Sibby Online

Cory Heidelberger pushing a loophole for IM22 that will allow Educrates to continue their corrupt practices

One of the most blatant examples of corruption in South Dakota comes from the area of education. Not only do we have the unfortunate Gear-up scandal, we also witnessed a sales tax increase that was pushed by the School Administrators of South Dakota and the Associated School Boards of South Dakota lobbies. Cory Heidelberger is now uses these two lobby groups to push for a loophole in IM22 so that the corruption in education can continue, as he reacted to Brock Greenfield's decision to quit his substitute teaching job in order to comply with IM22:

Greenfield says that since the schools hire lobbyists, he can’t work for the schools. My search of the lobbyist registry shows no lobbyists hired by Clark, Henry, Florence, or Doland. Yes, there are lobbyists hired by the School Administrators of South Dakota and the Associated School Boards of South Dakota, but unless Greenfield’s subbing checks come signed by SASD or ASBSD, he’s in the clear to keep subbing if he really wants.

While Cory's gang of bigoted mean-spirited Neo-Marxists attack Greenfield in the comment section, Heidelberger comes up with this gem:

Donald’s comment gets me thinking… maybe Brock is looking at the Anti-Corruption Act all wrong. Maybe it’s not about kicking legislators out of their day jobs. Maybe it’s about reining in lobbyists. If the Anti-Corruption Act prevents employers of lobbyists from also hiring legislators, then maybe those employers (schools, banks, what have you) need to not hire lobbyists. Maybe instead of supporting a professional class of power brokers in Pierre, our public schools need to send in their own teachers and principals and school board members to speak on their own behalf, from their own experience. If the principal who testifies in Pierre on her own behalf isn’t a registered lobbyist, then that principal can still come home and hire a legislator who also happens to be the best-qualified teacher in the pool.

Did you discuss that possibility with your school boards, Brock? Or were you so determined to engage in this political grandstanding that you didn’t consider your alternatives?

That was the alternative that IM10 would have provided if it would have been passed in 2008. THis is what the Rapid City Journal said with a reported titled, "IM 10: Ending 'corruption' or 'gag' law?":

Attorney General Larry Long's ballot explanation says Initiated Measure 10 would prohibit state and local governments and their officers and employees, as well as independent contractors and consultants, from using government resources for campaigning or lobbying. It contains exceptions to allow those officials to communicate with legislative and public bodies.

It also would bar people who hire legislators from getting government contacts and bar holders of no-bid contracts and their families from contributing to candidate campaigns.

Rapid City school board member Doug Kinniburgh recently asked the board to draft a resolution against the measure. Members agreed and will consider it Oct. 30 at a 5:30 p.m. special meeting in the Central High School library.

Board member Wes Storm said the ballot measure would be detrimental to any board, and especially for educational boards.

Members drive to Pierre several times during the legislative session to speak to lawmakers about education, and expenses are paid with district funds - taxpayer money - which Storm believes would violate the proposed law.

The measure's proponents say it would stop the use of taxpayer dollars for lobbying and political campaigns and stop politicians from spending tax dollars to funnel money to government employee union officials who, they say, spend their funds lobbying against South Dakota values. They also say the measure mirrors the Open and Clean Government Act and would clean up corruption in the political process.

Both political parties opposed it:

"It helps them and gags us," Karl Adam and Jack Billion wrote in the "con" section of the ballot explanation, which is compiled for each state election by the Office of Secretary of State.

Adam is chairman of the state Republican Party, and Billion is chairman of the state Democratic Party.

 Dusty Johnson, public utilities commissioner and member of Conservatives Against Initiative 10, said the measure ties the hands of local governments and provides legislators with less information on which to base decisions.

That was when I learned Dusty Johnson was a faux conservative. And Brock Greenfield was also a member of the Conservatives Against Initiative 10, so Cory Heidelberger is not breaking new ground here. It was the promotion of lies, lead by a million dollars given to the South Dakota Chamber of Commerce by the National Education Association that prevented the South Dakota voters from knowing the truth about corruption in 2008. Here is what I said about that:

And remember the South Dakota Chamber of Commerce and the National Education Association partnership that stood in opposition to IM10. The Chamber is a GOP political ally, while the NEA is a Democrat political ally. Together, they work to make big government a bipartisan agenda. The only fight is over who controls most of the money. At the National level, currently the Democrats have control. But when the pork enters South Dakota, it is the RINOs of the South Dakota GOP, and not the Democrats, who have control over how the money is spent. It is only true conservatives who oppose big government, and that is why the leadership of the SD GOP only wants conservative votes, not our principles.

IM22 will not stop the corruption in Pierre. The Educrats and the Crony Capitalists will find ways to work around it. If want to reduce corruption, then we need to reduce the size and scope of government. Cory Heidelberger and the big government Democrats won't go for that, so they too are part of what makes South Dakota so corrupt. And by pointing that out will get you kicked out of Madville.

UPDATE: Here are those that were on the Conservatives Against Initiative 10 Steering Committee:

Steering Committee members include:

• Brock Greenfield, Clark
• Dusty Johnson, Mitchell
• Troy Jones, Sioux Falls
• Doug Knust, Chamberlain
• Kristi Noem, Castlewood
• Jeff Partridge, Rapid City
• Dana Randall, Aberdeen
• Larry Rhoden, Union Center
• Lee Schoenbeck, Watertown
• Jim Seward, Belle Fourche

Here is a list of those who funded the opposition to IM10:

One feature of IM 10 seeks to prohibit governments from assisting in the collection of dues for organizations which engage in lobbying, campaigns or partisan activity. Consequently the National Education Association, the labor organization which represents teachers and other school personnel, has contributed $1.1 million to the effort to defeat IM 10.

Other proposed restrictions in IM 10 would limit the political involvement of business owners with government contracts, as well as three generations of their relatives and their employees. The changes also aim at associations which represent governments, such as the South Dakota Municipal League.

