Sibby Online

Cory Heidelberger echoing Establishment Republican Trumpophobes' false progressive propaganda

Over at Madville you will often see Cory Heidelberger calling Trump a fascist, a racist, and a Nazi. Back in June Bruce Thorton went after Establishment Republicans Trumpophobes for making the same false allegations:

Every drop in the polls or bit of blunt talk from Donald Trump ignites another explosion of Trump Derangement Syndrome from Republican pundits and politicians. And every time such Republicans open their mouths, they strengthen the perception that they are an out of touch elite having more in common with the Democrats with whom they share the same university credentials and tony zip codes. So they confirm the very suspicions that have driven much of Trump’s support.

It doesn’t help that too many Republicans use the same loaded language and share the same assumptions of the progressives. For example, the Wall Street Journal’s Bret Stephens wrote a whole column on the historical parallels with the 1930s, linking Trump to Italian fascism. In the Washington Post, the Brookings Institute’s Robert Kagan explained “this is how fascism comes to America.” More recently, NRO’s Jay Nordlinger meditated on whether the “F-word” applies to Trump, and concluded, “I’m not sure.”  

The remoteness of the chance that America could move that far right leaves the topic of Trump’s fascistic tendencies a mere device for tarring Trump with the fascist brush. Everyone knows that “fascist” is the left’s favorite insult, and its use depends on massive ignorance of historical fascism, the differences between authoritarian and fascist regimes, and the distinctions between Italian fascism and German Nazism. But it’s an effective smear, at once tainting the target with the excesses of Nazism, but containing little content other than the speaker’s ideological dislike of whatever he is branding “fascist.” It should be a tenet of conservativism to respect the integrity of language and history, and not to indulge the linguistic dishonesty that defines progressive propaganda.

Then there’s the flap over Trump’s remarks about the judge who is hearing the suit over Trump University. House Speaker Paul Ryan, currently the lodestar of anti-Trump Republicans, called Trump’s charges that the judge might be biased toward him “the textbook definition of a racist comment.” Sure it is, if your “textbook” is the Progressive Lexicon of Orwellian Smears. 

Ryan elevated his dudgeon because Trump correctly said the judge is a Mexican. The Trumpophobes all cried “Gotcha” and smugly pointed out that the judge was born in Indiana. But they are as ignorant as Ryan is about how the children of immigrants self-identity. I have lived all my life amidst people descended from immigrants from a dozen different countries, and they all call themselves “Mexican” or “Portuguese” or “Italian” or “Armenian” when asked about their origins. Nobody thinks they mean they are citizens of those countries or were necessarily born there.  Someone who calls himself “Scots-Irish” isn’t claiming dual citizenship in Scotland and Ireland. This episode reminded us once again that the “comprehensive immigration reform” Republicans who dream of flipping the Hispanic vote know very little about the daily reality of immigration in America whether legal or illegal––confirming the beliefs of Trump supporters that the Republicans can’t be trusted on immigration policy.

As bad as that was, though, calling Trump’s comment “racist” is just validating the progressives’ distortion of that word to serve their political and ideological interests. It’s as stupid as calling Trump’s ban on Muslim immigration “racist,” as though Islam is a race instead of a religion. There’s only one valid definition of “racism”: the belief that every member of a “race” is by nature immutably inferior to members of another race. Or, to use the Darwinian jargon of the progressives’ intellectual ancestors in the twenties and thirties, people “unfit” for survival. Since then the left has turned the word into an all-purpose smear used against anyone who disagrees with their politicized, self-serving analysis of race relations in America or any topic involving the Third World. Now anything and everything is “racist,” even simple statements of fact, such as black males commit nearly half of the murders in the U.S. For Ryan to use the word this way validates this corruption of language, and to Trump supporters it is just another example of how the Republican “establishment” is too ideologically cozy with the Democrats.

Cory Heidelberger also likes to paint Trump as a Nazi. Little does he know, it was Progressive Democrat Woodrow Wilson who invented and popularized Hitler's agenda:

And as this article shows, the American "Progressives" of the late 19th and early 20th century were not only Leftists but they were also war-glorifying militarists. Hitler got not only his eugenic ideas from American Leftists but even his ideas about war being a purification of the national spirit etc. And who was it who said this?

"Conformity will be the only virtue and any man who refuses to conform will have to pay the penalty."

Was it Adolf? It sounds very much like either Adolf or Mussolini at the height of their powers but it was in fact said while both Hitler and Mussolini were still in the trenches of World War I and it was said by the President of the United States, the arch-Progressive Woodrow Wilson. See here for that and many other ways (including book-burning) in which Adolf learnt from American leftists. History can be very surprising. Loberfeld's short history of progressivism has more on its militaristic aspects.

Wilson even foreshadowed Hitler's racism. Note this quote about his actions in 1912:

"Upon taking power in Washington, Wilson and the many other Southerners he brought into his cabinet were disturbed at the way the federal government went about its own business. One legacy of post-Civil War Republican ascendancy was that Washington's large black populace had access to federal jobs, and worked with whites in largely integrated circumstances. Wilson's cabinet put an end to that, bringing Jim Crow to Washington. Wilson allowed various officials to segregate the toilets, cafeterias, and work areas of their departments".

So Wilson actually reversed more tolerant policies put in place by Republicans. Racism was very LEFTIST in Hitler's day. Leftists like to portray Wilson as a visionary. They neglect to mention that the future he envisioned was a racially segregated one.

Jonah Goldberg has a good summary of the Wilson administration too:

Under Woodrow Wilson, the first American president to embrace the new cult of pragmatism and power that had overtaken “enlightened” thinkers on both sides of the Atlantic (and the first American president to openly disdain the U.S. Constitution), the progressives unleashed a crackdown on freedom that makes the supposed fascism of the McCarthy era and the Bush years seem like a teach-in at Smith College. Wilson established the American Protective League, a group of domestic fascisti charged with crushing dissent, beating “slackers,” and intimidating average Americans. Wilson’s Committee for Public Information was the first modern propaganda ministry. Indeed, according to the late sociologist and intellectual historian Robert Nisbet, the “West’s first real experience with totalitarianism — political absolutism extended into every possible area of culture and society, education, religion, industry, the arts, local community and family included, with a kind of terror always waiting in the wings — came with the American war state under Wilson.”

