Sibby Online

Sibson vs Vehle, it is all about conservatism

The front page of today's Mitchell Daily Republic says it all:

Deb Peters, one of Daugaard's RINOs, misleads on Keloland and adds to the Daugaard Deception

Keloland weighs in with a report on Daugaard's promotion of RINOs:

Some South Dakota Republican lawmakers are blasting Republican Governor Dennis Daugaard for endorsing several candidates in next week's primary.

In front of a room filled with members of the media and their own party, Republican state Representatives Manny Steele and Lora Hubbel scolded the governor for publicly supporting candidates in next week's primary.

"He is the executive branch and shouldn't be using his influence to pick people for the legislative branch," Steele said.

RINOs are not lead by constitutional principles such as separation of powers, they only care about gaining more power and centralization. The report then gets into the abortion issue:

Hubbel and Steele claim that many of the candidates being supported by the governor are not conservative enough.

"I have heard there is already pro-life legislation written,” Hubbel said talking about the upcoming legislative session.  “Daugaard's response to that is to endorse several pro-abortion candidates to office. Looks like he's making sure no pro-life bills come across his office next year.”

Hubbel is running against Republican state Senator Deb Peters in next week's primary.

Daugaard has endorsed Peters. Peters says she is pro-life and even voted for the 2006 abortion ban. But she admits she has voted against what could be considered pro-life legislation because she takes a more in-depth, common sense approach to the bills she supports.

"There are always two sides to an issue so you can't always look at subject matter or subject line or a title of a bill to make your decision on a vote," Peters said.

Well Deb, 2006 was before you received $10,000 from the radical left and decided to become the SDGOP's gay activist. The South Dakota Right to Life organization does more than just look at the title of the bill and has given Peters a "D" based on her recent voting record.

Next, it is Daugaard's turn at deception:

Daugaard says he's not trying to tear down other candidates but is simply supporting the ones he knows can get the job done.

The governor believes the Republicans he's endorsing are fiscally disciplined, can collaborate well with other legislators and have a conservative record.

"Most of the candidates I've endorsed have been supported by right-to-life and the NRA. I think if you look at the records or go to the websites of those organizations you'd find that. So, I think some of the folks that make these suggestions are painting with a brush that's too broad," Daugaard said.

Daugaard added that he has a solid pro-life record and an A+ rating from the National Rifle Association.

First off, where is Daugaard getting his NRA ratings? Their web site has only two for South Dakota, and none of the races he has weighed in on. I sent by 25 answers back to them a long time ago.

Again, the voting records say the exact opposite. Rausch supports the conservative Republican platfrom only 35% of the time, while Belgalka lead the Senate at 64%. Deb Peters was the third worst at 29%, while Hubbel scored 85% in the House Chamber. Phil Jensen scored 89% in the House, which earned him a slap in the face by the governor. Then you have pro-abortion Tom Nelson supporting conservative Republican principles only 39% of the time. I guess the governor will have to hang his hat on Rampelberg who scored 43%.

Since Daugaard cannot back up his conservative argument, he must think these true conservative Republicans don't "collaborate well". So much for his claim that "he's not trying to tear down other candidates".

Now lets go to DaugaardCare:

Hubbel and Steele also claimed at Tuesday’s news conference that the governor and the candidates he's endorsed are supporting the federal health care law known as 'Obamacare.' 

Peters says even though she does not like the law, the state still has to start complying with the federal law in South Dakota.

If it is overturned by the Supreme Court, there is a so-called 'suicide clause' in the state legislation that would kill the efforts to comply with the law.

I have already covered the 'suicide clause' deception. According to the Washington Post:

South Dakota lawmakers went a step further, including what one state official dubbed a “suicide clause” that automatically repeals the state law if the entire federal law is found unconstitutional.

But the practical effect of this provision could be limited, at best. That’s because South Dakota’s director of insurance issued state regulations implementing the federal provisions. These remain in force unless and until they are specifically revoked by either the director or the legislature.

For more on the Daugaard Deception regarding Obamacare, study this post.

 

 

Sibson vs Vehle: What the Mitchell Daily Republic did not publish

On May 8 the Mitchell Chamber of Commerce held a forum for the District 20 Republican primary for state Senate, here is how the Mitchell Daily Republic described it:

Steve Sibson said he was “clearly a conservative challenging a liberal” in the race for the District 20 Republican state Senate nomination.

Sibson’s comment was made during a debate with his opponent, incumbent state Sen. Mike Vehle, R-Mitchell, on Tuesday at Mitchell Technical Institute as part of the Mitchell Area Chamber of Commerce Governmental Affairs Committee forum. The primary election is June 5, and the winner will advance to the Nov. 6 general election. District 20 includes Davison, Aurora and Jerauld counties.

Vehle didn’t respond directly to the “liberal” charge but said there is “clearly” a difference between him and Sibson. Vehle referenced Sibson’s advocacy for giving stimulus money back to the federal government, which Vehle said would have been foolish.

Amazing that Vehle is concerned about losing some of the $1.7 billion in federal funding. Afterall, it was only $1.1 billion in 2008, the year Obama was elected president. Since then the federal debt has increased 50%. And that is also how much South Dakota's share has increased. Anybody care about the children that will be saddled with this debt.

Early on there was a question regarding what it means to be a Republican, since this was a Republican primary. I had already mentioned the South Dakota Republican Platform during my introduction that starts with this:

The South Dakota Republican Party believes that the fundamental principles of the Republican Party are rooted in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution of the United States, and the Constitution of the State of South Dakota.

