in the domestic service sector, engaged in activities that can only be performed in the United States and are immune to foreign competition. Never mind that, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, most of the jobs to be created within our borders require only a high school education plus brief on-the-job training.

So this solution may make big government liberals happy:

Today, as in previous eras, a too-feeble government faces an economic oligarchy that can threaten to shut the whole system down if it does not get its way. What else does “too big to fail” mean? The Obama administration has argued that the federal government lacked the manpower and resources to supervise the bankruptcy of major Wall Street funds and other financial institutions.

If the problem is a lack of government capacity and not merely political will, then the solution should be obvious: Create that capacity. The crash of 2008 provided an opportunity to right-size America’s financial regulatory regime, while downsizing and trimming an out-of-control financial industry.

Unfortunately, the capture of the Obama administration and both parties by Wall Street already may have ensured that the political system has missed that opportunity. It is increasingly likely that there will be insufficient reform, followed in time by another debacle—and, perhaps, another opportunity for reform. If the next opportunity is not to be missed as well, then reforms that go to the root of the problem—such as a new Glass-Steagall-style division of retail banking from investment banking and speculation, along with the replacement of revolving doors with firewalls between the financial industry and its regulators—must be at the center of the debate and not on the sidelines.

I argue that we would not need Glass-Steagall if we done away with the Federal Reserve. But the last president who tried that was assassinated.

But the liberal's multi-cultural special interests will not like this component of the solution:

But reform will fail unless it is accompanied by the liberation of thought and language themselves from the semantic hegemony of market fundamentalism. We must insist that we live in a country, not an economy; that while our economic system is and should be predominantly capitalist our society is liberal and our form of government is democratic; and that maintaining a republican community depends on the health of a broad and independent middle class, not on the wealth of a tiny investor elite. Most of all, we must think as well as act as though we belonged to the nemesis of an oligarchy: a citizenry.

Cory Heidelberger's insistence that we welcome cheap labor from foreign countries only plays into the hands of the global oligarchy, and not into the political philosophy of a democratic republic run by the citizens. Those American citizens have been fooled into supporting Trump. There is no way Trump will fair any better than JFK into standing up to the oligarchy. And supporting Hillary Clinton for president also plays into the hands of the global oligarchy. Both political parties are undermining the will of American citizens and are instead working to destroy America's democratic republic in favor of a global oligarchy. The democratic process of the upcoming election is illegitimate. The oligarchy will win no matter which party wins. And by making that point got me banned at the so-called Dakota Free Press in July. One has to ask, is Cory Heidelberger a complete fool, or is he striving for a leadership position in the oligarchy?

Roger Cornelius Issues false statement on a Madville thread where violent illegal protests are being equated with legal use of eminent domain

Cory Heidelberger equates eminent domain to the violent protests at the Dakota Access Pipeline:

Protestors can’t complain about being arrested for illegal action. If a crowd comes and sits in my yard and I don’t want them there, I have no problem with law enforcement evicting them.

That said, at least Dakota Access is getting a taste of their own medicine. The pipeline company clearly doesn’t like it when people come and sit on their land without the owner’s consent. I’d like to think that occupation will help them understand how farmers like Charlie Johnson and other farmers along the pipeline route feel about Dakota Access using the threat of eminent domain to force their way onto land where they aren’t welcome. But cops in war gear will never hit Dakota Access honchos with pepper spray and bean bags.

Cory does not seem to care about the difference between legal actions and illegal acts. If often equates immigration with illegals.

Then Roger Cornelius makes this false statement in the comment section of the thread:

Cory,
Greg call DFP Dakota Free Access, which is also fitting.

Cornelius might be referring to Greg Belfrage. I just tested the comment section, and I currently do not have access. Sad that the political revolution Cory is involved with is falsely called "free". It is more like a dictatorship where certain people think they are above the law, including the Clintons. Dakota Free Press is a falsehood. Cory's agenda is a dictatorship.

The radical revolutionary left believe sex is a civil right for Democrats, but for Republicans it is a violation of civil rights

In a previous post, I made the point that Cory Heidelberger and his ban of revolutionaries hold Hillary accountable for defending her husband's sexual attacks on women as they rightly expect for the sexual disrespect Donald Trump is recorded to have said. Instead they say things like:

Bill Clinton is not for president and the Clinton's marriage is none your or anyone else's business.