And I suppose it is very crass and inconsiderate of me to point out that Wilson began his book: The State. Elements of Historical and Practical Politics: A sketch of institutional History and Administration with a study of Aryan politics. 

Sad that Cory Heidelberger insists on promoting the Progressive Democratic agenda, but then complains about Trump implementing it, along with the Republican Establishment Neocon Trumpophobes. Cory is stuck on stupid because he still believes that there is a significant difference between the Establishments of the two political parties. Cory is being fooled by the partisan rhetoric of the Democratic Establishment, and too many conservatives are being fooled by the rhetoric of the Republican Establishment Trumpophobes:

Yet too many Republicans and conservatives have accepted the unconstitutional premise of progressivism––that the federal government should “solve problems.” Trump has skillfully created the perception that Republicans are on the same page as Democrats, and that he represents an alternative to this “rigged” duopoly.

Republicans and conservative critics of Trump need to stop talking like progressives and start confronting the people with the disastrous fiscal trajectory of the federal Leviathan. A good start is to restore the integrity of our language.

That means stop calling racism, fascism, Nazism, and totalitarian rule "progressive". America, thanks to both political parties, has moved beyond socialism on the collectivist spectrum and well into fascism. There is nothing "right" or "conservative" about that.

Neocons and Progressives are the true fascists

In the next days, I will be posting on some research I have been working on that explains how the two party establishments, Republican Neocons and Democratic Progressives, together are pushing a fascist agenda. I will start with this:

If neoconservatives and progressives truly understood fascism, they would stop using the word as a smear term. That is because both groups, along with most political figures and commentators, embrace fascist ideas and policies.

Fascism’s distinguishing characteristic is a “mixed economy.” Unlike socialists and communists who seek to abolish private business, fascists are content to let business remain in private hands. Instead, fascists use regulations, mandates, and taxes to control business and run (and ruin) the economy. A fascist system, then, is one where private businesses serve politicians and bureaucrats instead of consumers. Does the modern American economy not fit the definition of fascism?

Fascism benefits big businesses that can afford the cost of complying with government regulations, unlike their smaller competitors. Big businesses, which have more political influence than entrepreneurs or small businesses, also significantly benefit from government subsidies. In order to maintain their power, big businesses finance the “deep state” — the network of lobbyists, journalists, think tanks, bureaucrats, and congressional staffers who work behind the scenes to shape government policy.

Obamacare is an example of fascism that is often mislabeled as socialism. Obamacare did not create a government-run “single payer” system as would exist under socialism. Instead, Obamacare extended government control over health care via mandates, regulations, and subsidies. The most infamous part of Obamacare — the individual mandate — forces individuals to purchase a product from a private industry.

Modern America’s militaristic foreign policy aimed at policing and perfecting the world is another example of fascism that enjoys strong bipartisan support. Both right-wing neocons and left-wing humanitarian interventionists claim our supposedly noble goals justify any and all actions taken by the U.S. government. Thus, these supposed human rights champions defend preemptive war, torture, and presidential kill lists.

Many politicians supporting a militaristic foreign policy are more concerned with spreading largesse to the military-industrial complex than with spreading democracy. This is why some supposed free-market conservatives sound like Paul Krugman on steroids when discussing the economic benefits of military spending. Similarly, some anti-war progressives will support large military budgets if some of the money is spent in their states or congressional districts.

It is common for Neocons to be called fascist because they are wrongly considered rightwing. But the fascism is not an ideology, but instead a movement that has infiltrated both the left and the right. Here is its influence on the American Progressives:

So was Mussolini a totally original thinker? Not at all. Students of ancient history see Sparta as the first Fascist State and students of Marx identify Fascism with "Bonapartism" (See Appendix 3 below) -- the type of regime devised by Napoleon Bonaparte and revived by his nephew Napoleon III. But Mussolini was quite intellectual and his thinking was in fact much more up-to-date than that would suggest. He was certainly influenced by Marx and the ancient world but he had a whole range of ideas that extended beyond that. And where did he turn for up-to-date ideas? To America, of course! And the American ideas that influenced him were in fact hard to miss. They were the ideas of the American "Progressives". And who was the best known Progressive in the world at that time? None other than the President of the United States -- Woodrow Wilson -- the man who was most responsible for the postwar order in Europe. So Mussolini had to do little more than read his newspapers to hear at least some things about the ideas of the very influential American Progressives. And who were the Progressives? Here is one summary of them:

"Originally, progressive reformers sought to regulate irresponsible corporate monopoly, safeguarding consumers and labor from the excesses of the profit motive. Furthermore, they desired to correct the evils and inequities created by rapid and uncontrolled urbanization. Progressivism ..... asserted that the social order could and must be improved..... Some historians, like Richard Hofstadter and George Mowry, have argued that the progressive movement attempted to return America to an older, more simple, agrarian lifestyle. For a few progressives, this certainly was true. But for most, a humanitarian doctrine of social progress motivated the reforming spirit"

The summary of Progressivism above is from De Corte (1978). Against all his own evidence, De Corte also claims that the Progressives were "conservative". Why? Because there was something else about the Progressives that profoundly embarrasses both De Corte and all modern Leftists: The Progressives were keen eugenicists. So DeCorte tries to evade that. See here and here and also Pickens (1968) for the Leftist committment to eugenics prior to World War II. The following quotation, however, gives the highly racist basis for "Progressive" thinking on the matter:

"Into the scarcity thus created in particular districts, in particular sections of the labour market, or in particular social strata, there rush the offspring of the less thrifty, the less intellectual, the less foreseeing of races and classes - the unskilled casual labourers of our great cities, the races of Eastern or Southern Europe, the negroes, the Chinese - possibly resulting, as already in parts of the USA, in such a heterogeneous and mongrel population that democratic self-government, or even the effective application of the policy of a national minimum of civilised life, will become increasingly unattainable.

If anything like this happens, it is difficult to avoid the melancholy conclusion that, in some cataclysm that it is impossible for us to foresee, that civilisation characteristic of the Western European races may go the way of half a dozen other civilisations that have within historic times preceded it; to be succeeded by a new social order developed by one or other of the coloured races, the negro, the kaffir or the Chinese"

Excerpt from "Fabians" Sidney and Beatrice Webb – from their article "The Great Alternative", New Statesman, 20/8/1913 (Quoted in 'Fabianism and Colonialism' by Francis Lee).