I have been handing out copies of the Declaration and the Constitution of the United States during my campaigns. I also mentioned the economic development policy of promoting a fair and competitive free market that allows all to have opportunity. I mentioned that the SDGOP leadership economic policies has been using government to pick winners and losers and have been violating this Platform position. I have also noticed that the link to the platform no longer works. Wonder why? 

Here is what the paper said about our opening remarks:

Vehle commented on his role in tackling issues in the state Legislature in his opening statement.

“Do we always agree? No. Is it always easy? No. But a majority of the people always come to an agreement on the major issues,” he said. “I think that’s the way we should continue to operate.”

In his opening statement, Sibson said his principles come from the Bible, the state constitution and the Declaration of Independence.

“This is what united our country at the very beginning, and this is what will unite us now,” Sibson said.

So Vehle thinks unity is going to the left, and I believe unity will be accomplished if we stay with traditional conservative principles. Now let is apply our fundamental beliefs to the issues:

As part of a series of questions from local media and audience members, the potential nominees were asked their stance on state funding for education.

“Teachers need to be paid more,” Sibson said. “Teachers are not the problem.”

Although Sibson agreed a merit-pay system could work, he did not support the system included in the teaching-reforms bill passed during the last legislative session.

Vehle said the recently passed teaching legislation could be adjusted as several committees work to study the impact of the reforms.

“All those folks are going to be looking at this thing that we passed,” he said. “That should give us a better idea of where we’re going.”

Funny that Vehle refused to defend the education policy he voted for. If he was really that unsure of the policy, why did he vote for it?  Next issue:

When asked if there was any legislation the potential nominees would like to see reintroduced, Vehle brought up the failed proposal to ban texting while driving.

“It is difficult to enforce,” Vehle said, but added that once a law is passed, he believes the vast majority of people will obey.

Sibson said he hoped the Legislature will again move to resist aspects of federal health care reform.

Why isn't the healthcare issue discussed more? Why didn't the paper mention my revelation that the SDGOP is currently implementing insurance exchanges, the core to Obamacare? Next issue: 

Both candidates were asked to give a letter grade to the Legislature for its work during the last session.

Sibson, who said the Republican dominated Legislature did not stick to its core principles, gave the legislature a C.

He added that he felt large corporations were having too great an impact on South Dakota’s politicians. “Global corporations are telling the governor what to do,” Sibson said. “That’s the globalists telling South Dakota you need to be part of a global economy.”

Sibson then claimed Vehle was taking “marching orders” from the Council of State Governments, which Vehle quickly denied.

Too bad that I could not get in the fact the Vehle's City Manager proposal for Mitchell originated out of the CSG. Instead the paper tried to give the CSG credibility:

The CSG is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization that works with state governments across the United States.

Vehle gave the most recent legislative session a B-plus.

“I think we took on some tough issues. We didn’t dodge them,” he said. “It was tough to make cuts, but we did and we balanced the budget.”

In his closing remarks, Sibson once again brought up Vehle’s association with the CSG, which Sibson said celebrates both a “Canada night” and “Mexico night.”

“That sounds like a global new world order to me, doesn’t it to you folks?” Sibson asked of the audience.

Too bad this wasn't included in the report:

The CSG-WEST legislative membership of 13 western states benefits from its associate memberships with the Canadian provinces of Alberta and British Columbia and the Pacific islands of American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands and Guam, and benefits from its collaborative partnerships with the border states of Mexico.

...

The U.S.-Mexico State Alliance Partnership is a collaborative, multi-branch program aimed at strengthening cooperation among state officials and institutions of both countries. The Partnership promotes and convenes binational exchanges among border legislators, attorneys general, treasurers, Lt. Governors and other officials to enhance the role of state officials to address shared public policy concerns that transcend international borders.

And this event:

REGISTER NOW for the CSG-WEST 65th annual meeting to be held in Edmonton, Alberta July 20 -23, 2012.  Meeting and hotel registration are available. 

CSG-WEST is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization that brings Western state legislators together to share best policy practices, cooperate on regional issues and engage in professional development training.  Several hundred people are expected to attend the annual meeting, drawing together elected officials from Western states and the Pacific region.

The meeting theme is “Western Frontiers – On the Edge of Innovation”.  Delegates will meet with legislators from across the West, attend policy and professional development sessions, and see firsthand Alberta’s innovative approaches to industry, education, transportation and research.

Take advantage of professional development sessions as well  as robust policy discussions on critical western issues such as energy, natural resources, water, health, fiscal affairs, western economic development and demographic trends in the western states.

Experience authentic western Canadian hospitality with policy toursof Alberta Industrial Heartland Association, Edmonton Waste Management Centre (EWMC), EPCOR Genesee 3 Supercritical Power Facility, Food Processing Development Centre, Quest Carbon Capture and Storage Project, and discover Alberta’s spirit of innovation.

Not exactly the American organization that the MDR mislead its readers on. Clearly sounds more like a promoter of a North American Union.

But the best part of my closing was not reported. While answering a question on how do we bring people to South Dakota I made a joke about increasing global warming. If we have more winters like the last one, it will be a lot easier to bring people to South Dakota. Vehle played off that point by saying he downplays South Dakota winters and tells people it is no worse than Minneapolis. During my research last year on the City Manager issue, I remembered bragging about using South Dakota blizzards to justify tax increases to his CSG buddies. So during the closing I brought up this:

South Dakota’s ‘Perfect Storm’ Blows in a Fee Increase

One of the lawmakers featured in the brief is South Dakota State Sen. Mike Vehle, who chairs the Senate Transportation Committee in Pierre and who is a member of CSG’s Transportation Policy Task Force. While Vehle was unsuccessful in his effort to raise his state’s 22 cent-a-gallon tax by 6 cents over two years, the legislature did approve an increase in license tag fees that will help fund maintenance of county, township and municipal roads and bridges.

