Sibby Online

Liberals in Pierre are protecting their system of legalized corruption by increasing the tax on marriage and attacking fatherhood, all at the expense of children

The tax and spend liberals wen after marriage with SB 93 that increases the tax on marriage from $40 to $60.

Here is the result of the Senate vote:

Sen. Jensen (Phil) moved that SB 93 be amended as follows:

    On page 1, line 5, of the Senate State Affairs Committee engrossed bill, delete "forty sixty" and insert "forty".

 

    On page 1, line 8, delete "forty" and insert "twenty".

 

    On page 1, line 8, overstrike "Thirty" and insert "Ten".

    Which motion lost.

    The question being “Shall SB 93 pass as amended?”

---

    And the roll being called:

    Yeas 20, Nays 15, Excused 0, Absent 0

    Yeas:
Bolin; Cammack; Cronin; Curd; Ewing; Frerichs; Haverly; Heinert; Kennedy; Killer; Langer; Maher; Netherton; Novstrup; Partridge; Peters; Rusch; Tidemann; White; Wiik

    Nays:
Greenfield (Brock); Jensen (Phil); Klumb; Kolbeck; Monroe; Nelson; Nesiba; Otten (Ernie); Russell; Soholt; Solano; Stalzer; Sutton; Tapio; Youngberg

    So the bill having received an affirmative vote of a majority of the members-elect, the President declared the bill passed and the title was agreed to.

Note that tax increases require a two thirds votes, and SB 93 passed with only a majority vote. The tax and spend liberals got away with this by arguing that this is a "fee" increase that funds the cost of marriage, and thereby not a tax. But $30 goes to a domestic violence fund, and since many of those cases involve relationships outside of marriage, this is a tax and not simple a fee. This is all part of the cultural neo-Marxist feminist anti-male agenda.

Bob Mercer provides us with insight into another anti-male feud going on in the legislature:

Child support and child custody are splitting the Legislature this year.

At odds are lawmakers who want to adjust the child-support payment schedule for the first time since 2009 and lawmakers who want joint custody to become the presumed arrangement in divorce cases.

Each side seems to have enough votes to block the other's legislation.

The latest incident came Tuesday. A Senate panel decided Tuesday to delay its decision on whether to endorse changes in the child-support payment schedule.

The full House of Representatives rejected the same changes 35-31 on Jan. 18.

Sen. Art Rusch, R-Vermillion, introduced the Senate version of the changes on Jan. 31 after their defeat in the House.

An official state commission recommended the changes.

I will provide more analysis on that issue later, and instead focus on the joint custody issue:

The senators who favor joint custody saw their legislation defeated 14-21 in the Senate on Feb. 1. Prime sponsor of SB 72 was Sen. Phil Jensen, R-Rapid City. One of the chief opponents was Rusch, a retired judge.

Here are the votes on SB 72:

The question being “Shall SB 72 pass as amended?”

    And the roll being called:

    Yeas 14, Nays 21, Excused 0, Absent 0

    Yeas:
Frerichs; Greenfield (Brock); Heinert; Jensen (Phil); Klumb; Maher; Monroe; Nelson; Netherton; Russell; Stalzer; Tapio; Wiik; Youngberg

    Nays:
Bolin; Cammack; Cronin; Curd; Ewing; Haverly; Kennedy; Killer; Kolbeck; Langer; Nesiba; Novstrup; Otten (Ernie); Partridge; Peters; Rusch; Soholt; Solano; Sutton; Tidemann; White

    So the bill not having received an affirmative vote of a majority of the members-elect, the President declared the bill lost.

So we have conservatives supporting family, and liberals (from both parties) protecting their system that creates conflict so that fatherhood can be attacked. The judges. lawyers and Department of Social Services jobs are dependent on the current system being preserved and then given more money. This conflict of interest is one of the elements of corruption one finds in Pierre. This explains it:

The Child Support Industrial Complex is a corrupt system that the judges, magistrates, hearing officers, child support agencies, and others have an economic interest.