And that great "progressive" at the beginning of the 20th century -- Theodore Roosevelt -- had nothing to learn from Hitler when it came to the racist barbarity with which he treated the Philippinos

Here is more on the Philippines:

He played a major role in every act of American aggression that took place in the late 19th and early 20th century. The Spanish American war was an effort to steal the remnants of Spain’s empire, keeping Cuba a vassal of the United States and forcing the Philippines and Puerto Rico to become American territories. Panama was a Colombian territory until president Roosevelt encouraged a “revolt” which led to a newly independent nation and a better deal for the construction of the canal.

In the Philippines from 1901 – 1911, the United States killed more than 250,000 people in order to end their struggle for independence. First as Assistant Secretary of the Navy in 1898 and then as vice president and president, Roosevelt made clear that he lusted for death on a mass scale. “I should welcome almost any war, for I think this country needs one,” Roosevelt opined. He said that war stimulated “spiritual renewal” and [emphasis mine] “the clear instinct for racial selfishness.” He defended the imperial project in the Philippines by declaring Filipinos “Chinese half-breeds” and surmised that the bloodshed was “the most glorious war in our nation’s history.”

More to come.

White priviledge turns to white genocide in America's Higher Ed, evidence that cultural neo-Marxism has morfed into a form of fascism

A university professor exposed the fascist agenda beyond the cultural neo-Marist social justice movement with his Christmas wish:

Drexel University issued a statement on Christmas Day to condemn a tweet by one of its professors on Christmas Eve that said that "all I want for Christmas is white genocide." The tweet went viral quickly Saturday, with conservative websites and many individuals condemning the tweet by George Ciccariello-Maher, associate professor of politics and global studies at Drexel.

Here is Drexel's response:

Drexel's statement, in full, is the following: "Drexel became aware today of Associate Professor George Ciccariello-Maher's inflammatory tweet, which was posted on his personal Twitter account on Dec. 24, 2016. While the university recognizes the right of its faculty to freely express their thoughts and opinions in public debate, Professor Ciccariello-Maher's comments are utterly reprehensible, deeply disturbing, and do not in any way reflect the values of the university. The university is taking this situation very seriously. We contacted Ciccariello-Maher today to arrange a meeting to discuss this matter in detail."

The professor's defense is that he was only pulling a Trump:

"On Christmas Eve, I sent a satirical tweet about an imaginary concept, 'white genocide.' For those who haven't bothered to do their research, 'white genocide' is an idea invented by white supremacists and used to denounce everything from interracial relationships to multicultural policies (and most recently, against a tweet by State Farm Insurance).It is a figment of the racist imagination, it should be mocked, and I'm glad to have mocked it," Ciccariello-Maher wrote.

His defense is a lie. He knows white genocide is not an imagery concept, it is part of history:

Ciccariello-Maher followed up with another tweet on Christmas Day before being contacted by Drexel officials according to Philly.com.

"To clarify: when the whites were massacre during the Haitian revolution, that was a good thing indeed," he tweeted.

And there are more cases of white hatred found within the university elite:

Anyone who’s ever thumbed through an academic publication knows that what professors write, think or talk about doesn’t always translate to a wider audience. Ideas that are riveting to a group of scholars in the same field might elicit yawns from outsiders. Likewise, ideas that are relatively uncontroversial among colleagues might elicit outrage from the public.

That’s what happened this week when cherry-picked tweets about race by Saida Grundy, an incoming assistant professor of sociology and African-American studies at Boston University, made headlines. Was BU bringing a racist onto the faculty, bloggers and commenters -- mostly those from outside academe -- asked in response to Grundy calling white college men a “problem population.” Lots of sociologists, meanwhile, rushed to Grundy’s defense, citing empirical evidence supporting her claim and generally asking what the big deal was.

And we also have Cory Heidelberger's Madville, which has also demonstrated white hatred. Just yesterday he puts up a post that promotes hatred against whites. The source of this bigotry is in the cultural neo-Marxist social justice curriculum, that has denigrated into a fascist movement. And this is a worldwide movement as it has also showed up at Oxford:

If you’re at university in the UK, you might have heard of the secret Facebook group “Race Matters” or “RM”.

The group, which started in 2014 at Oxford University as “Skin Deep”, has now spread throughout elite university campuses in the UK, with the combination of its impressive reach as well as prominent members in positions of power at universities making it one of the most influential behind-the-scenes Facebook groups for UK students today.

The group initially started as an in-depth discussion group for intellectual conversation and debate on the serious issue of race.

Some of the conversations, an anonymous member said, were “high-standard academic discussions” on the topics of race, identity, and racism.

Advertisement

 

But, much like Oxford’s feminist discussion group Cuntry Living (which Heat Street dealt with earlier this year), the tone has soured.

Much of its original nuance has been lost as the group grew in size and became, in one user’s words, an “anti-white hate group”, with “white fragility, white saviorism, and white privilege” becoming the official orthodoxy of the group.

Questioning the existence or influence of these, another user said, is equated as “being dismissive of others’ lived experience” making debate and discussion all but impossible.

That pretty much explains Heidelberger's so-called Dakota Free Press, and "Black Lives Matter".

Cory Heidelberger uses a Koch Brothers think tank to argue that rural voters don't know what they are doing

Cory Heidelberger has said that he is for democracy and against the Koch Brothers corrupt capitalism. For example Cory says that we need to respect the voters who approved IM22:

The Legislative Research Council hasn’t posted any bills in the hopper yet, but Mark Winegar has a protest on tap. The Vermillion Democrat invites us all to help ring in the 2017 Legislative Session with a protest on the Capitol steps to call for enactment of Initiated Measure 22, the Anti-Corruption Act:

On election day, voters in South Dakota passed the Anti-Corruption Act to change the corrupt status quo in Pierre. Now, corrupt politicians are attacking the new law in court and making plans to repeal it when the session starts on January 10. 

We can’t let politicians ignore the will of the people – and that means we have to get their attention and show overwhelming support for the Anti-Corruption Act. We’ll be delivering petition signatures and rallying in front of the state capital building in Pierre on January 10 to pressure lawmakers into listening to the voters [“Rally to Stop Attacks on South Dakota’s Anti-Corruption Act,” Represent.us, downloaded 2016.12.25].

Winegar is organizing this protest under the banner of Represent South Dakota, a new chapter of the national organization that helped promote IM22 in the 2016 campaign. The protest convenes at 11 a.m. Central.