So much for their concept of "equality". For them, sex is a civil right, as they charge Republicans for violating women's rights when they catch them with their pants down. Now we have another woman putting out a book that shows Hillary's dispect for women:

Hillary the Other Woman pulls no punches in describing the way “media magic” makes Clinton stories disappear.

Have you heard about

• The RICO (Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations) federal lawsuit that Kyle filed against Clinton and cronies while he and co-president Hillary were in the White House?

• The racial discrimination lawsuits filed by African-Americans against Clinton as governor of Arkansas?

• Cinton’s orders for the Arkansas State Police to “stop and search” vehicles driven by Hispanics?

• Thousands of young African-American men given long prison sentences under the “three strikes” laws pushed by co-presidents Bill and Hillary?

• The co-president Clintons pandering to minorities with a subtle form of race baiting with their welfare agenda?

• The racist names they call Jesse Jackson behind his back?

Hillary the Other Woman is not only about the politics of the Arkansas gubernatorial years and the famous “two for the price of one” presidency. It also provides a perspective on Arkansas life that formed the backdrop and training ground for the Clintons in their later crimes, their gangster-like threats and intimidation of political enemies, and their arrogant belief that they are above the law. You will see the connection between Hillary’s current email scandal and her shredding of documents when they left the Arkansas governor’s mansion. You will realize that the Clinton Foundation is the new international version of the money laundering and bribes that you glossed over as “Cattlegate.” You will read clear, concise, entertaining accounts that put the multitude of Clinton scandals into everyday perspective. Finally, you will be privy to the Clinton “truth suppression” techniques that allowed them to get away with all of it. Until now…

Here some behind the scenes stuff being discovered due to Hillary's inabiity to keep confidential stuff secret:

The email was written by Clinton adviser Ron Klain, a former aide to Vice President Joe Biden, to John Podesta, the chairman of Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign. The subject line in the Jan. 12, 2012, email, marked “High” in importance, was “‘Political’ Questions.”

The explosive set of four questions were listed under the category “WJC [William Jefferson Clinton] Issues”:

1. Is his conduct relevant to your campaign?

2. You said every woman should be believed. Why not the women who accused him?

3. Will you apologize to the women who were wrongly smeared by your husband and his allies?

4. How is what Bill Clinton did different from what Bill Cosby did?

WND reported Brent Budowsky, a well-known progressive in Los Angeles who formerly served as legislative assistant to one-time vice presidential candidate Sen. Lloyd Bentsen, raised to Podesta the same issue in an email two days earlier, Jan. 10.

Budowsky references an unnamed person “close to the Clintons” who had been found telling prominent unnamed members of the media that “WJC’s [William Jefferson Clinton’s] sex life could be damaging to [Hillary Clinton].”

Thanks to the media protecting their global crony capitalist candidate, looks like these two are heading back the the White House. As the environmental activists are proving with the protest of the Dakota Access Pipeline, certain special interest groups are above the law. And women who come forward with allegations of sexual misconduct from Bill Clinton get this response from Hillary:

WND reported in May that Stone and co-author Robert Morrow in their 2015 bestselling book “The Clintons’ War on Women” argue that supporters of Hillary Clinton who attempt to deflect Trump’s criticism in the ongoing “war on women” debate by insisting she is not to blame for her husband’s serial infidelity and alleged abuse miss the point. They contend Hillary Clinton enabled Bill Clinton by adopting an aggressive strategy to silence her husband’s sexual-abuse victims.

The point Stone and Morrow stress is precisely the argument Trump has made during his presidential campaign: Any woman who dared come forward to claim she was abused by Bill Clinton risked a Hillary Clinton counter-attack characterized by intimidation, threats and character assassination.

“The Clintons have jointly abused an incredible number of people in their seemingly charmed scramble for power and money,” Stone and Morrow wrote in their introduction to the book, arguing that Hillary, by attacking Bill’s sexual victims, is an accomplice after the fact, sharing with Bill the criminal liability for his illicit sexual behavior

And Hillary is gaining votes from women by whining about Trump's sexual misconduct. Our democracy has become dysfunctional because two sides have been drawn with the side you on as being like god, but the other side is evil.