If anyone has been a Defendant in a child support case, they knew first hand that they had no chance when they stepped into the court room. They knew that 60 to 65 percent of their income would be gone. The higher the Child Support order the better the agents of the court, county, and state get paid. Because their salaries, pensions, and bonuses are linked directly or indirectly to child support enforcement and collections. Pursuant to Title 42 U.S.C. Section 658, they get reimbursement/incentives in the amount of child support collected and enforced upon. That's the dirty secret, people! It's all about money, in the name of child support.

Children (and the fathers of those children) are being used as money-making apparatuses for the State. Exploitation, extortion, conspiracy, and deprivation are the names of the game. These terms are the proper terms to use when defining what it is the Family Law Courts do. This is why I urge families not to take their disagreements or problems to the court house. The Court will only exploit the misery of the situation for monetary gain. Also, the Court will encourage women to take huge financial blows at their ex-husbands/boyfriends as a parting gift.

Ironically the biggest victims of the corrupt child support system are the children, who lose there fathers. Studies show that such children have contributed to an increase in suicide, crime, drug abuse, and other undesirable outcomes including poverty.

Also note the activity of Senator Rusch in yellow above. Here is some background:

• Former Director/Secretary/Treasurer/President, South Dakota States Attorneys Association
• Former Special Assistant Attorney General, State of South Dakota
• Adjunct Professor, University of South Dakota School of Law
• Judge, South Dakota Supreme Court, First Judicial Circuit, 1995-2011
• Partner, Bogue, Weeks & Rusch Law Firm, 1972-1994
• Former President, South Dakota Judge’s Association
• Former Member, Vermillion Area Chamber of Commerce
• Former Director, Vermillion Development Corporation

Rusch is also on the state Commission created by governor Daugaard that is pushing to have the legislature approve more money to feed the system of corruption, but to give a break to teachers (who are mostly female). Looks like Rusch could have a conflict of interest. Also note Judge Joni Cutler, a former legislator, is chairman of the commission. 

Daugaard ready to execute the Democrats' liberal anti-gun policy, instead of upholding South Dakota's Constitution

Requiring "training" before granting the right to bear arms doesn't sound radical:

House Bill 1156 would allow law enforcement and enhanced concealed pistol permit holders to carry a concealed pistol at the South Dakota Capitol. 

As lawmakers discuss bills in Pierre, some say they need more safety. Under House Bill 1156, people who take the necessary training courses and background checks would be allowed to carry a pistol while in the capitol. One of the bill's sponsors, Rep. Thomas Brunner says that training would prepare people for an emergency situation.  

"Basically the training one of the big emphasis was on use of force. So people need to understand when it's a good idea, when it's proper according to the law to use your weapon," Brunner said.

But Governor Daugaard plans to veto if passed:

Governor Dennis Daugaard is also weighing in on the discussion. Thursday, he announced that if the bill passes through the state senate, he will veto it. 

"I think like a courtroom, the capitol is sometimes a good place where emotions run high and I think it's good for people who are trained, repetitiously trained on managing dangerous situations like that should be the ones that protect us," Daugaard said. 

Another issue talked about revolves around "constitutional carry" bills. Those proposed laws would let people carry concealed guns without a permit. Daugaard says he would veto that bill as well.

"My belief is South Dakota has reasonable gun laws today with regard to owning guns. Some states are much more restrictive," Daugaard said.

First off HB 1156 does require training, so Daugaard's reasoning is flawed. And second, other states should not be the standard for the governor, instead he should refer to South Dakota's Constitution. Article VI, Section 24 of the Constitution of South Dakota provides that “[t]he right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the state shall not be denied.” Sadly Daugaard is ready to deny that right. Even worse, he has a large campaign war chest to fund like minded politicians as he plans on retiring after his term is over.

 

Senators Nelson and Russell dissent and protest a bill that the liberals may use to give South Dakota a big Dick

Here is the content of SB 106:

FOR AN ACT ENTITLED, An Act to enhance South Dakota.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA:
    Section 1. That the code be amended by adding a NEW SECTION to read:

    The Legislature shall pursue opportunities to enhance the state.