In a normal political environment, the case protestors could make to their legislators for IM22 would be pretty simple: voters passed a law, but one activist judge has stymied it.

So on Christmas he says South Dakota voters are gods. On Christmas Eve he argues they are idiots as Cory went after Donald Trump's tariff policy idea:

If anyone on Team Trump read history, we could put the brakes on the Trump tariffs with two words: Smoot-Hawley

Cory's link is to the Cato Institute, which is a Koch Brothers think tank. Cory then goes after rural voters:

Rural America, you voted for Trump—you want more Smoot-Hawley?

The tariff not only closed off the U.S. export market to farmers, it also left a vast volume of heterogeneous and specific capital goods used in agricultural production idle and suddenly worthless. Empty silos and buildings, rusting tools and machinery, and unused acreage—all in particular geographical regions—led to severe liquidations and farm foreclosures in the states experiencing the first banking crisis, with the vast bulk of failures involving small state-chartered rural banks. Economic historian Eugene White, who examined individual bank balance-sheet data, identifies the agricultural distress in the Midwestern states as a central reason for the pattern of failures. The Smoot-Hawley tariff was a direct factor in both the pattern of failures and their geographic location [Theodore Phalan, Deema Yazigi, and Thomas Rustici, “The Smoot-Hawley Tariff and the Great Depression,” Foundation for Economic Education, 2012.02.29].

Of course, rural America lobbied for Smoot-Hawley, so their record of voting for their best interest is dubious.

Again, Cory uses another Cato link to argue that rural voters don't usually know what is in their best interest. Perhaps South Dakotans now know that IM22 is not in their best interests.

And Cory has decided to promote the Koch Brothers corporate agenda in regard to tariffs and the issue of so-called free trade. Here is what James Rickards says about that:

Elite support for so-called free trade is due to the fact that elites share a global perspective at odds with the best interests of the United States...The handmaiden of elite dominance is misinformed public opinion resulting from pro-trade propaganda by voices from the Council on Foreign Relations to the New York Times. This herd's party line is that free trade is good and tariffs are bad. This is what reporters were taught in undergraduate economic classes ten or twenty years ago.

That comes from Rickards, The Road to Ruin: The Global Elites' Secret Plan for the Next Financial Crisis. Here is a little about Rickards:

He is a portfolio manager, lawyer, and economist, and has held senior positions at Citibank, Long-Term Capital Management, and Caxton Associates. In 1998, he was the principal negotiator of the rescue of LTCM sponsored by the Federal Reserve. His clients include institutional investors and government directorates. He is an Op-Ed contributor to the Financial Times, Evening Standard, New York Times, and Washington Post, and has been interviewed on BBC, CNN, NPR, C- SPAN, CNBC, Bloomberg, Fox, and The Wall Street Journal. Mr. Rickards is a guest lecturer in globalization and finance at The Johns Hopkins University, The Kellogg School at Northwestern, and the School of Advanced International Studies. He has delivered papers on risk at Singularity University, the Applied Physics Laboratory, and the Los Alamos National Laboratory. He is an advisor on capital markets to the U.S. intelligence community, and the Office of the Secretary of Defense, and is on the Advisory Board of the Center on Sanctions & Illicit Finance in Washington DC. Mr. Rickards holds an LL.M. (Taxation) from the NYU School of Law; a J.D. from the University of Pennsylvania Law School; an M.A. in international economics from SAIS, and a B.A. (with honors) from Johns Hopkins.

He disagrees with pseudo-expert elite opinion carriers like Cory Heidelberger:

Elite opinion carriers disdain those who question free trade dogma. These pseudo-experts tell you Smoot-Hawley tariffs caused the Great Depression, an implausible view because the depression began earlier and was caused by the Federal Reserve monetary policy blunders.

He explains that "[c]ertain global corporations profit enormously", such as Apple:

Apple exported capital to China, where the capital combined with cheap Chinese labor to produce both absolute and comparative advantage in the manufacturing of iPhones. China facilitates this by maintaining a cheap currency...China gains intellectual property, jobs, and hard currency reserves. Apple reaps enormous profits and defers U.S. taxes. Apple thrives, yet creates few jobs in the United States.

Rickards then explains how tariffs would turn this around:

Then United States would benefit from an immediate 30 percent import duty on all goods from all sources. This could be made revenue neutral by pairing the tariff with a 10 percent cut in payroll taxes. An imported iPhone would be more expensive (unless Apple chose to reduce profit margins by lowing prices). But the payroll tax savings would help consumers pay for the phones, if that was their preference. The expected outcome is that Apple would relocate good jobs to the United States, where it would reap the combined benefits of lower tariffs and lower payroll taxes. The impact of this policy goes beyond Apple and iPhones to include all high-value-added imports.

Looks like it is Cory who doesn't know what is in the best interest of the United States as he promotes propaganda for the Koch Brothers and global corporate interests, and at the expense of high paying jobs for Americans.

 

 

Now that IM22 is ruled unconstitutional, Cory Heidelberger is promoting funding of lobbyists in order to enhance the crony capitalists' system of corruption

Pat Powers exposes the hypocrisy of IM22 supporters:

Remember during the campaign this past fall, where the proponents of Initiated Measure 22 went after lobbyists, inferring that they’re all corrupt and trying to buy off legislators?

Now that an injunction has been filed, and a judge has determined it’s likely to be declared unconstitutional, many anticipate that the legislature will be called upon to fix the problems with the measure.

The word on the street among the lobbyist corps is that there are a lot of calls being made to engage them in this matter for this next session.

But, not from the people opposing IM22, but FROM THE VERY PEOPLE WHO ATTACKED LOBBYISTS AS BEING CORRUPT AND ACCUSED THEM OF BUYING POLITICIANS.

Lobbyists are not corrupt, but they do work in a system where corruption has been made acceptable and legal. So if anyone calls it corruption, they are wrong. Corruption is still corruption even if it is legal and acceptable. The purpose of legislators is to make laws that allow and enhance corruption. And that is not limited to the SDGOP. During the last session, Democrats voted in favor of the increase sales tax in order to give tax breaks to the wealthy...all in the name of increasing teacher pay. There was plenty of lobbying going on, despite the fact that the voters said no to increased sales taxes. IM22 was called anti-corruption, but is was not only unconstitutional, it was corrupt in and of itself as it was used to mislead voters who did not even read it.