A broad coalition of opponents formed as a result. Beside NEA, other direct contributors to “no” side include:

Western Minnesota Municipal Power Agency (Ortonville, Minn.) $30,000;

Forward Sioux Falls (Sioux Falls) $20,000;

South Dakota Chamber of Commerce and Industry (Pierre) $18,000;

American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (Washington, D.C.) $5,000;

Electrical Workers No. 426 (Sioux Falls) $4,000;

South Dakota Rural Electric Association (Pierre) $3,000;

No on E Committee (Pierre) $2,614;

Alliance Communications (Garretson) $2,500;

Associated General Contractors (Pierre) $2,000;

Golden West Communications (Wall) $2,000;

Venture Communications (Highmore) $1,500;

Valley Telephone (Herreid) $1,250;

$1,000 apiece from East River Electric Power Cooperative (Madison); Kennebec Telephone Company (Kennebec); Pierre Area Chamber of Commerce; Interstate Telecommunications (Clear Lake); James Valley Telecommunications (Groton); and Sioux Valley Energy (Colman); and

$500 apiece from South Dakota Insurance Alliance (Milbank); McCook Telephone (Salem); James Scull Jr. (Rapid City); and Heavy Contractors Inc. (Rapid City); and

Other contributions of $250 from Clay-Union Telephone (Vermillion) and $160 from Wayne Lueders (Pierre).

The No on 10 committee also received contributions from four political action committees: $5,000 from South Dakota Retailers Association (Pierre); $200 from The Second Century PAC (Sioux Falls); $2,000 from SDAWRS PAC (rural water systems, Sioux Falls); and $1,000 from Independent Community Bankers (Mitchell).

The committee also received in-kind contributions (non-cash) valued at $23,572 from the National Education Association (Washington, D.C.); $9,940 from Midcontinent Communications (Sioux Falls); and $1,431 from the South Dakota Retailers Association (Pierre).

 

The irrational Cory Heidelberger fails to see in himself what he hates about Trump

I remember Cory Heidelberger going after Trump after a debate where Trump refused to say he would accept the results of the election. Cory still hasn't accepted the results himself:

I understand the hazards of engaging the Trumpists and suffering their poisonous anti-rationality. But I also recognize the danger of dividing America. If we don’t engage, we will lose. If we run from Trumpism, we let Trump portray us (us? liberals? moderates? journalists? truth-tellers? intellectuals? teachers? First Amendment advocates? patriots?) as elitists, outsiders, people who don’t belong in his fantasy (masculine, white, entitled because I’m rich) America. We cannot feed Trump’s exclusion.

People like Newquist are the medicine for Trumpism. Without that medicine, the patient—America—will die.

America has already been destroyed by liberal professors like David Newquist by dividing this country with there cultural Neo-Marxist propaganda that has resulted in irrational bigoted hate directed at white male Christians. And this white male Christian has been banned form Madville for explaining truths that those, whose thinking has been undermined by their hatred, can't handle...especially Cory Heidelberger. And those who think Trump is the medicine that will make America great again are also fools. There has been way too much damage done to the family to have that restored in four, or even eight, years time.

Trump continues to renege on campaign promises as he picks a pro-Commom Core Secretary of Education

Trump changed his tune on climate change and has decided not to prosecute Hillary Clinton. Now he turns his back on two more campaign promises:

Well, there you have it folks. Trump has just picked his education secretary after narrowing down his choices to two pro-Common Core, pro-micromanaging women: Michelle Rhee and Betsy DeVos. I've already discussed what a terrible pick Rhee would have been, but DeVos is no better. DeVos fails on two key promises Trump repeatedly made to voters: "Get rid of Common Core" and "keep education local." 

Like Rhee, DeVos has adamantly supported Common Core. She’s even a board member of Jeb Bush’s Common Core-supporting education foundation (and one of its biggest donors), not to mention “closely aligned to Republican education officials like Sen. Lamar Alexander” — which should give any education freedom lover convulsions. Alexander, R-Tenn. (F, 15%), of course, is the same guy who promised he was “ending the national school board” by rushing a huge federal education bill into law this spring that gives the U.S. education secretary direct, “mother, may I” control over what kids learn and when. In short, these are a bunch of nanny statists who may promise “local control” and a love for kids, but whose every effort is directed in the opposite direction.

Hensley-Clancy writes that DeVos now claims to be against Common Core, of all things! That’s sure news to all the grassroots folks she pit her big money against during their legislative battles to reject Common Core. Grassroots folks report to me that DeVos’s husband personally called state senators in Michigan to get them to vote against a Common Core repeal bill. DeVos’s American Federation for Children also contributed huge sums of money for state school board races in Alabama on the side of Common Core supporters trying to oust Common Core opponents

His transition team reported Trump’s “discussion with Ms. Betsy DeVos was focused on the Common Core mission, and setting higher national standards and promoting the growth of school choice across the nation.” See that “setting higher national standards”? That’s an education establishment euphemism for Common Core. National standards are what Common Core was designed to be. Pursuing them is how we got Common Core.

Setting “high standards” is the job of parents and local communities, not the U.S. education nanny. Tying “high standards” to school choice is also troubling, because this is again bureaucrat-speak for “requiring all private schools to teach Common Core using the control mechanism of tests.”

When DeVos touts “school choice,” she’s pushing an education agenda that includes requiring all the schools that take voucher money to use state-determined curriculum, like Common Core. This is how she has used her millions of dollars in the past. If she’s education secretary, we have every reason to believe it’s how she’d use even more power.

Don't blame me, I didn't vote for Trump.

Cory Heidelberger goes mad again and calls Pat Powers an ass over IM22's inclusion of the Democrat's Act Blue as being part of the system of corruption

Cory announces this impact from the passage of IM22:

I raised $5,701.02 from 76 donors for my District 3 Senate campaign by using ActBlue to collect contributions online. That’s over a quarter of my campaign fund, with an average donation of about $75. Initiated Measure 22, the Anti-Corruption Act, just made raising that amount from relatively small donors on ActBlue illegal in South Dakota.

Pat Powers responds:

Local Democrats just figured out that the goofy language of IM22 just cut them off from Political Action Committee Act Blue, which has funneled tens of thousands of dollars from across the country to South Dakota Democrats

Porter Lansing then goes into denial:

Pat Powers is calling this blog post proof that Dems feel they’ve made a big mistake with IM22. First of all, there aren’t enough Dems to pass anything. IM22 was passed because Repub voters were sick of corruption and lobbyists buying favors and votes with gifts.