Obama supporting South Dakota legislative candidate who sides with radical environmental domestic terrorists

[UPDATE From the Gaia worship link at the end of this post: Anyone who has studied the global environmental movement has no doubt heard the term "Gaia".  Gaia is a revival of Paganism that rejects Christianity, considers Christianity its biggest enemy, and views the Christian faith as its only obstacle to a global religion centered on Gaia worship and the uniting of all life forms around the goddess of "Mother Earth".  A cunning mixture of science, paganism, eastern mysticism, and feminism have made this pagan cult a growing threat to the Christian Church.  Gaia worship is at the very heart of today's environmental policy. ]

Cory Heidelberger is celebrating Barack Obama's interference in South Dakota's legislature by supporting District 27 Democratic House candidate Foster Red Dawn:

President Obama may not have time to record unique, district-specific statements for every candidate he’s endorsing. He does have a country to run, and Foster is just one of 150 candidates in 20 states who are getting the Commander-in-Chief’s nod. President Obama is also issuing “robocalls, social media posts, mailers, photos of Obama with the candidates taken as he’s been traveling to campaign in recent weeks, and even a few radio ads.” The President has realized that winning at the national level won’t secure Democratic Party strength if we keep ceding Legislatures to Republicans...

This is part of an nation wide agenda by the Democrats:

Six years ago, Democrats felt they couldn’t even get Obama interested in House races. But now, after years of the Democratic bench being depleted on his watch, Obama’s looking to build it back. On top of all that: a concern within the Oval Office and through the West Wing with how much policy is being crafted in state capitals, from laws on reproductive health to climate change to voting rights.

“While Congress has been obstructionist and there’s been no substantive legislation moving under Republican control, what you see in the states is very, very different,” Simas said. “This has not been a focus of presidents in the past. But given what’s happening in state legislatures throughout the country, it has to be.”

As Bob Mercer's latest report shows, South Dakota Democrats are leaving their party and becoming Republicans in mass, thus creating a one party state government of liberal tax and spend proponents of big government partnering with big business. [It has gotten so bad that the radical liberals are pushing for Amendment V that, if passed, will prevent voters from knowing who the Democrats are fielding.] One of those partnerships is the Dakota Access Pipeline. More from Cory's post:

On Monday, Foster returned to the Oceti Sakowin Camp to protest the Dakota Access Pipeline.

The protests are now more accurately described as a revolutionary attack on America's law and order and progressive government controlled economic system:

For the second time in recent months, someone or some group has set fire to construction equipment at the Dakota Access Pipeline site in Reasnor, Iowa. The incident, which damaged an estimated $2 million in equipment, is being treated as arson. It’s unclear who set the fire, and there are currently no suspects identified.

Despite the lack of evidence or suspects, Reasnor Assistant Fire Chief Don Steenhoek laid the blame on Dakota Access Pipeline protesters. “[I]t’s pretty senseless,” Steenhoek told local news outlet KCCI. “They’re not getting back at the pipeline. They’re just hurting the guys trying to make a living and put it in.”

One commenter dismissed Steenhoek’s statement to KCCI, saying, “Maybe the ‘poor guys just making a living’ should go find another job that doesn’t destroy the environment and put millions of peoples [sic] drinking water at risk.”

The suspected arson comes amid increased tensions between Native American “water protectors,” the Dakota Access Pipeline builders, and law enforcement across several states — especially North Dakota and Iowa. Hundreds of protesters have been arrested over acts of civil disobedience in their attempts to stop the pipeline’s construction.

The LA Times is reporting this:

The protests are in fact riots, says Cass County Sheriff Paul Laney, who is coordinating the police response. “When you have that many people engaged in that kind of behavior, inciting others to break the law, cheering others on as they do break the law, refusing to leave when they’re asked to leave, that’s not a protest,” Laney said at a recent news conference.

The response from North Dakota officials has been forceful. Gov. Jack Dalrymple called in the National Guard.  Sheriff’s deputies have been brought in from as far as Wisconsin. Police man a concrete checkpoint north of the protest sites. Demonstrators are regularly met with dozens of police in riot shields, along with police vans and armored personnel carriers.