Lobbyists are not the problem. The problem is the amount of money available through government programs that are given to those who have created political capital. We sometimes call it, "the good old boys". It is also called "crony capitalism". Both parties are guilty of it, as proved with the sales tax increase that the working class and poor are currently paying.

In response to proposed South Dakota legislation that follow the footsteps of North Carolina in regard to protecting the privacy and safety of children, IM22 proponent Cory Heidelberger also promotes the use of lobbyists:

Wait a minute: tax revenues are down, the budget is tight, and the next President’s chief strategist is a Leninist radical who wants to destroy the federal government on which South Dakota depends for 35.8% of its budget, and a lot of South Dakotans think kids choosing which bathroom to belongs on the Legislature’s front burner?

Turn that heat down: donate to Equality South Dakota, donate to the American Civil Liberties Union of South Dakota, donate a little time to contacting your legislators and tell them to focus on the budget and education and stop bullying kids.

It is the size and scope of the government's budget that provides the fuel for the system of corruption. And it is the federally funded programs that seems to have the most problems.  Next I want to remind us of what Cory said about two federally funded state programs:

I wouldn’t want to be the sitting state legislator running semantic interference for the crimes of Scott Westerhuis. The GEAR UP scandal was employee theft. It also competes with EB-5 for designation as Exhibit #1 in Winegar’s and the people’s case against corruption in Pierre.

GEAR UP is a program coming out of the education department. Cory wants to fund lobbyists so that protecting and enhancing the crony capitalists' system of corruption become the priority over protecting kids from the education system that is teaching them that sexual immorality is a right. By Cory's own definition of corruption, he is in favor of the system that crony capitalists use to divert money from taxpayers' pockets and into those who gain political capital. Perhaps South Dakota Democrats would gain some political capital if they would stop pushing sexual immorality, hatred of whites, and bigotry toward Christians...onto kids all in the name of "education" and so-called "social justice". And it is documented that Cory has bullied kids who don't agree with him. Here is another example:

In 2015, Melissa Click (PhD from the University of Massachusetts whose dissertation was “It’s ‘a good thing’: The commodification of femininity, affluence and whiteness in the Martha Stewart phenomenon”) assaulted a student journalist at the University of Missouri and later told the press that her academic rights had been infringed. In a revealing episode of abject narcissism, she complained to the Washington Post that few people had “earnestly asked whether my protected right to speak out as a U.S. citizen requires that I must be perfect while doing so.” Click was recently rehired at Gonzaga University.

From Marxism to Meglomania

Earlier this year, Trish Kahle (at work on a PhD at the University of Chicago, her dissertation—which at least sounds like legitimate scholarship—is “The Graveyard Shift: Energy-Industry Restructuring, Mine Disasters, Environmental Politics, and Rank-and-File Rebellion in the Appalachian Coalfields, 1963–1981”) argued in Jacobin magazine that forcibly stopping Donald Trump from speaking at his own rally is consistent with freedom of speech.

When Chait rightly criticized this position, Tyler Zimmer (PhD from Northwestern, whose dissertation was entitled “Relational Egalitarianism”) came to her defense. “[T]he (socialist) goal of cooperating and governing public life together as full equals gives us a principled criterion for deciding which forms of expression deserve protection and which don’t. So, too, does this goal give us good reason to oppose or disrupt undemocratic forms of speech that plainly aim to marginalize, harm, or subordinate members of the political community.”

The main impulse at work here is not Marxism, but megalomania. The pomofascist sees himself as the embodiment of good and worthy causes. The less everyone else supports those causes, the less human they are, and therefore deserving fewer rights and less entitlement to their own views. Lying to them or about them is of no consequence. Beyond a not-so-far-off point of disagreement, it is acceptable to attack them, rhetorically or bodily. In this context, Marxism is merely an exculpatory device.

So that is how cultural Neo-Marxists can actually be Neo-Fascists. Cory has banned me from commenting at his so-called "free press" more than once. Us Christians are less entitled to our views. Instead of discriminating against Jews, they discriminate against Christians, all in the name of "social justice".

Cory Heidelberbger, a cultural Neo-Marxist that wants to tax the working class in order to fund more crony capitalism

Not surprised that a tax and spend liberal would want to increase taxes:

In his budget address on December 6, Governor Dennis Daugaard said South Dakota misses out on about $50 million in sales tax revenues due to online shopping. A 2014 study pegged South Dakota sales tax losses from electronic remote sales at $29.8 million. Uncollected sales tax from online sales knocks a bigger hole in our budget than IM 22 ever would have.

But when Congress left an Internet sales tax out of its latest continuing spending resolution this month, Americans for Prosperity cheered this ongoing state budget buster:

“While passing a government funding bill during lame duck session under the threat of government shutdown is the wrong way to govern, it’s cause for celebration that this bill excludes several big-government priorities that Americans roundly rejected this year. It’s critical that Washington change business as usual and stop spending on corporate welfare to bail out failed Beltway programs or prop up favored industries and corporations. We’re glad to see this message starting to resonate in Congress as well, as they’ve protected past promises to cap discretionary spending and rejected efforts to make it easier for the Export-Import Bank to extend large, taxpayer-backed loans, or to bail out insurance companies under the president’s failed health care law.

“It’s also a victory for consumers that this bill does not include an internet sales tax, which would slap them with higher costs when they check out from their favorite online store [Americans for Prosperity, press release, 2016.12.07].

If Americans for Prosperity were really worried about South Dakota’s schools, raods, bridges, and public safety, they’d be supporting our state’s effort to collect the taxes it feels it is rightfully owed on online commerce. But they’re more interested in strangling civic institutions to ensure the rich stay rich and the poor stay powerless.

Cory Heidelberger left out this paragraph from the AFP kink:

“We’re looking forward to working with the incoming Congress in 2017 to consolidate these taxpayer wins and move the ball forward on reforming spending and the tax code, which is still rife with more examples of cronyism and corporate welfare.”

Cory's conclusion is a total lie. The internet sales tax is unconstitutional, and if it wasn't, the additional tax would mostly come from the working class. Cory left out the paragraph that explains spending reforms should take money out of the pockets of the crony capitalists and instead better fund roads and bridges. Cory wants to increase taxes, which is what the crony capitalist will use to line their pockets with even more money. Yes, crony capitalists are tax and spend liberals. The sales tax increase approved by the tax and spend liberals to fund higher teacher pay in South Dakota also includes tax breaks for the wealthy. Cory is part of the bipartisan big government partnership with big business that "ensure the rich stay rich and the poor stay powerless". Cory's misrepresentation has his readers saying false things like this:

Ah capitalism. great system for the .001 percent of Americans. Prosecutors (republican prosecutors—rigghhhtttt!) need to go after them for fraud and conspiracy. Republicans care nothing for lives when money is made.