Cory Heidelberger has a reputation for getting mad and bullying those who confront with truth he can't handle. So this reaction from Cory is not a shock:

Porter, the tone of Pat’s post shows he’s never interesting in informing readers, just in screaming at the top of his lungs to prove what an ass he can be. You’re absolutely right: Dems didn’t pass this law; the voters did, and their votes for candidates show they are anything but a bunch of Democrats. Pat sees the world through Koch-bottled partisan glasses.

If Cory was interested in informing his readers, then why didn't he tell them that IM22 was going to make Act Blue illegal before the vote? And less than a week ago Cory celebrated the passage of IM22 with this:

And to water the garden of democracy with crocodile tears, the GOP spin machine is weeping profusely over all the pauses lobbyists are putting on their fancy dinners and luncheons for lawmakers and the divorces they say IM 22 will cause.

The public probably won’t notice those hyperventilations, but they are seeing plenty of public activity resulting directly from the votes they cast just one week ago. That’s pretty cool. When voters see their ballot measures take effect and make big changes right away, they see in the most vivid light possible that their votes matter. That immediate action should build voters’ interest and faith in initiative and referendum and inspire them to take their direct democratic power seriously.

I do agree with blaming voters who voted for something they did not even read and understand. But now that IM22 has gone sour for the Democrats, Cory wants to blame the voters exclusively, and not the Democrats who supported it with propaganda and celebrated its passage, which includes himself. When the truth hurts, Cory doesn't learn and instead takes it out on the messenger. That is why I am banned from commenting on his web site, and why Cory is still stuck on stupid. And what is really sad are those readers of his blog that believe his propaganda without question and eggs him on with their acts of worship.

We can only come together and fix the problem of corruption if Democrats also understand their part in it by funding it with tax increases, that stuck on stupid political activists continue to argue that they need even more fuel to run the system of legalized corruption.

In addition, IM22 will not solve the problem of corruption, because greedy people like Cory Heidelberger will find ways to work around it:

ActBlue didn’t make a contribution to my campaign; it provided a service, for which I paid $224.50 (a 3.9% fee for a secure online donation portal? Worth it!). ActBlue didn’t act as a political action committee; it acted as a vendor, just like PayPal.

Act Blue is a PAC. There you have the thinking of a crony capitalist and political opportunist. For Cory, corruption is OK for Democrats but not OK for Republicans. This comes from Cory's Cultural Neo-Marxist worldview hierarchy.

The Cultural Neo-Marxist "equality" movement is a total lie. There are two sets of rules for totalitarians like Cory Heidelberger, one for us and none for him.

 

Cory Heidelberger now part of the Muslim Brotherhood's propaganda that promotes fascist hatred of Jews, which also has close ties to Nazism

Cory Heidelberger puts up a post and grags about Al Jazeera using some of Cory's false propaganda:

Al Jazeera’s The Listening Post raises alarms about mainstream media going soft on our fascist President-Elect (“the normalization of an authoritarian leader”, says political writer Sarah Kendzior) to preserve their scoop access to the incoming administration.

And at 10:20, they squeeze in a little commentary from South Dakota’s best political blogger, who I don’t think has “normalized” Il Duce and his golden chairs at all, about how the media understands Trump’s base but underestimate the power of Trump’s emotional appeal to overcome the absence of any practical plan to make his base’s lives materially better.

Al Jazeera is a propaganda tool for the Muslim Brotherhood:

Al Jazeera has been criticized for being state media owned by the government of Qatar.  Al Jazeera has been accused of being pro-Wahabi as well as being pro-political Islam (Including the Muslim Brotherhood), and having a strong anti-Iranian and anti-Shia bias. Compared to all the other networks, Al Jazeera seldom broadcasts extremist Salafi's attacks on the cultural heritage in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria, which can be attributed to the Salafi beliefs of its owners and executives. The network also downplays atrocities committed by the extremist groups, and instead highlights actions taken by the Western governments. It also never broadcasts anything even remotely critical of Qatar's ruling family, including human right violations or the abuse of immigrant workers in Qatar. Al Jazeera can be recognized as an apparatus of the Qatari elites to exert influence over the region via propagation of political Islam combined with Salafism, hence being accused of supporting terrorism. In 2010, United States Department of State internal communications, released by WikiLeaks as part of the 2010 diplomatic cables leak, claim that the Qatar government manipulates Al Jazeera coverage to suit political interests.

And the Muslim Brotherhood is a product of real Nazi fascism:

Atta's peculiar "Nationalist Socialist way of thinking," however, was far from unique. In fact, it was a seed germinating for 80 years among radical Islamists that can be traced to Hassan al-Banna, a 22-year-old school teacher who gathered discontent Muslims to found the Muslim Brotherhood in 1928/1929.

While initial growth of the Muslim Brotherhood was moderate, the organization's membership rolls - coinciding with rising anti-Semitism in Europe -- by August 1938 had swelled to more than two hundred thousand members. By the end of World War II the Muslim Brotherhood had around half a million members.

"Islamism, or fascism with an Islamic face, was born with and of the Muslim Brotherhood. It proved (and improved) its fascist core convictions and practices through collaboration with the Nazis in the run-up to and during World War II. It proved it during the same period through its collaboration with the overtly fascist "Young Egypt" (Misr al-Fatah) movement, founded in October 1933 by lawyer Ahmed Hussein and modeled directly on the Hitler party, complete with paramilitary Green Shirts aping the Nazi Brown Shirts, Nazi salute and literal translations of Nazi slogans. Among its members, Young Egypt counted two promising youngsters and later presidents, Gamal Abdel Nasser and Anwar El-Sadat," so begins an Asia Times article by Marc Erikson.