Authorities said they could have arrested thousands of protesters had officers not exercised “unbelievable restraint.”

But liberal media is trying to down play the terrorism and instead place blame on their big government attempts to control the situation with militarized tactics:

As the prospect of a raid on the Winter Camp looms, human-rights groups are increasingly concerned about law enforcement’s use of force against peaceful pipeline protesters (who call themselves “water protectors”), as well as journalists and legal observers. Demonstrators reported being pepper sprayed, beaten with batons, and strip searched in custody during the weekend’s arrests. Journalists were also arrested, and had their equipment confiscated.

In a Facebook post, Morton County Sheriff Kyle Kirchmeier described Saturday’s demonstration as a “riot,” and wrote that the “situation clearly illustrates what we have been saying for weeks, that this protest is not peaceful or lawful.” But it wasn’t immediately clear what he meant by a riot: The photo that accompanied the Facebook post showed protesters walking calmly through a field carrying banners and signs. Video footage showed people standing together, backing up as police approached. The only supposedly aggressive acts that the sheriff’s department described in any specific form included that two arrows were shot towards law enforcement, one officer was spit on, and that a drone that protesters were using to monitor police activity “attacked” a helicopter.

On Sunday, the Morton County Sheriff called for additional law-enforcement personnel from outside North Dakota. Officers from at least six other states—Wisconsin, South Dakota, Minnesota, Wyoming, Indiana, and Nebraska—have arrived so far. In his call for more resources, the sheriff cited “escalated unlawful tactics by individuals protesting the construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline.” State and local officials also requested, and received, temporary flight restrictions from the Federal Aviation Administration in a seven-mile radius around the protest camps, which may be an attempt to keep away news helicopters, as it was during the 2014 protests in Ferguson, Missouri.

“We have heard reports of escalation [from law enforcement], and we continue to be concerned with a number of issues,” said Tarah Demant, the senior director of Amnesty International’s Identity and Discrimination Unit. She cited the “sheer number” of police that have been brought into the area; their use of military-style equipment including riot and camouflage gear, semi-automatic weapons, and armored vehicles; and the force that they’re using to make arrests. “If police are making arrests—for example, for trespassing—they must be done in a way that upholds the rights of the people who are being arrested. And they need to be commensurate with the crime. The idea that police need to come out with pepper spray…is worrisome,” Demant said.

Even the big government liberals ACLU is whining about the big government actions:

Law enforcement officials have said that they are only responding to illegal activity on private property. “We’re having our hand forced…. we have to defend rule of law, and we have to make those arrests,” Sheriff Laney said in the Wednesday interview. But Jennifer Cook, the policy director for the American Civil Liberties Union of North Dakota, said that, while trespassing is illegal, it’s not a crime that warrants a militarized response. “Even if [demonstrators] are on private land, and the private landowner requests that law enforcement eject them, it is in no way justified for law enforcement to come out and use excessive force against them,” Cook said. She said that officials have been “ramping up” the seriousness of the charges they’re filing against protesters (and against journalists: Democracy Now!’s Amy Goodman was arrested on a “riot” charge). She sees that as an attempt to “justify the militarized response,” rather than a reflection of demonstrators’ actually acting aggressively themselves.

After my experience with Cory Heidelberger's Madvillelites, I very much doubt the liberals will learn that the solution is the conservative/libertarian limited government policy positions. Instead they will resort to lawlessness by using Islamic terrorist and black militant tactics. Followers of Biblical Christianity will instead honor the government's laws and not become involved with rebellion. That shows how Obama is not truly a Christian as he promotes legislative candidates who are involved with radical environment domestic terrorism that rejects laws and instead blames law enforcement. The worldview of the Indians protesting the pipeline is also not Christian, but much more aligned with pagan earth worship.

 

Cory Heidelberger uses blatantly false propaganda to push single-pay healthcare

Cory banned me from his so-called Dakota Free Press in late July because he was tired of his falsehoods being challenged. He over stated that with:

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!

Today Cory goes into the a very important matter of public interest:

Yes, insurance premiums on the Affordable Care Act marketplaces are rising by 25%. Subsidies are also increasing, insulating many policy purchasers from this inflation, but we’re still paying that bill collectively.

