Some people can’t stop themselves from stupidity. Senate candidate attacks kids 4-H fair project.

I’m hearing from back in South Dakota tonight that while I’m enjoying a great concert from the Go Go’s, District 3 State Senate Candidate Cory Heidelberger decided to spend his evening attacking a 4-H kid and his project.

So what does it mean to mingle the American flag and the Christian cross? What message does such a flag send to Americans who are not Christian?


And Christians, as believers in a faith meant to counter and critique earthly powers, how do you feel about your symbol being merged with the banner of today’s Rome.

Read it here.

Apparently, a 4-H kid’s artistic representation of faith and country has now become a political statement that a Democrat candidate for State Senate feels the need to criticize.

Here’s a good lesson that illustrates that especially when people are in the public eye, some people can’t stop themselves from stupidity.

Senate candidate attacks kids 4-H fair project. Just what a candidate wants to be known for as he runs for office.

52 thoughts on “Some people can’t stop themselves from stupidity. Senate candidate attacks kids 4-H fair project.”

    1. By a guy with Gonorrhea of the mouth?

      The whole pointing fingers thing is what Cory likes to do but he always ends up making himself look bad too by talking.

  1. Just like that Trump fellow, Mr. H never admits when he is wrong. He just digs in deeper and becomes enraged.

    1. You act like his best friend, when you post on his blog. With friends like you, who needs enemies.? #TwoFacedNick

    2. Just a couple days ago Trunp did say that he says things that he shouldn’t have, and that sometimes he is wrong. His main regret was how it may have negatively affected others. That takes a pretty big person to say that. Hmmm . . . Never heard Hillary apologize for calling the women, bimbos, who accused Bill of sexual assault. Nor did she apologize to the families of those killed at Benghazi for the lies she told about the attack and her flippant disregard for their deaths.

  2. Admit it, Pat. Part of you wants Cory in the senate. Just think of the endless content. His two years (depending on when he would resign) in the senate would be like the scene of a never-ending grisly car accident. One could not help but to watch.

    1. Candidate Heidelberger, highly skilled campaigner that he is, is accomplishing one of the hardest tasks in politics. He’s getting his enemies to help him. Every time he’s mentioned on a Republican blog, people who never would are remembering his name and developing curiosity about his unwavering and empathetic message. This shows how he’ll work across the aisle as a true supporter of what’s best for South Dakota, no matter what political party is in control.

      1. On this issue and this candidate, you are living in a dream world, Porter. Cory is his own worst enemy, and this just proves it.

        1. Porter doesn’t live in Hell and Porter doesn’t live in a dream world. You seem a bit obsessed with my abode, lately.

          1. I agree with you Porter. Corey is doing the same thing the Donald is doing in the political world. It is a genus move on both parts.

    2. Unlike a lot of liberals, I don’t think Pat would sacrifice the future of his kids for fodder for his blog.

  3. Would someone answer the question that was left out above—“Christian readers, how would you feel if our 4-H-ers had palletized something like the Malaysian flag, with the U.S. stars reconfigured into a Muslim crescent to celebrate the Mohammedans among us and to suggest that their religion is patriotic, too? What about stars rearranged in the form of a Star of David, or Buddha, or maybe just a nice smiley face?”— That was the point…Answer please!!!

    1. I think you are missing a fine point here. Our nation was founded as a Judean-Christian nation with Judean-Christian ideals. This is our heritage and this is what has made this nation so great. That doesn’t mean we can’t welcome people of other faiths or no faith, but it does NOT mean that we have to give up our basic founding beliefs in favor of those. This nation has a long history of welcoming all, but it used to be that those who came assimilated into our culture, our laws. This is no longer the case; now we are being told that in the name of tolerance or whatever, they no longer have to assimilate but can say they are “offended” and thereby attack the basic foundations of this nation. But we are a nation of free speech (unless that free speech “offends” someone) so Cory has a right to voice his opinion, as ridiculous as it is. And we are a nation that has freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion because of the first amendment stating, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” It does not say that the state and religion necessarily are separate, only that Congress shall make no law….