"The "Supreme Guide" of the brethren knew that faith, good works and numbers alone do not a political victory make. Thus, modeled on Mussolini's blackshirts (al-Banna much admired "Il Duce" and soul brother "Fuehrer" Adolf Hitler), he set up a paramilitary wing (slogan: "action, obedience, silence", quite superior to the blackshirts' "believe, obey, fight") and a "secret apparatus" (al-jihaz al-sirri) and intelligence arm of al-Ikhwan to handle the dirtier side - terrorist attacks, assassinations, and so on - of the struggle for power," writes Erikson elsewhere.

According to John Loftus, a former prosecutor with the US Justice Department, "Al-Banna formed this nationalist group called the Muslim Brotherhood. Al-Banna was a devout admirer of Adolf Hitler and wrote to him frequently."

Loftus adds that Al-Banna was so persistent in his "admiration of the new Nazi Party that in the 1930s Al-Banna and the Muslim Brotherhood became a secret arm of Nazi Intelligence. With the goal of the Third Reich to develop the Muslim Brotherhood as an army inside Egypt."

And this is from another source:

When confronting an enemy it is helpful to know what it is that drives him. The U.S. and the West need to realistically look at the true motives of Islamic terrorists in order to properly confront them. I will show that Islamic Jihad is not motivated by any specific policies of the U.S. or the West, but instead is principally motivated by a fanatic, obsessive hatred of Jews, and that Islamic Jihad was, and continues to be, strongly influenced by the Nazis.

Despite common misconceptions, modern Islamic Fascism was not born during the 1960s, but during the 1930s. Its rise was not inspired by the failure of Nasserism in Egypt, but by the rise of Nazism in Germany, and prior to 1951 all of its campaigns were directed, not against Western colonialism, but against the Jews.

It was the Muslim Brotherhood, founded in Cairo in 1928, that established Islamic Jihad as a mass movement. The significance of the Muslim Brotherhood to Islamic Fascism is comparable to the significance of the Bolshevik Party to Communism: it was, and it remains to this day, the ideological reference point and the organizational core for all later Islamist groups, including Al Queda and Hamas.

While British colonial policy contributed to the rise of Islamic radicalism, the Brotherhood's jihad was not directed against the British, but focused almost exclusively on Zionism and the Jews.

So Trump is not a fascist who hates Muslims, he simply trying to protect America from those fascists that hate Jews. It is Cory Heidelberger that is propagating a fascist propaganda.

If Heidelberger wants to separate true Islam from the terrorists, he picked the wrong side:

According to Loftus, "during the 1950s, the CIA evacuated the Nazis of the Muslim Brotherhood to Saudi Arabia. Now, when they arrived in Saudi Arabia, some of the leading lights of the Muslim Brotherhood, like (Dr Abdullah) Azzam, became the teachers in the madrassas, the religious schools. And there they combined the doctrines of Nazism with this weird Islamic cult, Wahhabism."

"Everyone thinks that Islam is this fanatical religion, but it is not. They think that Islam--the Saudi version of Islam--is typical, but it's not. The Wahhabi cult has been condemned as a heresy more than 60 times by the Muslim nations. But when the Saudis got wealthy, they bought a lot of silence. This is a very harsh cult. Wahhabism was only practised by the Taliban and in Saudi Arabia--that's how extreme it is. It really has nothing to do with Islam. Islam is a very peaceful and tolerant religion. It always had good relationships with the Jews for the first thousand years of its existence."

I don't believe most Americas understand the above truth, certainly not Cory as he sided the cult of Wahhabism on Al Jazeera thinking he is defending true Islam. Trump's position is that we have not able to sort the peaceful Muslims from the jihadists. That is because the fascist jihadists are normalizing themselves as peaceful Muslims so they can infiltrate America. And Cory is helping them implement that plan here is South Dakota. And Cory is too pig-headed to even entertain that as being possible. Cory's pride has made himself a fool.

 

 

Cory Heidelberger and his bigoted Neo-Marxist political activists go after Rep DiSanto with sexist and misogynst attacks, setting up more Democratic losses in 2018

Cory Heidelberger covers Rep Lynn DiSanto's legislative plan to defend the Second Amendment with a post that starts out calling Second Amendment supporters "ammosexuals", and then says:

Hey, Rep. diSanto(SIC)! I know you enjoy modeling, but try modeling gun safety: you only put your finger on the trigger when you are going to shoot, not when you are going to shoot your mouth off.

Then this comment left by someone call Rorschach:

Looks like she needs to get some of that new medicine they are advertising on tv to tighten up that turkey flap under her chin. With thanksgiving coming up she better watch out when she goes for a walk in the hills.

Then this statement from someone call jerry who is obviously a hardcore cultural Neo-Marxist hate mongerer:

Buttercup aims into nothingness, an imaginary person of color, be it Black, Brown. Yellow or Red. But what happens to Buttercup when it is the White man with blonde hair that is the target? Gun sales are aimed (pun intended) at the people of color. What if it might be her child or some other innocent person in the crossfire as this goes on, will she be able to abandon her pro life meme and pull that damn trigger? Of course she will. She is Buttercup, Queen of the Silver Dollar, she rules her smokey kingdom with a bar stool as her throne. It must be with drunk talk like hers.

Stace Nelson states the obvious:

Want to know why Democrats continue to lose elections in SD? Voters don’t expect you to agree with them on every issue; however, this HS mean girl disrespect of issues that are important to them? Calling them racists and other juvenile names because they disagree with you?

Real tough guys being disrespectful of Rep DiSanto.

Jerry responds:

Nelson advise is like smelling stepped in chicken doo doo. Buttercup is armed and aiming at nothing, kind of like you Nelson. Take your advise and scrape it off your shoes.

Cory Heidelberger responds with:

Disrespectful, Stace, to point out proper gun safety? Disrespectful to expect a gun to be used for real serious business and not as a cheap political prop? Disrespectful to point out that DiSanto’s promised bill won’t pay teachers, pave roads, fill any gap in the state budget, or solve any other practical problem in this state? If pointing out facts makes me an endangered species, then heck, I’ll be living on the edge for the rest of my life.

And name-calling, Sam? I didn’t call Rep. DiSanto a punk scumbag. I don’t advocate name-calling, but evidently name-calling does not lose elections.>

So Cory, calling Second Amendment supporters "ammosexuals" is not name-calling. And speaking of chicken doo doo, Cory is still banning my comments.