Senator John Thune has been advising since September that Republicans can win by bashing ObamaCare and its premium increases. But what about the ACA is causing these premium increases, and how do we stanch them?

The ACA imposes two fundamental obligations: insurers have to take all customers, sick or healthy, and citizens have to buy health insurance. As Star Tribune‘s D.J. Tice explains,  insurers can’t get out of the former rule, but citizens can get out of the latter.

Cory must of forgot what he posted less than a month ago, when insurer Wellmark did get out of taking "all customers":

Therefore, in South Dakota, Wellmark will no longer sell or renew individual ACA plans with a Jan. 1. 2017, effective date.

Cory then makes this statement:

The problem with the Affordable Care Act is not that it tries to insure too many people. The problem is that it doesn’t insure enough people—i.e., it doesn’t maximize the pool of premium payers to share the burden among sick and healthy (or unlucky and lucky?) alike.

As an alternative, consider British Columbia’s single-payer plan.

Only a coveting socialist would argue that those who don't need it should pay for those who do. And Cory would not be happy if I would include this in a comment:

Single-payer’s cheerleaders cite Canada as proof of the system’s superiority. It’s a foolish fetish: Our northern neighbor’s health-care system is plagued by rationing, long waits, poor-quality care, scarcities of vital medical technologies and unsustainable costs. That’s exactly what’s in store for America if we follow Canada’s lead.

As a native of Canada, I’ve seen this reality firsthand. To keep a lid on costs, Canadian officials ration care. As a result, the average Canadian has to wait 4½ months between getting a referral from his primary-care physician to a specialist for elective medical treatment — and actually receiving it.

Mind you, “elective treatment” in Canada doesn’t mean Botox or a tummy tuck. We’re talking about life-or-death procedures like neurosurgery, orthopedic surgery or cardiovascular surgery.

Nor this:

As Canada's decades-long experience shows, single-payer by any name fails patients.

I was born in Canada and have seen single-payer lead to rationing and outright rejection of care. My mother died of colon cancer after being denied an early colonoscopy that could have identified the disease at a more treatable stage.

Her experience is not unique. The Health Council of Canada recently reported that Canada's wait times for receiving health care ranked last on a list of 11 developed countries. The country faces a shortage of family doctors, so almost half of Canadians have to go to the emergency room for basic health needs. Even then, 26 percent wait four or more hours to see a doctor in the ER.

Nor this:

On a subzero Winnipeg morning in 1997, I cut across the hospital emergency room to shave a few minutes off my frigid commute. Swinging open the door, I stepped into a nightmare: the ER overflowed with elderly people on stretchers, waiting for admission. Some, it turned out, had waited five days. The air stank with sweat and urine. Right then, I began to reconsider everything that I thought I knew about Canadian health care. I soon discovered that the problems went well beyond overcrowded ERs. Patients had to wait for practically any diagnostic test or procedure, such as the man with persistent pain from a hernia operation whom we referred to a pain clinic—with a three-year wait list; or the woman needing a sleep study to diagnose what seemed like sleep apnea, who faced a two-year delay; or the woman with breast cancer who needed to wait four months for radiation therapy, when the standard of care was four weeks.

Those facts would back it impossible for Cory to get readers to believe this piece of false partisan propaganda:

If we just want lower premiums and don’t care who has insurance, then sure, fine, vote for Trump and Thune and Noem, repeal ObamaCare, and throw tens of millions back to being one bump or biopsy away from medical bankruptcy. If we want to lower premiums and make sure everyone has insurance, we look to British Columbia, Bernie Sanders, and single-payer.

What good is insurance if you die waiting for what you are paying for?

And Cory cannot not even be honest about the cost:

U.S. Health and Human Services is boasting that “77% of customers will be able to find plans that cost them less than $100 per month, after assistance.” But in British Columbia, under single-payer, 100% of customers get one plan that costs every one of them $75 or less.

If you go to the link Cory used, you will find context:

But, "thanks to financial assistance, most marketplace consumers this year will find plan options with premiums between $50 and $100 per month," said HHS Secretary Sylvia Burwell.

HHS, in an analysis released Monday, found that 72 percent of HealthCare.gov customers would be able to find a plan that would cost them less than $75 per month after financial assistance.