...

Vehle describes the confluence of events that allowed the measure to succeed even over the Governor’s veto as a “perfect storm.”

...

Vehle said throughout the winter as the measure was considered in committee and on the floor of the House and Senate, the snow falling outside provided a constant reminder.

“Everyone knows when all this snow melts it’s going to make those local roads even worse,” he said.  

...

Vehle summed up what it took to get the bill done this way: “Especially in these times, if you want to increase funding [tax increases], you must establish a real and recognizable need [create a faux crisis], get solid grassroots support [through propaganda and deception], and then get lucky and have a perfect storm.”

Typical liberal to pass tax increases on to those rural citizens who are not receiving adequate service from their government during a period where their spending went for $3 billion (in the year Obama was elected) to $4 billion. So where is that money going? To set up the South Dakota to be controlled by the central planners of the global economy. It was Bob Mercer who disclosed that the CSG and the National Governors Association receives funding from the corporate plutocracy. I wonder how many of Vehle's globalist elitist friends in the CSG would want to move to South Dakota after he trashed us?

And then there is a letter from Sen. Mike Vehle to South Dakota Association of Towns And Townships Lobbyist, Richard Howard:

I too am still somewhat amazed at the success. I feel it was somewhat a perfect storm. We had been relentlessly plugging this for over 3 years with good reason and good facts, that showed a definite need that begged to be fixed. The snow kept falling as we debated it and everyone knew this year's spring thaw was going to make matters worse. County, Township, and Municipal folks contacted their legislators, saying now was the time. Most of the general public when asked, sheepishly admitted their license tag fees were cheap, and would pay more for better roads. This, along with some legislators that knowing we had to do something someday. I had several, who had been past opponents, that as I was explaining it to them said "OK Vehle, you've finally convinced me, I'll vote for it!" Having a respected Democrat farmer sponsor to started the bill was also a great move on your part. He was able to either get farm organizations support or neutralize their opposition. The Governor's office failing to appear to oppose the bill in the House Transportation Committee (no matter what the reason) was a stroke of luck also. The old adage "the harder we work the luckier we get" along with the perfect storm scenario all helped. And you were pulling the levers on a lot of parts of that storm.

THANKS for all your undaunted and persistent continued hard work. It sure paid off and we were fortunate to  have you as the quarterback. Everyone knew yours was a labor of love, not just a "hired gun". Your sincere tenacity paid off.

THANKS AGAIN FOR EVERYTHING, YOU DESERVE

MORE CREDIT THAN FOLKS KNOW ! ! !

P.S. As you well know, we're not done yet, so we'll need you along for the rest of the ride!!!

Amazing how Vehle is in with the hired gun government lobbyist that uses a Democratic legislator to pass tax increases. The "rest of the ride" is more tax increases. Vehle said in February that he won't try and pass tax increases during an election year. His liberal tax and spend interior would be too exposed as his Republican clothes begin to wear thin. Clearly the District 20 seat has not been represented by a true conservative Republican over the last four years.

Cory Heidelberger, the blog czar, says "No You Can't"

Here is a comment Cory left on his web site:

Gayle, folks like Sibby don’t engage in politics to answer your questions or to learn from others. They speak to exclude others, to play word games, pronounce judgments, and reassure themselves that they are right and righteous.

That exclusivity, practiced by Sibby and Howie, stands in stark contrast to President Obama’s approach to politics. In declaring his support for same-sex marriage, President Obama continues his rather regular pattern of trying to include as many people as possible in the blessings of American liberty and prosperity. Think “Yes We Can!” versus Romney and the Republicans who seem to always campaign on “No You Can’t!”

That was shortly after he said this on this web site:

This post would matter if you would just cut out the New Age stuff.

So when it comes to the mention of "New Age", Cory says "No You Can't".

When it comes to restricting marriage to one man and one woman, Cory says "No You Can't". Which was the issue being discussed when he issued the accusation that only us Christian Conservatives say "No You Can't". Also interesting that his pro-gay marriage cohorts said "No You Can't" when it came to marrying your dog, your own child, and your own mother. I agree with them, but the point is that they too set up "No You Can't" rules too. That really made them mad. So they can, but conservatives can't is their idea of "social justice". And what really upsets them is when I bring up the "New Age Theocracy" that is being established in America by the United Nations via the government schools. And he says "No Yo Can't" say that, even though I have produced research that backs up that truth.

And it takes a New Age Theocrat to be a "blog czar":

Did someone in the 0bama administration appoint you the czar of what matters and what doesn't ? Yeah, I didn't think so.

This post matters regardless of whether you (or anyone else)agrees with the references to "new age-ism" or not.

Even if there were no "new age" or secular humanist component present in all of these globalist-supported education standards/scams, it would still amount to an infringement on local control over education.

And correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't loss of local control over education one of the arguments that liberals (and even a few conservatives for that matter) used when opposing HB 1234 ? Why yes. Yes it was.
----------------------------------------
"A bunch of voters already have their “No” pencil sharpened for anything that says “tax.” HB 1234 won’t swing their vote. Conservatives like Rep. Stace Nelson who are already engaged enough to understand that HB 1234 promises to waste money on bad programs and usurp local control won’t be confused about the sales tax issue; they’re probably already voting against it.
-----------------------------------------
The preceding excerpt of course came from:

http://madvilletimes.com/2012/04/mitchell-superintendent-graves-flacking-for-governor-on-hb-1234/

If I could make one small suggestion, it would be this:

Try not to confuse random ad-hominem attacks with actual constructive criticism or commentary.