The misogynist and sexist attacks continue with white hating racist Roger Cornelius:

The picture of DiSanto belongs a adult dating website.

Heidelberger adds more bigotry and sexist talk:

I have my own ammosexual tendencies. My daughter and I are watching Season 2 of The Flash, and I think that big laser rifle Harrison Wells carries around to zap meta-humans is pretty cool. We do love wrapping our hands around big things that shoot stuff.

Add that to the file defining “ammosexual”.

Heidelberger then displays the thinking of one who uses women simply as political tools:

I pass no judgment on her appearance. I do point out that her posing with the pistol is a clear effort to mix “ammo” and “sexual”. We know how this game is played. This game is how Kristi Noem became Congresswoman… and it could be how DiSanto positions herself to be the next darkhorse Noem to upset a seeming mainstream party favorite (Chris Nelson 2010, Dusty Johnson 2018—like Chris, Dusty is cute, but he’s not a hunka-hunka burnin’ love).

Just because leftist radicals think like that doesn't mean we all think that way. If Cory wants to run again for office, these quotes should go on postcards and sent out to the voters and then Cory will squeal like a pig as he complains about negative attacks. He is acting so much like a fascist.

Koch Brothers are part of the oligarchy that give direction to Democrats like the Clintons and Obama

With the unexpected passage of IM22, there is now a lot of discussion. Cory Heidelberger believes it was a hit job on the Koch Brothers:

Journalist and political reform activist Hedrick Smith boosted South Dakota’s Initiated Measure 22 earlier this year. He returns with a blog post celebrating Rick Weiland and Drey Samuelson’s ability to beat the Koch Brothers’ dark money and win voters’ approval of the sprawling campaign finance reform, lobbying reform, and government ethics measure.

Rick Weiland says this regarding talks of legislative intervention:

South Dakota Republicans now control only 89 seats in the South Dakota Legislature (Democrats hold just 16, a net loss of 4 as a result of the election), and word is on the street that the plan is to try to gut IM-22, per the Koch brothers’ local minion’s pledge.

But, fortunately for us, it’s not that simple — because we now have the high ground.

If they succeed in gutting IM-22 — and we are going to stop them — then we will lead a referendum petition drive to freeze their law from taking effect, leaving our initiative in place until the voters can, once again, express their wishes.  We helped to pass a increase in the minimum wage with a cost of living adjustment in 2014 which the SD legislature tried to repeal for young adults.  We referred the law and won overwhelming last week (71%) — so we can do it again with your help.

And once South Dakota voters experience how empowering IM-22 is — every registered voter is going to get two $50 state “Democracy Credit” vouchers in the mail, which they can then donate to the state candidate of their choice.  We think they are going to like it!

And if it comes to another vote, we predict they’re going to reject the Koch brothers’ falsehoods and half-truths once again, just as they did a week ago.

But nothing is inevitable — as we found out in the presidential election.After all, the Kochs have a bottomless pit of money — passage of IM-22 shocked the hell out them and they’re definitely not used to losing.

I think Weiland has forgotten about how his South Dakota Democrats partnered with the SDGOP to over turn the will of the voters and passed a sales tax increase to fund teachers. That law could not be referred because it was passed with an emergency clause. Any legislation that guts IM22 could also be passed with an emergency clause.

It is true that the Koch Brothers are part of the oligarchy that funds Republican causes. Speaking of half-truths, what Weiland and Heidelberger are not telling the Democratic masses is that the Koch Brothers are also behind the Clintons and Obama:

For over 20 years I have reported on the mostly unnoted role played by the Democratic Leadership Council dismantling the Democratic Party, disconnecting it from its New Deal and Great Society past and turning it into Republican Lite. For example, in a 1992 book on Clinton, I wrote:

In 1988, the 1992 play was already being cast. Conservative Democrats were holding strategy meetings at the home of party fund-raiser Pamela Harriman. The meetings — eventually nearly a hundred of them — were aimed at ending years of populist insurrection within the party. They were regularly moderated by Clark Clifford and Robert Strauss, the Mr. Fixits of the Democratic mainstream. Democratic donors paid $1000 to take part in the sessions and by the time it was all over, Mrs. Harriman had raised about $12 million for her kind of Democrats.

The play was also being cast by a group that called itself the Democratic Leadership Council. Although lacking any official role in the Democratic Party (and often appearing more a Democratic Abandon Ship Council), the DLC claimed it was the voice of mainstream party thought. In fact, it was primarily a lobby for the views of southern and other conservative Democrats, yet so successful was its media manipulation that it managed with impunity to call its think tank the Progressive Policy Institute.

In such places the important Democratic politics of the late 1980s was being made. Clinton may have bored millions of Americans on TV that night, but Clifford, Strauss, Harriman and the DLC found him intensely interesting, extremely intelligent — an appealing pragmatist, willing to compromise, and fully at home with the policy jargon of the capital.

The DLC would later help bring Barack Obama to the fore, although its role this time was carefully concealed so as not to tarnish Obama’s liberal image.

But what I had failed to note in this story, until Green Party Asher Platts mentioned it recently, was the involvement of the rightwing Koch Brothers in this supposedly Democratic organization.

For example, Sourcewatch reported:

An August, 2000 Newsweek story on Joe Lieberman, The Soul And The Steel reveals that some of the early funding came from ARCO, Chevron, Merck, Du Pont, Microsoft, Philip Morris and Koch Industries:

Among the DLC’s biggest benefactors last year (contributions of between $50,000 and $100,000) were ARCO, Chevron and the drug giant Merck. Other big underwriters include Du Pont, Microsoft and Philip Morris … “We’ve been able to have a dialogue with the [Senator Joseph Lieberman] and his staff,” said Jay Rosser, spokesman for another DLC benefactor, Koch Industries, an oil-pipeline firm that is also a big GOP donor.

The fact that these rightwing brothers were successfully interfering in Democratic politics shows how artificial popular and media assumptions about politics can be.