And 77 percent of customers will be able to find plans that cost them less than $100 per month, after assistance.

The assistance is available to low- and moderate-income people — ones who earn between 100 percent and 400 percent of the federal poverty level.

And I thought Cory believed that "progressive" means the wealthy should pay more than the poor, so that all would not have to wait in line for three years to get pain relief and not be denied a colonoscopy.

It is typical of Cory to use out of context excerpts to twist truths into lies. So lets go back to the Tice piece Cory used and learn what was really being said:

In pet care, neither government nor insurance play a major part. Yet as in human health care, veterinary medicine involves constant innovation and emotionally charged decisions.

So how similar are spending patterns in the two systems? Very.

The researchers found that in the 16 years between 1996 and 2012, inflation-adjusted pet care spending per pet-owning household soared by 60 percent. Human health care spending jumped 50 percent in the same period.

For contrast, the researchers also tracked real spending on two important nonmedical commodities — housing and entertainment. Spending on both rose and fell with the economic cycle but ended little changed overall between 1996 and 2012.

So something about spending on medical care — for pets no less than for people — looks different from spending on housing or entertainment. But the difference is not the involvement of big government or big insurance — which doesn’t exist in pet care.

Unsurprisingly, the study found that household spending on all the measured goods rises with a household’s income. But while the well-off (annual income above $70,000) spend three-and-half times as much as the poor on entertainment, and about three times more on housing, they spend less than twice as much on human health care and barely over twice as much on pet care.

In short, when it comes to medical spending — for their animals as well as for themselves — households of modest means dig deeper than they do for other goods.

Finally, it will surprise few animal lovers that medical spending on pets — even more than on people — explodes in the final months of life.

The economists are cautious about drawing conclusions from all this, beyond suggesting that the striking parallels “should give us pause before attributing the large and rising healthcare costs in the U.S. solely to the prevalence of insurance and government involvement.”

It may simply be that as long as medicine, human or veterinary, keeps coming up with new ways to combat sickness and death, without winning the battle against those ancient enemies, spending will tend to rise in a rich and free society — at least until there is some collective decision to declare that enough is enough.

And collective decision would be made in a single-pay system by the same governmental decision makers who cause the rationing in Canada. Cory's did not even bother to talk about the main message of the Tice piece. He was too busy twisting and bending words to promote the lie of single-pay health insurance. Instead of solving the problem, it would instead end "a rich and free society".

Now that Cory Heidelberger has joined the Moral Majority, will he hold Hillary to the same standard he is holding Noem?

So Cory Heidelberger goes after Noem for not holding Trump accountable:

Democratic candidate for U.S. House Rep. Paula Hawks led off last night’s televised debate by revealing that she was a victim of sexual assault by a man in a position of power over her during college. This revelation had no impact on Republican Rep. Kristi Noem’s support for her party’s nominee, sexual predator Donald Trump.

He ends the post with a line straight out of the Moral Majority:

The moral example set by our President matters… to everyone but Kristi Noem. It’s time to end Donald Trump’s political career. It is also time to end Kristi Noem’s.

So with all of the media talk about Trump's immoral behavior, you would think this would also be an issue:

Leslie Millwee, a former reporter for local Arkansas TV station KLMN-TV, has accused former president Bill Clinton of sexually assaulting her three times in 1980, while Clinton was governor of Arkansas, Breitbart News reports.

Millwee told Breitbart she interviewed Clinton about 20 times publicly and also met with him in KLMN-TV's newsroom. She said he groped her and rubbed his genitals on her while they were alone in KLMN-TV's small editing room.

"He came in [to the editing room] behind me, started hunching me to the point that he had an orgasm," she told Breitbart's Aaron Klein. "He’s touching, trying to touch my breasts and I’m just sitting there very stiffly, just waiting for him to leave me alone. And I’m asking him the whole time, 'Please do not do this. Do not touch me. Do not hunch me. I do not want this.' And he finished doing what he was doing and walked out.

I am sure Cory, Hillary, and the Democrats don't want to bring up the positions they took in the 1990's:

Millwee said she considered coming forward in the late 1990s, during the Monica Lewinsky scandal, but she was intimidated after seeing how the media treated other women who accused Clinton of sexual assault.