That is a true statement about "liberal tax and spend" Republicans, but it leaves out the fact that it also applies to liberal tax and spend Democrats like Cory Heidelberger. Tying Neo-Marxism to the economy does the opposite of what was intended by Karl Marx. It ends up funding the wealthy oligarchy that controls the establishments of both parties. As I said yesterday, I got banned from commenting at Cory's so-called free press for explaining this. He incorrectly called this "false equivalency". Cory doesn't truly care about the poor. He only wants to use  them as political pawns in order to obtain more political power for Democrats. Cory is an example of what is wrong with America's political system. What really is upsetting Cory is that the working class of Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania gave the presidency to Donald Trump. That has put his blogging in a very high speed spin cycle.

 

What would Democrats and the media say if Trump goes transgender, puts on a dress, and starts going into women's restrooms and lockers?

This is an example of what Cory Heidelberger means by linking the cultural Neo-Marxist social justice movement to the economy:

A North Carolina law limiting bathroom access for transgender people could be repealed this week after months of protests and economic boycotts over legislation decried as discriminatory.

In a surprise development, outgoing Republican Governor Pat McCrory called the state legislature to convene on Wednesday to reconsider the law adopted in March baring transgender people from using government-run restrooms that match their gender identity.

North Carolina's law, the first of its kind, catapulted the state to the forefront of U.S. culture wars over lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) rights. It has been blamed for hundreds of millions of dollars in economic losses and the relocation of major sporting events.

Perhaps that is why Governor Daugaard vetoed South Dakota's version of the privacy protection act...money. It was the plan all along to use females, colors, and sexual deviants instead of the white working class to implement economic Marxism. That is why I call the so-called  social justice movement a Neo-Marxist one, as it is based on creating a culture war first and then implementing economic Marxism once the war has been won.

What I also found interesting is this comment from one of Madville's eager cultural Neo-Marxists, that shows that perhaps even Republicans have surrendered and the culture war is now lost:

Oh Darin, don’t go to hard on the Trump supporters. I heard the rumor that if you stand by him he will send you a nude photo of the First Lady that she took when she was working for Doanld in America illegally and that the Donald encouraged her to do it and thought the picture was great!

Please GOP readers, walk me off this ledge of thinking that up is down and that the GOP is no longer the party of values. Lee, Troy, Fred, MC, etc. Tell me how Trump’s proven values represent South Dakotans! Grabbing some p***y is not an acceptable answer. Maybe you can point me to a non-tv preacher cleric who is supportive of the Donald’s lifestyle.

So after North Carolina reverses their limits on who can go into restrooms, perhaps Trump can help restore North Carolina's economy by going transgender, putting on a dress, and start visiting North Carolina women's restrooms and lockers. Wonder what Cory Heidelberger and his fellow cultural Neo-Marxists that are trying to take over the Democratic Party would say about a misogynist implementing social justice and linking it to the economy? You would think they would become Trump supporters just to get their hands on an autographed nude photo of the First Lady, or would they instead promote laws banning misogynists from going into women's facilities. I would bet on the latter.

Yeah, I know the hypothetical would probably never happen, even if it does involve the grandson of Sleazy Freddy, who also is know as Scandalous Fred C.:

Scandalous Fred C. moved in the circle of a corrupt powerful New York political fixer and power broker attorney, Abraham (Bunny) Lindenbaum. Or Bunny moved in Fred C. Drumpf’s circles. They were more than just client and attorney. The two were joined at the hip. Bunny’s first retainer came from Fred C.[27]

Scandalous Fred C. and Bunny were political insiders of Tammany Hall through Brooklyn‘s Madison Club.[28] Tammany Hall, also known as the Society of St. Tammany, the Sons of St. Tammany, or the Columbian Order, was a New York City Democratic political machine entangled and mired in racketeering, corruption, graft and patronage.[29]

So if Donald is following in the footsteps of his family, we should not consider him a member of the Religious Right. His family history better  fits the licentious worldview of the cultural Neo-Marxist Democrats. And speaking of sleazy, I thought about bringing up some of Bill Clinton's history, just to continue the hypothetical thought of someone going transgender, putting on a dress, and joining in with Donald Trump's economic development activities. But I will pass on that for now, unless Cory Heidelberger wants to call my equating of Republican corruption to Democratic corruption a "false equivalency". Making the argument that, "[b]oth party establishments are unofficially on the same page", is what got me banned from his web site in July.

I guess my analysis just got into the way of the cultural Neo-Marxist revolution Heidelberger is trying to provoke here in South Dakota. And that revolution includes allowing sexual perverts to enter into girls bathrooms, or millions in loss tourism dollars for South Dakota. That is what social justice linked to economics means. That is Marxism implemented with totalitarian methods, such has preventing those who disagree from participating in the discussion, which is not equality. And it is certainly is not democratic. It is sexual immorality partnering with greed, and it is a war on family. And we have Republican governors falling for it, both in North Carolina and South Dakota. And the result is a corrupted society (sexual immorality partnering with greed) where people like Donald Trump and Bill Clinton have the right to walk into the girls' bathroom. Why can't opposition to that be considered bipartisan and the use of common sense? Instead South Dakotans who are opposed to such nonsense are branded as bigoted haters and then bullied by Cory Heidelberger and his gang of Neo-Marxists. And that is also anti-family as our children have been taught to view us that way by the public schools. And public schools is a plank right out of the Communist Manifesto.

Cory Heidelberger misrepresents Electoral College protest, so the Neo-Marxist revolutionaires did not show up

This is how Cory Heidelberger represented today's Electoral College protest:

A coalition of activist groups, including Democracy Spring, Americans Take Action, the Electoral College Petition, and the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, is attempting to stage protests at every state capitol on Monday, December 19 to convince members of the Electoral College to “listen to the voice of the people and refuse to cast their ballots for Donald Trump.” You can sign up for the “peaceful, patriotic, nonviolent, and family-friendly” South Dakota protest—Monday, 9 a.m. Central, State Capitol—online.