For example, when Obama came along, The DLC already had a bad rap among liberals so its role in his unprecedented rise to power from state senator to presidential candidate in just a few years was best kept quiet. It only cropped up a few times, such as in this Chicago Sun Times story by Abdon Pallasch in 2008:

Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama may be the most liberal senator by one group’s scorecard, and the Democratic Leadership Council may be a centrist organization trying to pull the Democratic party away from the left.

But with the smell of victory in the air, no one at the DLC convention in Chicago is quibbling with the presumptive nominee’s positions.

Is there any issue on which Obama differs from the DLC agenda?

None, said Chairman Harold Ford, who narrowly lost a race for U.S. Senate in Tennessee two years ago. He said the organization’s main goal now is getting Obama elected president.

It helps that the organization —founded after the 1984 election to move the Democratic Party to the right — has no issue positions it asks members to sign on to. Leaders generally back a more pro-business, pro-trade agenda. Today is the last day of the group’s annual convention in Chicago.

As some of his potential vice presidents participated in break-out sessions here Sunday, Obama played basketball for about three hours just a few blocks away and got a haircut. But not one of the principals here begrudged him not stopping by…

“No, he’s really very, very busy,” Mayor Daley said, making his second appearance this weekend at the convention. “He needs time for his family. It [was] an exhausting primary. We’re all representing Barack Obama. He doesn’t have to be at every meeting. He has to take time out for his family. It’s important for his well-being.”

Some McCain backers decry Obama as the most liberal senator or nominee the Democrats have put up. And the National Journal ranked him the Senate’s most liberal member. But Daley said, “I never looked at him as a liberal” when he worked with Obama on issues in the state legislature.

Bill Clinton was the face of the DLC in 1992. And Obama told supporters four years ago that his inclusion on a DLC list of up-and-coming elected officials four years ago did not mean he was surrendering his progressive credentials on issues such as the War in Iraq.

“Democrats need to be pro-business Democrats again,” said Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, touted by some as a potential vice-president for Obama…

Such a partnership – between something called the Democratic Leadership Council and the Koch Brothers – goes a long way to explaining why our last two Democratic presidents have been so disloyal to their party’s traditions. And why Obama is pushing something as atrocious and anti-American as the secret TPP agreement.

Bipartisanship may be gone on Capitol Hill, but it’s still flourishing in the checks that are written for politicians.

So then comes the obvious conclusion:

So do the Kochs just throw money at the DLC -- as long as the Council supports a free-market" (i.e. unrestricted/unregulated corporate power) agenda that the Kochs generally agree with. Or is it more than just that -- does this really buttress  what Greens and other disaffected liberals contend -- that the DNC has just become a party of "Republicrats", thanks especially to the DLC? They would say that corporate backers like the rightwing/libertarian Kochs have co-opted the Democratic establishment -- a hostile takeover of (what was once) the opposition.

Sad that many Democrats blame Russia for exposing the DNC's rejection of leftist Bernie Sanders, so that Hillary can continue their crony capitalist agenda:

When Bill Clinton left the White House, Hillary Clinton entered the Senate. She quickly became a major player for the DLC, serving as a prominent member of the New Democratic Caucus in the Senate, speaking at conferences on multiple occasions and serving as chair of a key initiative for the 2006 and 2008 elections.

She was even promoted as the DLC's "New Dem of the Week" on its website. (It would be remiss not to note that Martin O'Malley also served as a "New Dem of the Week," and even co-wrote an op-ed on behalf of the DLC with its then-chair, Harold Ford Jr.)

More importantly, Clinton adopted the DLC strategy in the way she governed. She tried to portray herself as a crusader for family values when she introduced legislation to ban violent video games and flag burning in 2005. She also adopted the DLC's hawkish military stance. The DLC was feverishly in favor of Bush's "war on terror" and his invasion of Iraq. Will Marshall, one of the group's founders, was a signatory of many of the now infamous documents from the Project for the New American Century, which urged the United States to radically increase its use of force in Iraq and beyond.

And the agenda is global in nature:

The height of the DLC's triumph may well have been in the 1990s, when it claimed President Bill Clinton as its most prominent advocate, celebrating his disastrous welfare cuts (which were supported by Hillary Clinton as the first lady), his support for the North American Free Trade Agreement and his speech declaring that the "era of big government is over." These initiatives had the DLC's footprint all over them.

The DLC's prescribed Third Way also found a home on Downing Street in England. Tony Blair, a major Clinton ally, was a staunch advocate of the DLC, adopted its strategies and lent his name to its website. According to the book Clinton and Blair: The Political Economy of the Third Way, he said in 1998 that it "is a third way because it moves decisively beyond an Old Left preoccupied by state control, high taxation and producer interests."

As recently as 2014, Blair has continued to urge the UK's Labour Party to remain committed to these ideals. "Former UK prime minister Tony Blair has urged Labour leader Ed Miliband to stick to the political centre ground, warning that the public has not 'fallen back in love with the state' despite the global financial crisis," according to the Financial Times, which noted that the left-wing base of his party has rejected his centrist leanings. "His decision as prime minister to join the US in its invasion of Iraq - as well as his free-market leanings - have made him a hate figure among the most leftwing Labour activists."

As I have previously reported, we have was is called the iron law of oligarchy that controls both parties with a consensus:

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.

Likewise, South Dakota Democrats collaborated with the SDGOP Establishment, Republican Governor, to help the poor subsidize the global capitalistic job training programs by adding to the sale taxes collected from the poor.  Only true conservatives saw that, and were instead looked to take money from the current budget and out of the pockets of special interests. My attempts to convince Cory and his fellow Neo-Marxists that big government is in partnership with big business has fell on death ears. Instead Cory charges me with creating a "false equivalency". What Cory is doing is helping the oligarchy create in the minds of voters a "false dichotomy"  between the establishments of the Democratic and Republican parties. Both parties are controlled by the global oligarchy. The Washington Consensus is also a South Dakota Consensus. The difference is that the crony capitalists are not funding the South Dakota Democrats. Instead many Democrats have switched to the Republican Party.