      1. Spot on Springer. The sad irony though, is Cory would have had no objection to a pallet flag expressing the Muslim Faith.

      2. Answer my question….”And we are a nation that has freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion “– One of the most ignorant things ever said on any forum..I suppose you also think that people of one particular religion should hold preference over U.S. citizens of other religions in this country?. This country was for the most part founded by men that because of their religious beliefs would be scorned by those today of the wing- nut (c)hristianity… Jefferson for example was a deist and detested the idea of organized religion, he said ” why should it concern me if my neighbor believes in no god or a thousand gods if he neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg’- and you actually say “And we are a nation that has freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion”– Please explain specifically what you mean by that… Give ANY example of that un-American statement being mentioned by any founder. That is exactly what the radical Islamists believe about their religion….That is the America you would have?

          1. Hey genius if I had “missed his point” I would not have said what I thought of his point…

            You want to explain–““And we are a nation that has freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion”– Please explain specifically what you mean by that… Give ANY example of that un-American statement being mentioned by any founder.

            1. Here is what it says in the Bill of Rights: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”. This means that the FEDERAL government cannot establish a national religion. BTW, it says nothing about states. The next thing it says is the government will not get in the way of someone practicing his/her religion. This means there are going to be some people exercising their religion. As an observer, you have the right to participate or not, but you do not have the right to interfere. If you still do not understand, well there is no hope for some people.

      3. ‘Our nation was founded as a Judean-Christian nation with Judean-Christian ideals. This is our heritage and this is what has made this nation so great.’

        Please tell me where in the Constitution, this nation’s founding document, does it state the US was founded as a ‘Judean-Christian’ nation. And please point out where God is mentioned in any of the country’s founding documents.

        1. The Declaration of Independence:

          IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.

          The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

          When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

          We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.–Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

          He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
          He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
          He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
          He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
          He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
          He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
          He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
          He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
          He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
          He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
          He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
          He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
          He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
          For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
          For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
          For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
          For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
          For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
          For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
          For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
          For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
          For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
          He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
          He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
          He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
          He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
          He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

          In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

          Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

          We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

          The 56 signatures on the Declaration appear in the positions indicated:

          Column 1
          Button Gwinnett
          Lyman Hall
          George Walton

          Column 2
          North Carolina:
          William Hooper
          Joseph Hewes
          John Penn
          South Carolina:
          Edward Rutledge
          Thomas Heyward, Jr.
          Thomas Lynch, Jr.
          Arthur Middleton

          Column 3
          John Hancock
          Samuel Chase
          William Paca
          Thomas Stone
          Charles Carroll of Carrollton
          George Wythe
          Richard Henry Lee
          Thomas Jefferson
          Benjamin Harrison
          Thomas Nelson, Jr.
          Francis Lightfoot Lee
          Carter Braxton

          Column 4
          Robert Morris
          Benjamin Rush
          Benjamin Franklin
          John Morton
          George Clymer
          James Smith
          George Taylor
          James Wilson
          George Ross
          Caesar Rodney
          George Read
          Thomas McKean

          Column 5
          New York:
          William Floyd
          Philip Livingston
          Francis Lewis
          Lewis Morris
          New Jersey:
          Richard Stockton
          John Witherspoon
          Francis Hopkinson
          John Hart
          Abraham Clark

          Column 6
          New Hampshire:
          Josiah Bartlett
          William Whipple
          Samuel Adams
          John Adams
          Robert Treat Paine
          Elbridge Gerry
          Rhode Island:
          Stephen Hopkins
          William Ellery
          Roger Sherman
          Samuel Huntington
          William Williams
          Oliver Wolcott
          New Hampshire:
          Matthew Thornton

          1. “Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,”—

      1. “Please tell me where in the Constitution, this nation’s founding document, does it state the US was founded as a ‘Judean-Christian’ nation.”–Give ONE quote from any signer of the Constitution that says that—They fought a revolution against England to be free of that kind of government.