Well, it appears that my work here is done.

Have yourself a lovely weekend there mister "blog czar".

North Dakota kids are the government's, not the parent's kids; South Dakota looking to restrict homeschool

The Argus Leader ran a report on homeschooling that ended with this:

During North Dakota’s last legislative session, state officials tried to raise the required educational level for home-school teachers to a bachelor’s degree. Meanwhile, the home-schoolers pushed a proposal to eliminate mandatory tests. Both efforts failed.

“That was a pretty tough fight last session,” said Gwyn Marback, assistant director of teacher and school effectiveness for the North Dakota Department of Public Instruction.

“They just want more freedom. They don’t want to be told what to do.”

For Brain, few of the restrictions neighboring states have in place would affect her. But freedom to teach her children as she pleases is a matter of principle.

“It’s not like we don’t teach all the subjects,” she said. “I just don’t like being dictated to.”

Marback’s view is that the state has a responsibility to all children, whether or not the government pays for their education.

“They are North Dakota kids. They’re our kids, and we need to know they’re being educated,” she said.

Sad to see the attitude that kids are the states property. That is anti-parental rights. Many who homeschool do so because they know government schools are not about education, but instead are establishing a New Age Religion that will foster a one-world system. And the report points to a movement to take freedom away from parents and force them to homeschool with the same global standards:

However, Education Secretary Melody Schopp said in a recent interview that she wants to re-examine home-school laws and maybe bring new legislation next year. She said she is concerned some home-school students are not in a good learning environment.

“It is one of the things I would like to talk with districts about over the summer and see what other states are doing,” she said. “I think it would be good to go back and review it.”

...

Bonni Boschee, the Northern State University assistant professor who surveyed home-school parents last year, developed an interest in the subject during her 16 years as an elementary school teacher.

“I would get home-schooled children with such varied abilities,” she said, some well ahead of their peers and others well behind.

Her survey found that only 45 percent followed the state’s curriculum standards, and most were using tests from California. However, 35 percent felt their children would not be challenged enough in a local public or private school.

It’s impossible to know how South Dakota’s home-school students are performing relative to the rest of the state. School districts collect the tests, but they don’t necessarily keep them in a reportable format — Sioux Falls School District spokeswoman DeeAnn Konrad said results they store are on paper, not a computer.

The state Department of Education does not collect the test scores. Even if it did, tests would be difficult to compare to the different tests taken by public school students.

So it is clear that the goal is to get homeschoolers to follow the same globalist standards that are being used in government schools. Here is what that means:

Rifkin quite lucidly ties New Age doctrines to the concept of Global Education. Since it is man's creation, we should use global political and economic education to help others attain this idea of spiritual global consciousness.

In order to accomplish this implementation of Global Education into our public-school system, proponents advocate the following basic principles: (1) everyone should become involved with people of other cultures; (2) from earliest childhood, global studies should be involved in all areas of study; (3) economic interdependence among all peoples and nations should be stressed; and (4) the changing role of individual "nations" (including the U.S.) should be emphasized, highlighting the increasing importance of international organizations.

On the surface, some of these may appear acceptable, but beneath lies a program of "cultural evolution" designed to swallow up national and personal distinctives while substituting imprecise definitions of ethics. This is the type of thinking which could produce a climate ripe for a charismatic one-world leader, whom the Bible calls the Anti-Christ.

By undermining cultural, religious, national, and economic distinctives, the stage is being set for the alternative of a synthetic, unified system. For example, Global Education proponents are calling for a world religion under the authority of a one-world government. This new world religion is envisioned as a synthesis of Christian ethics and Eastern Mysticism, in which the task of re-ordering our traditional values and institutions is given over to our public schools.

Clearly we have a violation of religious liberty here. Parents are paying an education tax and then are forced to pay for their own education in order to avoid having their children indoctrinated with the New Age Religion that will establish a global theocracy. And now the goal is to go even further and force the homeschoolers to follow the same New Age Religious curriculum or have their kids forced into the government schools. This must be stopped.

Bob Mercer points to corruption in the South Dakota Legislature. Does it apply to governors? Why didn't he mention Deb Peters name, the SDGOP gay activist?

Bob Mercer promised more last week, and here it is:

Would it be bribery of a legislator if a lobbyist or group of lobbyists operated what’s known as a drink room at a motel or hotel during session?

How about if they had a house just a block from the Capitol where the door was always open for the same purpose? What if a business group handed out passes to legislators, allowing them to ride the River Cities transit buses whenever they wanted? What if a lobbyist took a legislator, or a few legislators, or an entire committee of legislators, to dinner? What if a group of legislators invited lobbyists to a fundraiser for their political party during session? What if a legislator sent a letter to lobbyists asking for contributions?

What if a candidate for state office set up a political action committee, commonly known as a PAC, so that it appeared to be independent of his campaign? And then routed money from the PAC to his campaign, as a means of allowing donors to give more than they otherwise legally could directly contribute to the campaign?

All of these things happened in South Dakota in the past two years.

No one was investigated or prosecuted. Evidently none of this was illegal.

The South Dakota Supreme Court has never been presented with a case involving the state constitution’s provisions regarding bribery of a legislator or considered any case involving the state laws regarding bribery, unlawful influence, improper influence, compelling action, compelling inaction, or solicitation of a legislator.