This is what is called a vehicle bill. In other words it can be used later on to add anything the legislators are planning behind the scenes, and in the past, involving collaboration with lobbyists. I doubt that it will be used to promote male enhancement methods, but who knows when it involves liberals.

 

This is from the Senate Journal:

 

SB 106: FOR AN ACT ENTITLED, An Act to enhance South Dakota.

    Was read the second time.

    The question being “Shall SB 106 pass?”

    And the roll being called:

    Yeas 22, Nays 13, Excused 0, Absent 0

    Yeas:
Bolin; Cammack; Cronin; Curd; Ewing; Haverly; Langer; Maher; Monroe; Netherton; Novstrup; Otten (Ernie); Partridge; Peters; Rusch; Soholt; Solano; Sutton; Tidemann; White; Wiik; Youngberg

    Nays:
Frerichs; Greenfield (Brock); Heinert; Jensen (Phil); Kennedy; Killer; Klumb; Kolbeck; Nelson; Nesiba; Russell; Stalzer; Tapio

    So the bill having received an affirmative vote of a majority of the members-elect, the President declared the bill passed and the title was agreed to.

    Sen. Nelson announced his intention to file a letter of dissent pursuant to Joint Rule 1-10.

---

DISSENT AND PROTEST PASSAGE OF SB 106

 

    Pursuant to Joint Rule 1-10, we, the undersigned Senators, do hereby respectfully dissent and protest the passage of SB 106, "An Act to enhance South Dakota."

    The body of SB 106 simply states: "The Legislature shall pursue opportunities to enhance the state." The bill as it passed the Senate has no substantive effect except that it circumvents Chapter 17 of the Joint Rules relating to the deadline for the introduction of bills and Senate Rule 5-1 and Joint Rule 11-1 relating to the suspension of rules, which would have allowed the introduction of a bill after the deadline. Consideration and passage of the bill in this form relinquishes the legislative power and authority of the Senate and cedes such power and authority to the House of Representatives and deprives the people an opportunity to address the actual intent of the bill in a Senate committee hearing.

    SB 106 is duly in contravention of South Dakotans' rights under South Dakota Constitutional Article III Section 15 providing for an open legislative process for the people of South Dakota. By hiding the intent of these empty "vehicle bills" and passing them to the House, it denies South Dakotans the open government they are entitled to as a right in South Dakota.

    In addition, Article III, Section 21 of the South Dakota Constitution states: "No law shall embrace more than one subject, which shall be expressed in its title." Since the intended effect of SB 106 is not clearly stated and is unknown, the title does not accurately express the purpose or effect of the bill. We believe that the passage of SB 106 does not meet the requirements of Article III, Section 21 of the South Dakota Constitution and contradicts the substantive provisions of Senate Rule 5-1, Joint Rule 11-1, and Chapter 17 of the Joint Rules. For these reasons we believe that the passage of the bill is in contravention of South Dakota's Constitution, is injurious to the rights of the people of South Dakota, besmirches the reputation of the South Dakota Senate, and is therefore null and void.

    We respectfully request that this dissent be printed in the Senate Journal as required by Joint Rule 1-10.

Respectfully submitted,                        Respectfully submitted,
Stace Nelson                                    Lance Russell

Public Education lobbyists reject inclusion, diversity, and equality for all

Parents who home school pay education taxes. Sadly they cannot chose what activates their children can benefit from because of anti-Christian bigotry within the Educrat lobby:

The House Education Committee voted 10-5 to reject legislation that would have greatly broadened the ability of home-school student to play sports or take part in music, debate or other competitive school events.

Under the current law that's been in place since 2003, the school district sets requirements for participating in extracurricular activities, such as whether the home-school student needs to take courses from the district to qualify.

The bill's prime sponsor, Rep. Sue Peterson, R-Sioux Falls, said some school districts don't have any course requirements and others vary. The legislation would have stripped school districts of the authority to set their local requirements. 

The requirement set by the Sioux Falls district is four courses, according to testimony Monday. Peterson said her two oldest sons went through the public school system and their youngest has been home-schooled since fourth grade.