 

 

Based on Cory Heidelberger's pro-democratic propaganda, he is the real fascist, not Donald Trump

I was going back through my highlights of Daniel Estulin's, Tavistock Institute; Social Engineering the Masses, and I found something that tied back to my earlier post regarding Cory Heidelberger's celebration of pure democracy:

The essential premise of the work of Tavistock is the premise that certain kinds of democratic institutions represent far more efficient instrumentalities for fascist dictatorship than the traditional, straightforwardly authoritarian models.

Then I found this:

They began by asking how phenomena such as scapegoating, submission to authoritarian leaders, and even rebellion against authority might be linked. To answer those questions, they staged an experiment designed to compare the social-psychological dynamics of three kinds of society: authoritarian, democratic, and anarchic. They gathered groups of ten-year-old boys into five-member after-school clubs where they would make masks and play games. They gave each group an adult leader who was instructed to take charge in an authoritarian, democratic, or laissez-faire manner. In the first mode, the leader made all decisions and demanded that the boys simply follow them. In the second, the leader engaged the boys in collaborative discussion to choose their activities. And in the third variation, the leader simply let the boys do whatever they liked with no interference. The results were tellingly consistent with liberal American views of contemporary geopolitics: under the authoritarian condition, the boys either became passive and obedient, or imitated their leader and became aggressively domineering toward each other. They also chose scapegoats and turned on them in unison—not unlike Germans under Nazi rule. Democratic leaders, by contrast, engendered affection and a moderate level of aggression in the boys—something closer to the energetic civic participation expected of Americans than to the dominance/submission dynamics seen in dictatorships. Under laissez-faire conditions, the boys were similarly active and described themselves as quite happy—a finding that Lewin and his colleagues acknowledged but did not dwell on.

Now add this:

The emphasis on psychological warfare as the fundamental content of Rockefeller military doctrine is no exception to Rockefeller strategic and tactical doctrines generally. Although a large number of specialists (including some Nazis) made particular contributions to Anglo-American psychological warfare techniques from World War II onwards, it is rather exact to state that all the essential political differences between Nazi society and Rockefeller's version of fascist society are derived from the work of teams headed by two hideous, explicitly fascist psychologists, both Rockefeller protégés, Dr. Kurt Lewin and Brigadier Dr. John Rawlings Rees.

Rees, chief honcho of the Tavistock Clinic of the 1930s, founder of the post-war Tavistock Institute and founder of the World Federation of Mental Health was, until his long overdue death in 1969, the top Rockefeller political intelligence operative in the world throughout the postwar period. The Rockefeller-sponsored London Tavistock Institute is the "mother" agency of most of the post-war Anglo-American intelligence and "dirty tricks" apparatus, and still performs a key coordinating role for the entire Anglo-American dirty-tricks establishment and its NATO and other subsidiaries. There is no vile or murderous practice in espionage, labor-busting, brainwashing, riot and terrorism-provoking technology which does not have its origins and principal other guiding conceptions in the Tavistock Institute circles.

Rees, who among his other accomplishments brainwashed Rudolf Hess, is the principal architect of the development of the fascist political model which the Rockefeller agencies are now in the process of deploying. His essential conception was as follows. Rees projected that the military and secret police apparatus of the Anglo. American establishment should be developed as the "mother" of civilian government of the future. To this end, he proposed, it should combine the more successful features of the Nazi military and SS models with the general body of experience accumulated by the British establishment, especially the colonial services.

With this long-term objective for the military and political police agencies in view, he proposed that the necessary process of development should be catalyzed by psychiatrists and psychologists. These professionals should be mobilized and directed as the political "shock troops" of future capitalist rule. They should be retained in consultative capacity by government agencies and corporations, their developmental studies and pilot projects funded largely through assistance by private foundations. In this capacity, they should advise political rulers and shape political techniques of social control according to expert psychiatric knowledge and techniques.

In addition to these "staff" assignments, these psychiatrists and psychologists should function in a "line" capacity as de facto thought-control police, through the establishment of "community health clinics" which would impose behavior modification treatment on members of those communities, whether those persons desired or did not desire such treatment, irrespective of any legal due process safeguards concerning enforced behavioral modification (brainwashing).

The conceptions explicitly set forth by Rees during as early as the later years of World War II encompass all but one of the hideous internal political features of modern Rockefeller models of fascism. Lewin added the rest.

The proposals of Kurt Lewin were either identical or complementary to those made by Rees. Lewin's most distinctive and significant proposal, also made during the period of World War II and its immediate aftermath, was this conception of fascism with a democratic face. He proposed that through the use of what amounted to small group self-brainwashing techniques, a more efficient form of fascist dictatorship could be established. The ratio and visibility of a horde of jackbooted enforcers characteristic of the Nazi regime, could be reduced by creating fascist forms of small self-administering "community groups." The result, whose resemblance to the Gregor Strasser model of Nazism was not a coincidental aspect of Lewin's proposal, would be a more efficient form of fascist regime with the superficial appearance of special democratic forms.

So looks like Cory's democratic political agenda is actually fascist in nature. But due to his being brainwashed with cultural Neo-Marxist propaganda, he falsely uses Donald Trump as a fascist scapegoat. This is a direct rebuttal to Heidelberger's false allegation:

Fascism is back in fashion — at least if mainstream political commentators are to be believed. Many have been quick to seize upon the oft-misunderstood term to describe Donald Trump, presenting the Republican presidential candidate as a uniquely menacing figure along the lines of Franco or Mussolini.

But this careless use of the fascist label ignores the historical roots of fascism and sidesteps the vital work of carefully analyzing Trump’s political ascendance. It also undermines efforts to develop a serious understanding of the phenomenon of fascism itself.

Dylan Riley — a professor of sociology at the University of California-Berkeley and member of the New Left Review editorial board — has spent years developing an understanding of fascism that is rooted in the history of actual fascist movements.

His key insight has to do with the relationship between fascism and democracy — far from representing the ultimate rejection of democratic ideals, fascist movements have consistently presented themselves as the democratic alternative to liberalism.

And...

The characterization of Trump as “fascist” is erroneous both analytically and politically for reasons that I laid out above. It serves the obvious purpose of rallying the electorate behind the loathsome Hillary Clinton.