"I almost came out during the Monica Lewinsky and Kathleen Willey situation," she said. "I watched that unfold a little bit. I was very prepared to go forward then and talk about it, and I watched the ways the Clintons and Hillary slandered those women, harassed them, did unthinkable things to them, and I just did not want to be part of that. I had very small children at the time, I had a job at pharmaceuticals, it was a very conservative situation. I didn’t want to do anything to bring harm to my career and my family."

Millwee said she decided to finally go public now because she believes that the media still has not held Clinton accountable for his alleged sexual assaults. A Breitbart spokeswoman said Millwee reached out to Breitbart on her own "months ago after Hillary's ad that sex assault victims have a right to be heard."

"It seems like a good time to talk about it because I think there’s still no accountability in the media for the behavior of the Clintons," she said. "If it affects the media, affects the election, so be it. I’m sure I’m not the only woman that went through this kind of thing with Bill Clinton.

Yes, there are those who does understand Cory's logic:

After the video of Donald Trump’s comments about grabbing women surfaced, Canadian author Kelly Oxford tweeted and asked women to post their stories of sexual assault. Nearly 10 million women responded.

As a woman, I wanted to add my voice. But I did not participate in Oxford’s thread because it was contextualized as joining the sorority supporting Hillary Clinton’s candidacy for the first female President.

But I will not vote for her. I am not with her. Because I feel betrayed by her.

When news broke that President Bill Clinton had indulged in an “inappropriate relationship” with Monica Lewinsky in the Oval Office, I was stunned.

As Lewinsky’s story unfolded, I felt a slight solidarity: I served both as an intern, and later full-time in the Reagan White House. Similarly in the Clinton White House, Lewinsky began as an intern, before taking a full-time position.

However, what happened next for Lewinsky has been whitewashed in our collective national consciousness. And Hillary is the one who wielded the brush. Many young people have only the vaguest idea who Monica is, and then only because Beyonce turned her name into a verb in her song, “Partition.” This “Beyonce-ification” of the Lewinsky scandal obscures Bill Clinton’s terrible abuse of power, and Hillary’s role in rescuing her husband and rationalizing his abusive behavior.

So, let’s recall for a moment what happened:

Then-President, Bill Clinton initiated a workplace sexual relationship with an intern. When caught, he denied having sexual relations with “that woman.” His technocratic rationale for maintaining his innocence was that he used a cigar as a surrogate.

He was 49, and she was 22. Perhaps the saddest part of this whole sordid episode was Lewinsky’s testimony to Kenneth Starr’s investigators that she thought they had a real relationship.

The essential point is this: A man in arguably the most powerful position in the world used a very young woman, in an entry-level position in his employ, as a sexual plaything.

And when found out, the Clintons cruelly destroyed her - together.

So if Cory's new membership in the Moral Majority is real, then not only should he not vote for Noem, he should also not vote for Hillary. But Cory is a hardcore partisan who determines what is moral and what is not based on what party you happen to belong to. And I have already shown that Cory's agenda is about destroying South Dakota's moral values.

 

Cory Heidelberger not following his own advice, as he works to subvert South Dakota on behalf of global capitalists

Cory Heidelberger points us to Stan Adelstein's presidential pick:

Former state legislator Stan Adelstein has made clear he finds Donald Trump unacceptable. Now he repeats his reminder to his fellow Republicans that they have a non-Clinton option to their own party’s disgraceful nominee. In a video just posted to Adelstein’s blog, an announcer reads an endorsement from Adelstein for Libertarian Presidential nominee Gary Johnson

And Cory ends with this:

So, Republicans, are you going to listen? Adelstein is offering you a moral path. You can wash your hands of Trump, cast a vote in good conscience, and, as the video suggests, show that you can put principle over party.**

South Dakota Republicans for Gary Johnson—think about it, Dennis, John, SDGOP.
*Literally! wishing for something that it’s too late to do, trying to wash away their moral culpability for facilitating Trump’s rise.
**An image comes to mind: Republicans abandoning their Presidential nominee would be like the Russians abandoning Moscow in 1812. The Russians retreat, Napoleon marches into Moscow, hangs around for a month, then runs away with his collapsing, lice-ridden army. Replace “Trump” with “Napoleon,” “Moscow” with “GOP nomination,” and “army” with “Trump supporters.”