"This is a pro-student bill. It's not an anti-public school bill. It's not an extracurricular bill. It's a pro-student bill," Peterson said.

The state Department of Education and the South Dakota High School Activities Association opposed the measure, HB 1123. So did the Associated School Boards, the School Administrators of South Dakota and the large schools coalition.

Here is the list of opponents who testified:

 Melody Schopp, Department of Education
 Lindsay Riter-Rapp, SD Highschool Activities Association
 John Krogstrand, SDHSAA
 Wade Pogany, Associated School Boards of South Dakota
 Robert Monson, School Administrators of South Dakota
 Dianna Miller, Large School Group
 Larry Nelson, Sioux Falls School District

Sad that South Dakota taxpayers fund these lobbyists who support higher sales taxes, but show disrespect toward those who pay them.

Here is the list of liberal legislators who voted to kill the bill:

Ring, Smith, Kettwig, Glanzer, Campbell, Tulson, Stevens, Tieszen, Holmes, Johns

So much for the propaganda that liberals support choice, diversity, inclusiveness, and equality. Those are only for groups they agree with. I am surprised Campbell joined in with them.

Alleged fraud in South Dakota's welfare system

From the Mitchell Daily Republic:

A former Hutchinson County woman has been cited with social services fraud and grand theft after allegedly taking more than $9,000 in undeserved benefits.

Ruth Isiaka, also known as Ruth Schoenherr, of St. Peter, Minnesota, formerly Freeman, was charged with fraudulently receiving money from two South Dakota welfare programs, committing theft by deception and perjury for failing to report household income and receiving benefits from September 2014 to September 2015, court documents state.

 

According to court documents filed in January, Isiaka received more than $200 from both the South Dakota Department of Social Service's Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), formerly known as food stamps, and Medicaid program. Isiaka, 40, allegedly took more than $1,000 from the department by failing to failing to report income.

 

Joseph Thronson, an attorney for DSS, said Isiaka lived in Freeman at the time of the alleged incidents, and he said Isiaka took about $9,500 in SNAP benefits. The amount taken from Medicaid was not immediately available.

Isiaka is charged with theft by deception valued more than $1,000, a Class 4 felony, punishable upon conviction by up to 10 years in prison and a $20,000 fine; as well as perjury and two counts of welfare fraud, a Class 6 felony, punishable upon conviction by up to two years in prison and a $4,000 fine.

She is scheduled to appear in court later this month.

 

 

Now Heidelberger wants Democrats to work with conservatives, so lets start cutting what is the root cause of our moral and financial corruption

Cory Heidelberger ends his post on the enactment of HB 1069 with this:

A key part of that pivot is for Nelson Republicans and Sutton Democrats to look for ways to turn their cooperation in protesting HB 1069 into practically constructive and/or obstructive collaboration.

So lets start that cooperation with the reversal of last year's sales tax increase that was enacted against the will of the voters, and also like HB 1069, wrongfully used an emergency clause so that the people could not refer it. After that we can start cutting the Department of Education's indoctrination programs and begin restoring moral integrity within the youth of South Dakota. Sex education needs to be the first to go, along with any social engineering programs that violate parental rights. Next we can work on letting the market determine winners and losers by eliminating economic development via government. We can then take those cuts and continue to pay teachers even more and have enough left over to give the people tax cuts. Once the people hear about that agenda, they will change how they vote.

So if the Democrats are serious about working with conservatives, they need to tell liberals like Cory Heidelberger to pipe down and stop acting like an intolerant dictator toward whites, males, and Christians.

Senators Stace Nelson and Lance Russell dissent and protest passage of HB 1069

From the Senate Journal:

Sens. Nelson and Russell announced their intention to file a letter of dissent pursuant to Joint Rule 1-10.