Pat Powers is reporting that nobody showed up this morning in Pierre to participate in the protest. I am not surprised that Cory's radical following would not want to participate in something that was "peaceful, patriotic, nonviolent, and family-friendly." Now if he had promoted this as an anti-America protest against the constitutional democratic process, traditional families, and Christians with the idea of using fires to keep warm, then maybe a few of them might have shown up.

Cory Heidelberger pulls a Trump and refuses to accept the results of the Presidential Election and urges members of the SDGOP Establishment to do the same

So here is Cory Heidelberger's latest Neo-Marxist revolutionary attempt:

A coalition of activist groups, including Democracy Spring, Americans Take Action, the Electoral College Petition, and the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, is attempting to stage protests at every state capitol on Monday, December 19 to convince members of the Electoral College to “listen to the voice of the people and refuse to cast their ballots for Donald Trump.” You can sign up for the “peaceful, patriotic, nonviolent, and family-friendly” South Dakota protest—Monday, 9 a.m. Central, State Capitol—online.

I’ve laid out several reasons South Dakota’s Electors could use to justify voting for someone other than Putin’s puppet. Harvard’s Lawrence Lessig, who is organizing free legal assistance for balky Electors, says 20 Trump Electors are thinking about voting for someone else, but we’d need 37 to not just think about it but do it to throw the outcome into doubt.

Attacking America's democratic process may not be a good way for Democrats to gain back voters:

The truth is, Democrats are still in the denial phase of their loss. That's why Hillary Clinton campaign director John Podesta's Center for American Progress is basically no longer a "think tank," if it ever was — it's now focused on finding a way to deny Donald Trump his Electoral College victory. Meanwhile, Harvard law professor Lawrence Lessig is offering pro bono legal aid to those who would reject Trump. And of course, there's a full-throated chorus of media types — led, inevitably we suppose, by The New York Times' Paul Krugman — who are calling the results into question, despite zero evidence for the claim.

They won't win, of course. But that's probably beside the point.

The Democrats' game seems to be this: Trump now has an estimated 306 electors to Hillary's 232. If Democrats can get 36 or so "faithless" electors to switch their votes, it won't give Hillary the election, but it will deny Trump the 270 electoral votes he needs for an outright victory in the Electoral College. Under the 12th Amendment to the Constitution, the election would then be thrown into the House of Representatives, where Trump would no doubt win — but his claim to any mandate would be diminished.

Democrats could, with some plausible justification, say Trump didn't actually win the election.

That would be the first salvo in an effort to weaken Trump and turn him into a lame duck before his first term even gets underway.

The Democrats have chosen to make a travesty of our system of elections, refusing to accept the outcome of a legal election by casting doubt on the legitimacy of our voting system. But they should be wary. If they manage to throw this election into doubt, as they did in 2000, people will get very angry. This was a change election, one in which many people who usually vote for Democrats voted for the other candidates instead.

If Democrats think disenfranchised Trump voters will thank them for interfering in the Electoral College, they're likely to be very disappointed. It might backfire spectacularly. Democratic sour grapes might soon turn to vinegar if the GOP wins a filibuster-proof Senate majority in two years.

As Cory supports going along with those who refuse to accept the results of the election, lets go back to what he said in October:

That Donald Trump won’t promise to accept the result of the Presidential election and support a peaceful transition of power tells us how dangerous Donald Trump is to democracy. Donald Trump’s failure to offer that basic affirmation of democracy overrides any reason he may offer to elect him to public office.

Based on his own definition, Cory is dangerous to democracy with his latest revolutionary idea. And he expects South Dakota political leaders to join in:

Governor Daugaard, you’ve said you have run your last political race, so you’ve got nothing to lose from any Trump political vindictiveness. Attorney General Marty Jackley, you don’t need Trump to win the Governor’s race here in South Dakota (and your GOP opponent, Rep. Kristi Noem, already stood Trump up on his AgSec interview request, so you’re even!). Lt. Gov. Matt Michels, everybody in South Dakota likes you, so what do you care about political reprisals from Donald Trump?

And hey—if each of you three can bring another eleven Electors with you, Donald Trump may not be in any position to work any political reprisal on you.

Here is what Cory doesn't know:

Daugaard, S.D. Attorney General Marty Jackley and South Dakota Republican Party Chair Pam Roberts — a fill-in for Lt. Gov. Matt Michels, who will cannot vote Monday due to "family reasons" — will cast their Electoral College ballots for Trump, according to Daugaard spokesperson Tony Venhuizen.

So Cory's Neo-Marxist revolution now includes having political leaders ignoring the will of the voters and destroying the constitution's democratic process. Fortunately, they are not falling for it.

CIA's use of false flag propaganda to blame communists in order to protect oil interests may explain the latest Putin/Trump conspiracy theory

Here is some history from the 1950's:

In 1953, the CIA launched Operation Ajax in order to overthrow Iran’s democratically elected leader, Mohammed Mosaddiq, and replace him with the Shah, a ruthless dictator. The United States sought to depose Iran’s nationalized Anglo-Persian oil company and install 5 U.S. oil companies to take over the nation’s oil fields. In order to do so, they staged a false flag operation that utilized propaganda and complex political maneuvers in order to create public revolt that eventually led to the United States and Britain’s MI6 military intelligence re-installing the Shah in order to throttle Iran’s oil supplies and transform the nation into a puppet regime of the United States government.

Most information relevant to this CIA-sponsored coup is declassified now and available in the CIA archives.

The CIA described itself Operation Ajax:

“The world has paid a heavy price for the lack of democracy in most of the Middle East. Operation Ajax taught tyrants and aspiring tyrants that the world’s most powerful governments were willing to tolerate limitless oppression as long as oppressive regimes were friendly to the West and to Western oil companies. That helped tilt the political balance in a vast region away from freedom and toward dictatorship.”

And here are some details:

The Central Intelligence Agency's secret history of its covert operation to overthrow Iran's government in 1953 offers an inside look at how the agency stumbled into success, despite a series of mishaps that derailed its original plans.

Written in 1954 by one of the coup's chief planners, the history details how United States and British officials plotted the military coup that returned the shah of Iran to power and toppled Iran's elected prime minister, an ardent nationalist.