I wonder if "improper influence" and "compelling action" also applies to the governor's office? More on that later.

Mercer then details the problem from a constitutional point of view:

The reason for this seemingly unblemished record of legislator integrity might be the words of the constitution itself. Consider the oath legislators take, when they promise:

“… I have not knowingly or intentionally paid or contributed anything, or made any promise in the nature of a bribe, to directly or indirectly influence any vote at the election at which I was chosen to fill said office, and have not accepted, nor will I accept or receive directly or indirectly, any money, pass, or any other valuable thing, from any corporation, company or person, for any vote or influence I may give or withhold on any bill or resolution, or appropriation, or for any other official act.”

Then there’s this second section from the same Article III, regarding the Legislature, in the constitution:

“Any person who shall give, demand, offer, directly or indirectly, any money, testimonial, privilege or personal advantage, thing of value to any executive or judicial officer or member of the Legislature, to influence him in the performance of any of his official or public duties, shall be guilty of bribery and shall be punished in such manner as shall be provided by law.

The catch, of course, is proving that someone “directly or indirectly” gave something or made an offer or made a demand in an attempt to influence.

What our Legislature does is look the other way. So does our secretary of state, whose office oversees campaign finance regulations.

And unless someone takes an official complaint to law enforcement, the state attorney general isn’t going to open an investigation. The trails aren’t hard to find, however.

What can I say but WOW! And remember South Dakota recently was rated 2nd for the higherst risk of corruption. Mercer ends with the PAC loophole:

A person can give $10,000 apiece to as many PACs as he or she so chooses.

At least four of the six candidates for governor in 2010 benefited greatly from these loopholes: Democrat Scott Heidepriem, and Republicans Gordon Howie, Dave Knudson and, to a limited extent, Dennis Daugaard.

So did the two candidates for secretary of state, Democrat Ben Nesselhuf and Jason Gant.

And we could start naming legislators but for fear that someone would be left off the list. One legislator received a single $10,000 contribution that paid for about 40 percent of her campaign.

No one introduced legislation in the 2011 or 2012 sessions to do anything about any of it.

This is the way our Legislature is.

So who could that unnamed legislator be? Deb Peters did received $10,000 form the Warner Pac. Sharon Warner is the contact for the Warner PAC. Sharon Warner is on the board and Vice Treasurer of Equality South Dakota. Equality South Dakota was looking for Republican Primary Candidates for 2010:

It may be the first time someone or a group has run want ads for a political candidate.  Well, at least in KOTA Territory.

Starting Sunday, one of South Dakota's largest political action committees is running want ads in local newspapers, for republicans willing to mount a primary challenge in legislative elections.

What makes it even more unique: the Equality South Dakota Political Action Committee is the group putting out the ad.  The group supports and promotes equal rights for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people.

It's a community conservatives have tended to snub in the past.  But, Don Frankenfeld, the vice chair of the group, says he knows there are republicans who support gay rights.

"I think it's a traditional republican principle to provide for tolerance and fairness," Frankenfeld said.

The SDGOP platform says:

7.5 The South Dakota Republican Party believes that marriage is the union of one man and one woman and must never be redefined to include civil unions of same-sex couples, or groups of individuals. To defend the sanctity of marriage, we support the passage of the Federal Marriage Amendment and appropriate South Dakota laws.

The Warner PAC was not too successful in finding Republican candidates. The only Republican receiving Warner Pac money was the $10,000 going to Deb Peters. The Equality South Dakota PAC did a little better. They gave $6,000, in a losing effort, to Casey Murschel, $500 to Joni Cutler, and $1,500 to Deb Peters.

Daugaard's corporate socialism giving the SDGOP a black eye as state is sued by South Dakota businesses

This was on the front page of Friday's Argus Leader:

A $5 million contract that Gov. Dennis Daugaard’s office signed with a national employee recruiting firm earlier this year violates the state and U.S. constitutions as well as state and federal laws, according to a lawsuit filed this week in Pierre.

The lawsuit, brought by three Sioux Falls staffing companies, alleges that the governor’s office “lacked the constitutional authority to enter into a contract” that gave one company an exclusive franchise within private industry.

“Under the contract, the state not only channels private business to use Manpower, but also pays $49,000 a month for that privilege,” according to the complaint. “The inevitable effect is to competitively cripple employee recruiting firms within and without South Dakota who get no monthly operating subsidy and who are unable to compete with the fixed below-market pricing of the fee schedule.”

Daugaard announced his plan to hire Manpower during his State of the State address in January. His plan called for Manpower to recruit 1,000 skilled out-of-state workers in four areas: financial services, information technology, engineering and manufacturing. The Legislature eventually approved $5 million for the project, and the contract with Manpower became effective Monday.

But the contract is unfair to other recruiting firms, the lawsuit says. Employers are compelled to partner with Manpower to hire out-of-state workers in those high-demand areas.

The lawsuit alleges that the contract was illegal for a number of reasons:

■ The governor’s office didn’t have the authority to sign it;

■ the state constitution prohibits the state from granting a “special or exclusive franchise;”

■ the contract impedes on Congress’ authority to regulate interstate commerce;

■ and it violates state and federal antitrust laws by attempting to confer a “de facto monopoly” to Manpower.

And because the contract was to provide a service for the private sector and not the state, the lawsuit argues that the state broke competitive bidding laws.