DISSENT AND PROTEST TO PASSAGE OF HB 1069

Pursuant to Joint Rule 1-10, we, the undersigned Senators, do hereby respectfully dissent from, and protest against, the rulings of the President of the Senate, Lt. Gov. Matthew Michels, in ruling against Senator Nelson's point of orders that 17 Senate members be excused from voting due to their personal conflict of interest in the legislation to overturn IM22 due to their admitted public record of personal pecuniary interest in a lawsuit to overturn IM22, violating Joint Rule 12-1 and Section 521 (2)(3) & Section 522 (1) of Mason's Manual of Legislative Procedure (enacted as SD Legislative Joint rules via Joint Rule 11-3). Lt. Gov. Michels' ruling, in the face of such conflict of interests, promotes a practice that undermines the very foundation of our State Constitution, weakens the rule of law, and besmirches the reputation of the South Dakota Senate. Furthermore, we, the undersigned Senators, do hereby respectfully dissent from, and protest the passage of House Bill 1069 in that it clearly violates Article III, Section 21 of the South Dakota Constitution (which 17 Senators acknowledge in section 10 of their lawsuit contesting the mirror image of HB1069, IM22 was unconstitutional for violating this constitutional provision) states: "No law shall embrace more than one subject, which shall be expressed in its title." Members voted to pass House Bill 1069 knowing that provisions of it contained sections which require citizens to declare their names, address, etc., on campaign material, which the Supreme Court of the United States of America has ruled explicitly violates persons' 1st Amendment rights (see McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm'n, 514 U.S. 334 (1995)). We therefore believe that the passage of House Bill 1069 is in contravention of both the United States Constitution, South Dakota's Constitution, and is therefore null and void. We thus dissent from, and protest against, the erroneous rulings, the unconstitutional aspects of House Bill 1069, and the appearances of improprieties used to pass House Bill 1069. We respectfully request that this dissent and protest be printed in the Senate Journal as required by Joint Rule 1-10.

Respectfully submitted,                        Respectfully submitted,
Senator Stace Nelson                            Senator Lance Russell

So much for the left's peacful transistion of power as violence shut down free speech at Berkeley

This is what happens when those who claim they are fighting for tolerance become intolerant:

Violence erupted Wednesday night at UC Berkeley -- the same campus where the Free Speech Movement started 53 years ago -- hours before right-wing commentator Milo Yiannopoulos was scheduled to speak.

The university blamed "150 masked agitators" for the unrest, saying they had come to campus to disturb an otherwise peaceful protest.

Administrators decided to cancel the event about two hours before the Breitbart editor's speech. UC Berkeley said it removed him from campus "amid the violence and destruction of property and out of concern for public safety."

Black-clad protesters wearing masks threw commercial-grade fireworks and rocks at police. Some even hurled Molotov cocktails that ignited fires. They also smashed windows of the student union center on the Berkeley campus where the Yiannopoulos event was to be held.

At least six people were injured. Some were attacked by the agitators -- who are a part of an anarchist group known as the "Black Bloc" that has been causing problems in Oakland for years, said Dan Mogulof, UC Berkeley spokesman.

 

The Black Bloc is a domestic terrorist movement coming the originated out of Germany's cultural Neo-Marxist feminist agenda:

 Black blocs came out of the autonomous movement in Germany in the 1980s, specifically West Germany where “radical feminists had a profound effect on the Automen, injecting the movement with a more anarchist spirit than was the case elsewhere in Western Europe.” The Automen expressed their politics via “rent strikes and re-appropriating hundreds of buildings which were turned into squats” that doubled as spaces for political activity. There is no definitive moment when the term black bloc came into usage, although there are different stories. The first major arrival of a black bloc was in 1986 when a massive black bloc was formed to defend the Hafenstrasse squat where 1,500 black blockers and 10,000 other demonstrators confronted the police and saved the squat. Black bloc ideas and tactics soon spread to North America via fanzines, personal contacts and punk music groups, but there is also a more interesting reason as to how black bloc tactics spread. Sociologists Charles Tilly, Doug McAdam and Dieter Rucht, all of whom specialize in social movements, have shown that “for different periods and places there exist repertoires of collective action deemed effective and legitimate for the defense and promotion of a cause. These repertories are transformed and disseminated over time and across borders from one social movement to another, in accordance with the experiences of militants and the changes in the political sphere.”