In a comment Cory says:

Don’t just dump Trump, but release all the secrets they must have on Trump, all the conversations, all the notes from private meetings, absolutely destroy Trump.

Well exposing secret conversations is exactly what is happening with Hillary Clinton:

“I was trying to reach you to tell you and Teddy that I asked Tony Blair to go to Israel as part of our full court press on keeping the Middle East negotiations going…” It is one of the many emails between Hillary Clinton and the de Rothschild family, displaying Clinton’s admiration for the power elite.

According to The Free Thought Project, who discovered this connection, WikiLeaks’ trove of personal emails sent from her personal server provides hints at a potential “Rockefeller-State partnership.” Clinton’s unwavering admiration for the families, and emails between her and Lynn Forester de Rothschild offer an insight into their partnerships.

The Rothschild banking family respond to Clinton’s arrangement for Blair to go to the Middle East in 2010, saying, “You are the best, and we remain your biggest fans.”

In another email, months prior to this, Lynn Forester Rothschild wrote Hillary Clinton saying she’d “love to catch up” – and “I remain your loyal adoring pal.” Clinton responds with a “let’s make that happen,” but admits to a busy schedule.

It doesn’t stop there with only personal niceties. An email dated March 10, 2012, details a Rockerfeller-State partnership, with an insight into Clinton’s future.

“I forgot to tell you that Judith Rodin offered you a suite of offices after you leave State for your own use at Rockefeller Fdtn, if you’re interested –with no strings attached. She also said they’d be happy to provide you with a month at their center in Bellagio if you just want to read and write in a beautiful place.”

So as Hillary is in with the global crony capitalists, we should not be surprised that Cory Heidelberger would report this:

Bob Newland makes minor trouble again. On Facebook, the longtime Libertarian posts his early ballot, showing that he voted for the Johnson-Weld Presidential ticket, then voted Democratic for everything else. (Thanks, Bob!)

So why isn't Cory taking his own advice and say:

So, Democrats, are you going to listen? Newland is offering you a moral path. You can wash your hands of Hillary, cast a vote in good conscience, and, as the video suggests, show that you can put principle over party.

The reason why Cory isn't being consistent and logical is because he is working for the left's version of the Koch Brothers:

ZeroHedge posts more in its characteristic highlighted style. Listed are Soros-funded efforts to arrange smears against conservative activists, ‘technical assistance’ for Black Lives Matter, expanding the US acceptance of Muslim immigrants,[as Cory Heidelberger frequently does]  and to influence the Supreme Court on the Obama Amnesty. The piece concludes:

If Soros were a rock-ribbed conservative who supported Republican candidates and causes, you can bet that a swarm of reporters would right now be lustily tearing into these documents determined to expose any and every shred of evidence of influence peddling and misdeeds.

But because Soros is a hard-core leftist, he apparently gets a pass.

Yesterday James Fulford posted JERUSALEM POST Exposes Soros’s Attacks On National Sovereignty Via Immigration–U.S MSM Clueless

I would prefer to say the American MSM is AWOL – they know what they are doing.

The Jerusalem Post article – Soros’s campaign of global chaos by Caroline B. Glick 8/22/2016, besides noting some destructive efforts financed by Soros in Israel, is a superb conceptual denunciation of this evil man, very much worth reading:

According to the documents, Soros has given more than $30 million to groups working for Hillary Clinton’s election in November, making him her largest single donor. So it is likely the case that the media’s support for Clinton has played some role in the mainstream media’s bid to bury the story…

The first thing that we see is the megalomaniacal nature of Soros’s philanthropic project. No corner of the globe is unaffected by his efforts. No policy area is left untouched…

…the fact is that Soros-backed projects share basic common attributes.

They all work to weaken the ability of national and local authorities in Western democracies to uphold the laws and values of their nations and communities…their goal is to subvert Western democracies and make it impossible for governments to maintain order or for societies to retain their unique identities and values.

It supplies a great insight

Yes great insight into Cory's real agenda, to destroy South Dakota's laws and values in order to allow the global capitalists to continue to have their way with us. And yes, this is a secret bipartisan plan. I am not voting for either Trump or Clinton. The lesser of two evils is still evil.