The document shows that:

• Britain, fearful of Iran's plans to nationalize its oil industry, came up with the idea for the coup in 1952 and pressed the United States to mount a joint operation to remove the prime minister.
• The C.I.A. and S.I.S., the British intelligence service, handpicked Gen. Fazlollah Zahedi to succeed Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh and covertly funneled $5 million to General Zahedi's regime two days after the coup prevailed.
• Iranians working for the C.I.A. and posing as Communists harassed religious leaders and staged the bombing of one cleric's home in a campaign to turn the country's Islamic religious community against Mossadegh's government. 

That was from the NY Times. Now see what the Times is reporting:

Last week, Central Intelligence Agency officials presented lawmakers with a stunning new judgment that upended the debate: Russia, they said, had intervened with the primary aim of helping make Donald J. Trump president.

The C.I.A.’s conclusion does not appear to be the product of specific new intelligence obtained since the election, several American officials, including some who had read the agency’s briefing, said on Sunday. Rather, it was an analysis of what many believe is overwhelming circumstantial evidence — evidence that others feel does not support firm judgments — that the Russians put a thumb on the scale for Mr. Trump, and got their desired outcome.

It is unclear why the C.I.A. did not produce this formal assessment before the election, although several officials said that parts of it had been made available to President Obama in the presidential daily briefing in the weeks before the vote. But the conclusion that Moscow ran an operation to help install the next president is one of the most consequential analyses by American spy agencies in years.

So is Russia pulling a 1950's CIA maneuver, or is this a CIA false flag operation to falsely blame the communist for what American special interests have done themselves? Here is one answer:

The CIA claim that Russia hacked the DNC and gave the data to Wikileaks to help Trump against Hillary, is really questionable since there is no evidence of a hack. The FBI said that Hillary’s emails had been hacked by five foreign governments. They could not be 100% sure who, or what they got since the really classified stuff was omitted, but the CIA is now claiming it was Russia who hacked the DNC and got this collection of 19,252 emails and 8,034 attachments from the DNC. There is absolutely NO WAY that a professional hacker who leaves no concrete trace with Hillary’s emails, would be sloppy enough to leave such a trace at the DNC.

Furthermore, Julian Assange  came out and stated publicly it was a leak and not a hack but declined to say who was the leak. Backing up Assange, the former British ambassador to Uzbekistan, Craig Murray, confirmed he has met the person who gave the DNC emails to Wikileaks and said publicly it was not the Russians. That was reported by BizPac Review, which is a contributor to Google News. Additionally, there is just no hard evidence whatsoever. This is clearly a false flag report by the Obama Administration supported by the highly partisan Washington Post, which has lost all credibility during this election. Yes, Trump was correct, 77% of all press reporting during the election was negative against him according to a Harvard study.

There is absolutely no evidence that the votes were hacked in any state by Russia, China, Bangladesh or Canada just so Justin Pierre James Trudeau who have someone to talk to if Hillary won.

So exactly how is this sinister hack supposed to have influenced the election? Oh, that’s right, it revealed that the Democrats conspired with the press to make sure Trump would be the pick because they thought they could demonize him and beat him easily. Then they conspired to stop Bernie take California and cheated to give that to Hillary to the point the head of the DNC had to resign. But hey! What Obama is really saying is if they DNC hack had not taken place, then the Democrats would have gotten away with it fair and square?

There is something else behind the curtain. That is, there were plenty within the FBI and the Intelligence Community who wanted Hillary indicted. There was talk that the hack of the DNC was home grown from within the CIA and handed to Wikileaks. So is the CIA now trying to cover its own trail? Or is Obama trying to set the stage for the next election saying Trump was really not the president?

There cannot be any hard-core proof Russia was behind that hack. This seems to be a false-flag to clean the deck before leaving office and to try to shift the proof that the DNC was rotten to the core.

The Neo-Marxists at Madville are taking the media's conspiracy theory as gospel truth:

I don’t know if the SDDP has actually been told about the Russian attack on our soil or if they know what that means. They have been informed but maybe do not bother to check those reports as they might be busy doing stuff. But they should be the ones who put this information in the weekly papers that go out to the areas for free as public service, just like Daugaard, Thune, NOem and the other guy get to do. They could start by asking Daugaard why he is voting for support of the Russian involvement in this attack, that would be a good start. Then they could ask Thune why he is in cahoots with the Republican leadership on this attack. There are plenty of resources to go to for that information. If you cannot beat them at the ballot box at least make them answer for their treasonous actions, who knows, maybe they are being blackmailed as the RNC was also hacked. Let them know that we will stand together to fight this attack.

And:

NBC journalists, It is Putin himself involved with election fraud. http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/u-s-officials-putin-personally-involved-u-s-election-hack-n696146

Anybody want to guess when the Sioux Falls, Aberdeen, Mitchell and Rapid City papers find out that we have been hacked by a foreign adversary? What will it take for Daugaard, Michels and burr head to finally admit they are willing to vote for an enemy rather than to vote for the United States of America? When do they admit they are all in for treason?

And:

Jana – FYI – Russia is no longer a communist state. It is a Fascist, racist, oligarchy. Putin himself owns the largest oil company in Russia. It is not state owned. It’s owner owns the state. This is why Trump admires him so, and is modeling his handling of the ownership of his own company after Putin’s ownership of Russia.

Just like the 1950's, this is all about oil...and that is one of the few truths from the above comments. And back then we had a Democrat for President:

While President, Truman was made a Sovereign Grand Inspector General, 33°, and Honorary Member, Supreme Council in1945 at the Supreme Council of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite Masons Southern Jurisdiction Headquarters in Washington, D.C. He was also elected an Honorary Grand Master of the International Supreme Council, Order of DeMolay. On May 18, 1959, the Illustrious Brother Truman was presented with the fifty-year award—the only U.S. President to reach that golden anniversary in Freemasonry.

While President of the United States, Brother Truman once said, “The greatest honor that has ever come to me, and that can ever come to me in my life, is to be the Grand Master of Masons in Missouri.”

Funny how the masses will call the truth a conspiracy theory and real conspiracy theories the gospel truth. That is exactly what is happening at Cory Heidelberger's propaganda web site. The only thing they know is how to hate Republicans, conservatives, and Christians. And they are willing to use lies to support their cause. In the process they fail to apply discernment so that falsehoods are exposed for what they are.

The world stage is full of corruption, including America. Oil is a huge resource that is worth fighting over its control, and it seems there are a lot of things going on behind the scenes that we should be hearing about, but we are not...unless you look beyond the propaganda that the media is spreading.