 

Is this the kind of crap that we will see coming out of Madville here is South Dakota?

Nelson and Russell joined Senate Democrats and voted against HB 1069

Not sure what this means, but I smell a rat in Pierre. I am not a fan of IM22, but I am also not a fan of crony capitalism. Looks like this vote was a move to protect the system of legalized corruption.

UPDATE:

Sens. Nelson and Russell announced their intention to file a letter of dissent pursuant to Joint Rule 1-10.

DISSENT AND PROTEST TO PASSAGE OF HB 1069

Pursuant to Joint Rule 1-10, we, the undersigned Senators, do hereby respectfully dissent from, and protest against, the rulings of the President of the Senate, Lt. Gov. Matthew Michels, in ruling against Senator Nelson's point of orders that 17 Senate members be excused from voting due to their personal conflict of interest in the legislation to overturn IM22 due to their admitted public record of personal pecuniary interest in a lawsuit to overturn IM22, violating Joint Rule 12-1 and Section 521 (2)(3) & Section 522 (1) of Mason's Manual of Legislative Procedure (enacted as SD Legislative Joint rules via Joint Rule 11-3). Lt. Gov. Michels' ruling, in the face of such conflict of interests, promotes a practice that undermines the very foundation of our State Constitution, weakens the rule of law, and besmirches the reputation of the South Dakota Senate. Furthermore, we, the undersigned Senators, do hereby respectfully dissent from, and protest the passage of House Bill 1069 in that it clearly violates Article III, Section 21 of the South Dakota Constitution (which 17 Senators acknowledge in section 10 of their lawsuit contesting the mirror image of HB1069, IM22 was unconstitutional for violating this constitutional provision) states: "No law shall embrace more than one subject, which shall be expressed in its title." Members voted to pass House Bill 1069 knowing that provisions of it contained sections which require citizens to declare their names, address, etc., on campaign material, which the Supreme Court of the United States of America has ruled explicitly violates persons' 1st Amendment rights (see McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm'n, 514 U.S. 334 (1995)). We therefore believe that the passage of House Bill 1069 is in contravention of both the United States Constitution, South Dakota's Constitution, and is therefore null and void. We thus dissent from, and protest against, the erroneous rulings, the unconstitutional aspects of House Bill 1069, and the appearances of improprieties used to pass House Bill 1069. We respectfully request that this dissent and protest be printed in the Senate Journal as required by Joint Rule 1-10.

Respectfully submitted,                        Respectfully submitted,
Senator Stace Nelson                            Senator Lance Russell

South Dakota's radical revolutionaires on the left want to use Constitutional law to allow our enemies to invade this country, but promote undermining Constitututional law with a direct democracy regarding IM22

Cory Heidelberger's anti-American agenda is to argue that Constitutional rights are afforded to our enemies so they can invade our country:

 22 months ago, Senator Jefferson Beauregard Sessions grilled Sally Quillian Yates, President Barack Hussein Obama’s nominee for deputy attorney general. Senator Sessions exhorted nominee Yates to say no to illegal and unconstitutional orders on immigration from the President:

Sessions: You have to watch out, because people will be asking you to do things that you just need to say no about. Do you think the attorney general has a responsibility to say no to the president if he asks for something that’s improper? A lot of people defended the [Loretta] Lynch nomination by saying well, [then-President Obama] appoints somebody who’s going to execute his views. What’s wrong with that? But if the views that the president wants to execute are unlawful, should the attorney general or the deputy attorney general say no?

Yates: Senator, I believe that the attorney general or the deputy attorney general has an obligation to follow the law and the Constitution, and to give their independent legal advice to the president [Senator Jeff Sessions and nominee Sally Yates, Senate confirmation hearing, 2015.03.24, as transcribed by Vox.com, 2017.01.31].

First off, Sessions' question did not refer to immigration. Cory is assuming that the Constitution allows our enemies the right to invade our country. And this illogical argument comes from someone who wants us to undermine our Constitutions with a direct democracy when he deals with IM22.