This is not to say that Trump poses no threat — personally, I think it is possible that his (mostly accurate) attacks on his rival as dishonest, self-serving, and incompetent will begin to stick, boosting his chances in the election. The painful question now is which of the two (Trump or Clinton) is the greatest danger.

It really upsets Heidelberger when I turn the table on him by bringing the truth to rebut his falsehoods. That is why the fascist democratic dictator has banned me from his web site that he mislabels "Dakota Free Press". The last thing Cory would want is the ideals of laissez-faire making the sad angry bigoted political activists at Madville happy. Like Lewin, Heidelberger does not want to dwell on laissez-faire as the policy solution to today's corrupt system of crony capitalism. Instead he is part of the problem.

So is Cory Heidelberger already endorsing Shantel Krebs for House?

Cory Heidelberger makes this announcement:

Hmmm… looks like we’d better take any blog coverage from Powers on Johnson’s run as Lauck-Thune-esque astroturf rather than objective coverage. And if Johnson really is positioning himself for a House race against the current, reasonably effective and scandal-free Secretary of State Shantel Krebs, he might want to reconsider tying himself to the partisan bumbling of her disgraced predecessor Jason Gant.

Probably not an endorsement, unless no Democrat shows up for the race. And speaking on Thune's 2004 defeat of Tom Daschle, isn't that loss what started the South Dakota Democratic implosion?

South Dakota Democrats failed miserably at American styled representative democracy as Heidelberger celebrates a direct democracy by the uniformed

"We South Dakotans passed four ballot measures last week; they took effect yesterday. Immediately we are seeing the impact of our making laws via direct democracy", says Cory Heidelberger. He ends his celebration with this:

And to water the garden of democracy with crocodile tears, the GOP spin machine is weeping profusely over all the pauses lobbyists are putting on their fancy dinners and luncheons for lawmakers and the divorces they say IM 22 will cause.

The public probably won’t notice those hyperventilations, but they are seeing plenty of public activity resulting directly from the votes they cast just one week ago. That’s pretty cool. When voters see their ballot measures take effect and make big changes right away, they see in the most vivid light possible that their votes matter. That immediate action should build voters’ interest and faith in initiative and referendum and inspire them to take their direct democratic power seriously.

But a direct democracy was not intended to be the American way:

Direct democracy was not what the framers of the United States Constitution envisioned for the nation. They saw a danger in tyranny of the majority. As a result, they advocated a representative democracy in the form of a constitutional republic over a direct democracy. For example, James Madison, in Federalist No. 10, advocates a constitutional republic over direct democracy precisely to protect the individual from the will of the majority. He says,

Those who hold and those who are without property have ever formed distinct interests in society. Those who are creditors, and those who are debtors, fall under a like discrimination. A landed interest, a manufacturing interest, a mercantile interest, a moneyed interest, with many lesser interests, grow up of necessity in civilized nations, and divide them into different classes, actuated by different sentiments and views. The regulation of these various and interfering interests forms the principal task of modern legislation, and involves the spirit of party and faction in the necessary and ordinary operations of the government.

[...]

[A] pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will be felt by a majority, and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party. Hence it is, that democracies have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have, in general, been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.^[21]

John Witherspoon, one of the signers of the Declaration of Independence, said: "Pure democracy cannot subsist long nor be carried far into the departments of state – it is very subject to caprice and the madness of popular rage." Alexander Hamilton said, "That a pure democracy if it were practicable would be the most perfect government. Experience has proved that no position is more false than this. The ancient democracies in which the people themselves deliberated never possessed one good feature of government. Their very character was tyranny; their figure, deformity."^[22]

Despite the framers' intentions in the beginning of the republic, ballot measures and their corresponding referendums have been widely used at the state and sub-state level. There is much state and federal case law, from the early 1900s to the 1990s, that protects the people's right to each of these direct democracy governance components (Magleby, 1984, and Zimmerman, 1999). The first United States Supreme Court ruling in favor of the citizen lawmaking was in Pacific States Telephone and Telegraph Company v. Oregon, 223 U.S. 118 in 1912 (Zimmerman, December 1999). President Theodore Roosevelt, in his "Charter of Democracy" speech to the 1912 Ohio constitutional convention, stated: "I believe in the Initiative and Referendum, which should be used not to destroy representative government, but to correct it whenever it becomes misrepresentative."^[23]

Clearly, I will go along with the argument that crony capitalism has made Pierre misrepresentative. Last session they passed a sales tax increase based on pressure from a combined effort of special interest in education and business, as they ignored the will of the voters who voted against a sales tax increase by a much wider margin than the passage of IM22. Heidelberger celebrated that legislative overturn of actions from a direct democracy. Where were the 57% of voters who said no to additional taxes in 2012? Were they not paying attention to what their representatives were doing?

I would also argue that IM22 represents a dysfunction of a democracy as most who voted yes did not even read the 3o plus pages of law. Liberals are even saying the uninformed elected Trump:

Trump owes his victory to the uninformed. But it’s not just Trump. Political scientists have been studying what voters know and how they think for well over 65 years. The results are frightening. Voters generally know who the president is but not much else.

Cory Heidelberger has been very vocal about the failure of democracy in regard to who is represented us, so how can he celebrate how the uninformed has responded to the problem of crony capitalism? IM22 will not solve that problem. It will not be allowed to stand by the elected representatives in the same way the majority were ignored in order to line the pockets of teachers and those who own property. And most of the electorate won't know or care.

UPDATE: Cory Heidelberger makes this admission:

As a true liberal and democrat, I will tell you that, on principle, the Legislature should avoid tinkering with popularly approved ballot initiatives, especially now that 71% of the voters turned down the effort to tinker with the minimum wage hike that only 55% of the voters supported back in 2014. (RL 20 went a lot better than I thought it might—even I underestimated the apparent crankiness one can provoke by not respecting the voters’ will.)

As a true liberal and democrats Cory will squeal like a fascist pig if the legislature reversed the sales tax increase in order to honor the will of the voters who made their wishes known in 2012. I would point that out to him, but he is still blocking my comments so his so-called "free press". Typical of a direct democracy bigoted tyrant to not respect free speech.