Steve Sanford, the lawyer for the plaintiffs, said the Legislature has told the governor’s office to “go forth and be innovative” to create jobs and wealth in the state. “The question is, where is the boundary of power?” Sanford said. “We don’t think being innovative means you can anoint a private company to be the sole provider of services in a private, competitive market.”

Sanford compared it to the governor’s office deciding that every business should have a pickup truck paid for by the state, but only if it is bought from one dealer chosen by the state.

Daugaard's plan also violated the SDGOP platform:

The South Dakota Republican Party recognizes the free enterprise system and the work ethic of our people as the foundation of our economic success and security.

 

2.6 The South Dakota Republican Party believes government should not have an unfair advantage in competition with private enterprise.

 I covered this issue earlier. Here was the vote on the Hunhoff Amendment to remove the funding:

Here are the representatives who supported the Hunhoff amendment:

Yeas:
Blake; Dennert; Feickert; Feinstein; Gibson; Hansen (Jon); Hawley; Hubbel; Hunhoff (Bernie); Iron Cloud III; Jones; Killer; Kirschman; Kloucek; Kopp; Liss; Lucas; Nelson (Stace); Russell; Schrempp; Sigdestad; Steele; Street; Tornow; Venner; Wismer

It was brought to my attention that the governor's office and the House leadership was putting huge pressure on the members to pass the extra spending. Here are the fiscally irresponsible members who voted against the amendment:

Nays:
Abdallah; Bolin; Boomgarden; Brunner; Carson; Conzet; Cronin; Deelstra; Dryden; Fargen; Gosch; Haggar; Hickey; Hoffman; Hunt; Jensen; Kirkeby; Lust; Magstadt; Miller; Moser; Munsterman; Novstrup (David); Olson (Betty); Perry; Romkema; Rozum; Schaefer; Scott; Sly; Solum; Tulson; Turbiville; Van Gerpen; Vanneman; Verchio; White; Wick; Willadsen; Wink; Speaker Rausch

So we have alleged violations of state and federal constitutions and obvious violations of conservative principle on free competitive markets found in the SDGOP platform. This state needs legislators who will stand on principle and stand up to the governor when he is wrong. That would also fit the constitutional principle of separation of powers.

Mercer ties Deb Peters and Val Rausch to ALEC

Interesting column by Bob Mercer this morning:

The national campaign to politically discredit the American Legislative Exchange Council and the many businesses that financially support ALEC hasn’t swept into South Dakota yet, despite our Legislature being such a stronghold for lawmakers who are ALEC members.

The shooting death of Trayvon Martin in Florida is fueling the current backlash against ALEC for its role in promoting legislation known as a “stand your ground” law.

A special Internet site alecexposed.org sprung up to show the broad range of legislation that ALEC through its lawmaker members has spread into state capitols across the nation.

The website highlights the string of corporations that have separated from ALEC sponsorship in recent weeks, such as Wendy’s, McDonald’s, Intuit, Kraft, Coca Cola and Pepsi.

The site also shows a variety of other anti-ALEC reports in the past decade from groups such as People for the American Way, Common Cause, Greenpeace, Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice, Defenders of Wildlife and the Natural Resources Defense Council.

So we have two sides of the power struggle for control over the one-world government. Mercer details how the two sides shape up in South Dakota:

How strong is ALEC on our Capitol’s third and fourth floors where the Legislature meets? There was a piece of legislation in 2009 that put the issue square before South Dakota’s lawmakers.

The sponsor was then-Sen. Dan Ahlers, a Democrat from Dell Rapids. He led a list of 27 other Democrats and three Republicans who put their names on Senate Bill 142.

It sought to limit lawmakers’ paid travel, restrict their collection of honorarium or stipends from outside groups for travel, require them to publicly report those benefits, and specifically prohibit the Legislature’s Executive Board from authorizing the payment of state dues or other expenditures to the American Legislative Exchange Council.

The hearing on the bill attracted two legislators who spoke against it. They were Rep. Deb Peters, R-Hartford, and Rep. Val Rausch, R-Big Stone City. Also testifying against it was lobbyist Dennis Duncan of Parker.

The Senate committee on state affairs subsequently voted 6-3, split along Republican and Democratic lines, to kill the legislation.

The three Republcians who sponsored SB142 was Rep. Brock Greenfield, Rep. Tim Rounds, and Sen. Rus Olson, who helped kill the bill in committee.

The BIll was, "An Act to  place certain limitations on legislative travel, expenses, and reimbursement." It was Section 3 that would have banned payemts for ALEC.

Mercer goes on to explain what happened in the 2012 session:

Being a target didn’t cause ALEC to hide.

In the 2012 session, there was a wine and cheese reception sponsored by ALEC on Jan. 17 for legislators and state officials. It was one of more than 100 such breakfasts, lunches, dinners and receptions held by groups, associations, organizations and others listed on the 2012 legislative session’s social calendar.

On that same Tuesday of the ALEC social there were eight other similar types of events that ran from before sunrise to midnight.
...

There aren’t any requirements in state law that legislators publicly report any of the free food, beverages or possibly gifts they might receive at these social gatherings.

This is the way our Legislature is.

Any day that the Legislature is in session you can freely overhear lawmakers conversing about which events they are going to attend that noon hour or after the day’s work or in the evening or the next morning.

One of the gripes you’ll occasionally catch is there just are too many events to attend in an evening.

The social calendar sometimes can even become a minor burden for legislators, when they believe they must attend events because people from their legislative districts will be attending.

This is how the line blurs: A free coffee mug, a free lunch, a free round of drinks, a free breakfast, a free supper, a free cab ride back to your motel, a free plane ticket, a free stay at a convention resort, a taxpayer-funded trip to a tourism destination where a convention is hosted.