Cory's next move is to argue that South Dakota has no right to defend our borders:

Meanwhile, the man who took Parsley’s Senate seat, District 8 Republican Senator Jordan Youngberg, is part of a party that is peddling a resolution condemning a national Muslim civil rights organization that is suing to overturn the President’s immigration ban. Youngberg’s party is also pushing an illegal power grab by the Legislature to assert state supremacy over federal immigration decisions.

Cory's link to the so-called civil rights organization includes this:

The prime sponsor of the resolution is Sen. Stace Nelson. It states that the FBI has suspended all formal contacts with CAIR, and mentions that a CAIR Director in Virginia pleaded guilty to terrorism-related charges. The resolution suggests South Dakota law enforcement follow suit and not have contact with CAIR. 

"All this is is pointing out the factual information of the many circumstances that have been identifying that CAIR has been involved in Islamic Terrorism and supporting Islamic Terrorist organizations," Nelson said.

Here is more about CAIR:

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) is a notorious Islamic Supremacist group in the United States that masquerades as a civil rights organization. 

CAIR famously complains about petty slights to Muslim-Americans while ignoring far more serious human rights violations against non-Muslims in the Islamic world.

10 Facts About CAIR:

• CAIR was created by the Muslim Brotherhood, an Islamic supremacist organization that pioneered 20th century Islamic terrorism and sanctions violence against civilians

Here is some very detailed research on the Muslim Brotherhood:

These two factions, that developed out of Afghani’s influence, the Nazis and the Salafi movement, would eventually would work together to revive the ancient mind-control tactics of the Ismailis, to form a body of agent-provocateurs, more commonly known as terrorists. The name of this organization is the Muslim Brotherhood. Ultimately, however, following the example set by Afghani and Abduh, the upper leadership of the Muslim Brotherhood would profess Islam only to deceive, while in actuality they were members of the Illuminati, through their adherence to the Ismaili brand of Islam. Thus, as Robert Dreyfuss described, in Hostage to Khomeini, a revealing look at the conspiracy to promote the Muslim Brotherhood:

The Muslim Brotherhood is a London creation, forged as the standard-bearer of an ancient, anti-religious (pagan) heresy that has plagued Islam since the establishment of the Islamic community (umma) by the Prophet Mohammed in the seventh century. Representing organized Islamic fundamentalism, the organization called the Muslim Brotherhood (Ikhwan al-Muslimum in Arabic) was officially founded in Egypt, in 1929, by the British agent Hasan al-Banna, a Sufi mystic. Today, the Muslim Brotherhood is the umbrella under which a host of fundamentalist Sufi, Sunni, and radical Shiite brotherhoods and societies flourish.^[3]''

The founder of the Muslim Brotherhood was a Freemason, Hassan al Banna, born in 1906, who developed from the influence of the three Salafi reformers, Afghani, Abduh and Rida. Banna’s father was as student of Abduh, and himself was greatly influenced by Rashid Rida. By age twenty-one, Banna was introduced to the leadership of Al-Manar, founded by Rida, and, beginning in the early 1920s, would often meet and discuss with Rida. Through Rida, Banna developed his opposition to Western influence in Egypt, in favor of “pure Islam”, meaning to the pernicious version of Wahhabism.

And...

The plan was to employ the age-old indoctrination methods of the Ismaili Assassins, to continue to create mind-controlled agent-provocaeurs, more commonly known as “terrorists”. In 1952, Dulles founded Banque Commerciale Arabe in Lausanne, Switzerland, representing a pact between the CIA and the Muslim Brotherhood, which is comprised of Saudi royal family members.^[27] The bank was co-founded by a longtime British intelligence agent, Benoist Mechin, a protégé of Jack Philby.^[28] Dean Henderson, author of Geopolitics: The Global Economy of Big Oil, Weapons and Drugs, summarizes the nature of this relationship'

So Cory is siding with big oil and the global oligarchy that directs the CIA covert operations. And the Muslim Brotherhood and CAIR are fronts for those operations. Sad that it is impossible to teach Cory anything, because he already knows it all.