        1. No, I don’t think the American Revolution was fought to be free of a Judeo-Christian government. The first immigrants to the New World came for freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion. (Sorry, I just couldn’t resist that!) Anyway, both nations were essentially built on Judeo-Christian ideals. The Revolution was fought to be free of the tyranny of Britain, you know, that phrase “taxation without representation,” nothing to do with religion on either nation. Your Common Core revisionist history is showing through.

          1. ‘Anyway, both nations were essentially built on Judeo-Christian ideals.’

            Your stupidity is showing through. Both nations? There are two USAs? Were you there when the first pilgrims landed and you asked them why they left England? It does not state anywhere in the Constitution that this country would be founded on Judeo-Christian ideals. Nature’s God doth not make a Judeo-Christian nation.

            1. Not necessary to resort to name-calling, unless that is all you have. Two nations, both the USA? I was referring to Britain and to the colonies, which soon became the USA. And, no, I wasn’t here when the Pilgrims landed, but I was taught American history and I seem to remember that they left England because they wanted freedom OF religion. It seems that your knowledge of history is reflective of the dumbing down of America, i.e. result of Common Core.

              1. Stupidity isn’t a name, it’s a noun. It seems you’re the one who is dumbing down American history. The first English settlers arrived in 1607 and ENGLAND established its first colony on land that would much later in time become the United States. Independence was not declared until 1776. That’s a difference of 169 years which is not “soon”. To address your original claim: There’s no evidence that this nation was founded on Judeo-Christian ideals. You’re entitled to believe that but it’s incorrect.

  4. I wouldn’t mind Cory winning his race. I think one party rule is a bad thing whether it is state or federal. I think it’s good when hear two sides of a issue. Ok people fire away at me why that is bad.

    1. Because you are a fool. Heidelberger-with-fries is a wackadoodle liberal who wants to take God off the state flag, and impose income taxes on us all.

    2. The underlying problem with Cory is not necessarily his extreme views. It is the fact that he will say or do anything to get attention, and he would bring the circus show to Pierre. It would not be about striking a balance or presenting another side; it would be about shameless self-promotion and bombast.

    3. Simply to have another party in is like saying that Hillary needs to be elected simply to have the first woman president. Having someone elected because they are a different party is no reason at all. It should be about what their ideas for the State and Country are, and from everything I see, Heidelberger has nothing but socialist, freedom-hating ideas. That is why I hope he loses big time. He is not worthy of holding an office in what is left of our free country. Didn’t people see enough of what a socialist will do with the 8 years of Obummer (that’s Obama, Portair)? I didn’t need to see the 8 years as I am not so twisted as the socialists and progressives are.

    1. Yes, liberals have so many tried-and-true tactics at their disposal when it comes to rooting out supposed corruption in government from the extreme end of arson and rioting to the more traditional machine politicking to the smelly, yet, ineffective, fart-in. Of course, if that does not meet their whimsy, a handful of glitter always does the trick. Anything rooted in socialism is inherently susceptible to corruption in government. It is the only way to get ahead in a socialist world.

      1. Spencer, I would like to add a little support to what you are saying. The last 3 Democrat governors of long time Democrat controlled Illinois have all been convicted by Federal Courts for corruption and some are still in jail. Democrat Brendon Johnson investigated the charges alleged here in SD and found nothing.

        1. Notice how folks like these NEVER mention the last (r) president they twice elected and they whine that it is old news if he is mentioned……If Bush were a Dem. they would be yelling nonstop how he destroyed the lives of so many..

        2. THAT is the problem. Why don’t you ask what laws she has broken? Being charged and having broken a law are not the same thing. Nice try.

      1. “Name a broken law she was charged with”– You made the statement, can you not factually support it?.

        1. Posting under anonymous is a defacto license to to tell untruths, which in a small state keeps your friends and family from knowing you’re a “closet deceiver”.

  5. God bless America, that’s where we are right?! It’s sad that Corey was offended by the artwork. What makes it worse is he felt so inclined to say what he did. He’s digging his own hole. I thought the piece was great and would be honored to rock it out front. Many of my family members fought in war and thanked God for their freedoms, their family and their return home.

Comments are closed.