This is the way our Legislature is.

NEXT WEEK: A further look at the questions for readers to consider, of what is courtesy vs. friendship vs. influence vs. bribery vs. a favor vs. good government vs. extortion.

Interesting questions far a state who ranked second in a recent survey for risk of corruption and lack of accountability. South Dakota received an "F" for legislative accountability. No wonder Steve Hickey and other legislators had a cow over the legislative scorecards (Note: Peters 31%, Rausch 35%) that were released after the 2011 legislative session.

South Dakota implemented Obamacare, Supreme Court ruling is moot point

The Supreme Court ruling affects the feds, but does it affect the states as South Dakota has already implemented Obamacare:

Variations in the way states have moved to implement the 2010 federal health-care law have taken on greater significance after last week’s Supreme Court hearings, whose tone heightened speculation that the statute would be overturned.

With the exception of Arizona, all of the states and the District of Columbia have amended their health insurance rules or practices to comply with mandates imposed by the law.

...

South Dakota lawmakers went a step further, including what one state official dubbed a “suicide clause” that automatically repeals the state law if the entire federal law is found unconstitutional.

But the practical effect of this provision could be limited, at best. That’s because South Dakota’s director of insurance issued state regulations implementing the federal provisions. These remain in force unless and until they are specifically revoked by either the director or the legislature.

Per South Dakota War College comment: Pink Slime RINOs

I have already commented on the SDWC post regarding conservatives running primaries against incumbent RINOs. Here is a SDWC comment that is anti-conservative:

Bingo!! Excellent post, Bill… I’ve said all along that Howie and his band of wingnuts is the best thing to happen to South Dakota democrats in years.

They come to Pierre and throw their fellow republicans under the bus every chance they get, screaming RINO at the top of their lungs.

What they don’t get, is that most republicans are still reasonable people that aren’t going to support their brand of extremism. They go after the seated republicans, win a few, lose a few, but give up more seats to the dems than they gain in the big picture.

When will they realize that the folks they label as Rino’s are a whole lot more conservative than the dems that sneak in the back door. They must have learned their tactics from the NRA.

The person too has been mind-numbed by SDGOP Kool Aid. Then came this response:

when these life long democrats change their party registration to run as republicans, it does not make them republicans!

i am changing my name to angelina jolie, well there you have it! i am now angelina jolie! wait a minute, same old me in the mirro and what the heck do I do with the extra 60 pounds she doesn’t have?!

you can put crap between a bun and call it a burger but its still crap no matter what you call it.

Well, I saw it coming and it came:

good new name for those that register republican just to get elected! pink slime rinos!

Probably not something conservatives should use on the campaign trail, even though some may eat it up.

Bill Clay; a mind numbed by the SDGOP Kool Aid

Bill Clay, the stand in for SDGOP Establishment blogger Pat Powers, provides this analysis:

But what truly bugs me is that certain members of the Tea Party (Gordon Howie) have been so focused on primarying Republicans they see as unfit that they allowed three Democrats to go unchallenged. I would have loved it if the energy behind Gordon Howie and his ”Tea Party” would have gone to recruit a paltry three candidates to challenge the three unchallenged Democrats rather than focus all of their energy on creating primaries for incumbent Republicans.

The Tea Party is a great movement across this country, but some of its leaders in South Dakota have become severely misguided when it comes to understanding which indviduals truly oppose the causes they espouse.

Mr. Clay, those three Democrats support the SDGOP platform more often than the Republicans who have primaries. I would have left a comment, but I am not allowed in the SDWC "big tent". And if the SDGOP leadership believe those three Dems are a problem, why don't they find someone to run?

And conservatives are not running against RINOs in order to give them more power. The Dems are not the ones running Pierre right now, unless you want to argue the SDGOP leadership are the same as Dems. OK, go ahead and make that argument.

When will these partisan party activists learn to think, instead of blindly believing...if it is a "R", it has to be good. Set down the Kool Aid you received from the far-left SDGOP Establishment leaders and begin using your brain for what it was designed to do.

Pat Powers wrong, mislead, lied? Davison County chair takes position in District 20 primary

Since Pat Powers has deleted his web site, I can't link to the posts where he claims that the party leadership does not take sides in the primary. A couple of weeks ago, this was reported by the Mitchell Daily Republic:

Asked about Sibson’s candidacy, Vehle said “it’s a free country” and added that it’s good to have people running for office.

Davison County Republican Party Chairwoman Donna Weiland said Vehle has represented the party well, and she sees no reason for a change.

“We will support what we already have,” Weiland said, referring to Vehle and District 20’s two representatives, Lance Carson and Tona Rozum, who are both Republicans from Mitchell.

So clearly Pat Powers was wrong or lied. I have received an email from Weiland saying they will "NOT" be letting District 20 candidates speak at the Davison County Lincoln Day Dinner. I am sure Vehle is happy about that decision. There will be one less change for Republicans to know they have a choice in the priomary and what the differences will be among the candidates. After all, the leadership of the Davison County GOP "will support what we already have". They have already made the decision for everybody.

Obama admits GOP governors implementing Obamacare, Daugaard singled out

Clearly Romney implemented Obamacare in Massachusetts before Obama became president:

Ryssdal: Let me ask you the follow-on question about the Supreme Court on Monday: Assuming as I'm sure you do that you will prevail in the Supreme Court with the case over the individual mandate, you will have beaten in court 26 states -- that is the majority of states. You will have to depend on them to execute your plan to reform the health care system in this country, and yet they will be unwilling and unwelcome partners. Are you confident you can still get it done, even after all this acrimony?

Obama: Absolutely, because frankly, these lawsuits that were filed were basically uniformly filed by Republicans who wanted to score political points. And even some of those who filed suit are actually behind the scenes working with us to prepare for a day when we've got exchanges in these states where people can be part of a larger pool so they can get a bit better deal on their insurance.

And it will be very hard for any governor to explain why it is that they're not giving people -- and small businesses, not just individuals -- an opportunity to get cheaper health insurance, better deal, more protections because of some ideological argument that they're having with the president. And when people see that in fact it works, it makes sense -- as it's, by the way, working in Massachusetts -- then I think a whole bunch of folks will say 'Why aren't we trying it as well?'

I had an email from Richard D. Fry forwarded to me that said this:

Obama has now admitted that “…some of those [GOP Governors] who filed suit [against Obama Care] are actually behind the scenes working with us to prepare for a day when we've got exchanges in these states….” I’ve been ringing that bell since June that Gov.  Brownback’s implementing OC by stealth was part of a national plan involving GOP Govs.  

At that time I identified Oklahoma and Indiana. Now we have identified this happening in South Carolina, Mississippi and South Dakota. They were all using the same game plan. First they tried by stealth (like Brownback) then they made the same excuses as Brownback did i.e., OC is “...an unconstitutional law but the law of the land…”, “… we can do it our way not the OC way…”, “a state exchange will give us more flexibility…” and after being forced to give back the federal EIG, finding “alternate” sources of funding. Then the Governor simply rams it through via his administration as is happening in Oklahoma and South Dakota.

So we have Sen. Thune supporting Romney, who implemented Romneycare, and Rounds working with Daschle in Obama's task force and Daugaard carrying on the GOP legacy of pointing to those evil Democrats while they implement the very same crap.

Greek debt crisis shows the plan to be used to set up the New World Order

Here is the latest on the debt crisis in Greece:

World markets rallied Thursday after European leaders agreed on a plan to deal with the eurozone debt crisis. But in Greece, the most imperiled country, there was skepticism that the deal will do much to help the country out of recession.

In addition, many Greeks also fear that they are losing their sovereignty, and are uncomfortable about the role Germany will be playing in the country's financial future.

The Nuntius stock brokerage firm is, unlike similar offices in New York or London, deathly quiet. So many people have been laid off that the offices are nearly empty.

The firm's president, Alexandros Moraitakis, sits behind a big desk, his cell phone ringing with calls from clients eager to know about the EU deal that was reached at dawn Thursday.

His own profession is in critical condition. In the past two years, the Greek stock market has lost 75 percent of its volume. Personally, he doesn't like the EU deal. He says the EU, the International Monetary Fund and the European Central Bank — known as the troika — have his country's fate in their hands.

Isn't America also involved with the International Monetary Fund? And here is another similarity:

Moriatakis lists some other troika results: Unemployment has doubled, and despite two years of draconian austerity measures, Greece is in recession and spiraling downwards. Many commentators echo this negative view.

And there's widespread criticism that the troika is going to have a permanent office in Athens for the rest of the decade.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel has made clear that over-indebted eurozone countries must be closely overseen by international inspectors.

Many Greeks see this as the first step of a loss of national sovereignty.

How soon will it me that America will be considered "over-indebted" and in need of "international inspectors"? And when you lose your national sovereignty, you then become controlled by the New World Order.

The Etch A Sketch RINOs in bed with Obamacare, Rounds and Daschle provide the example

The battle plan of RINOs has now been exposed:

A Wednesday comment on CNN by Eric Fehrnstrom, Romney's senior campaign adviser, continued to provide top rivals Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich with ammunition to attack Romney over shifting stances on issues such as health care and abortion during his career.

Fehrnstrom said the campaign will "hit a reset button" to take on President Barack Obama in the fall if Romney wins the GOP nomination, adding, "it's almost like an Etch A Sketch. You can kind of shake it up, and we start all over again."

The comment came in response to a question about whether Romney had to adopt conservative stances in the Republican campaign that could hurt him with moderates in November.

Both the Tea Party conservatives and Obama recognize health care as one of the RINO Etch A Sketch issues:

On the Tea Party Nation website, blogger Judson Phillips wrote Thursday that the Etch A Sketch image "is what conservatives have been warning about for months with Romney."

"He is a liberal. He has no core convictions and as soon as he becomes the nominee, he will move far to the left," Phillips continued.

The caricature of Romney as a politically motivated flip-flopper extends far beyond the Republican campaign and right-wing blogosphere.

President Obama told Public Radio International that Romney is "pretending" the health care plan he instituted in Massachusetts is different than the national plan that he got passed two years ago Friday. Republican opponents have made the the Massachusetts reform that Romney oversaw as governor a frequent attack on Romney's conviction.

Obama pointed to the similarities between the two plans without mentioning the Republican front-runner by name.

"We designed a program that actually previously had support of Republicans, including the person who may end up being the Republican standard bearer and is now pretending like he came up with something different," the president said.

Former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle joked about Romney at a dinner Wednesday night honoring fellow former Senate Majority Leaders Bob Dole and Howard Baker for their legacies of bipartisanship.

"Tonight, we are here to honor two distinct, different Republicans -- and no, I'm not talking about Mitt Romney," Daschle said.

And remember a year ago how Daschle welcomed former governor and Fischer Rounds Insurance mogul Mike Rounds to the Obamacare task force:

Former South Dakota Gov. Mike Rounds is back in the insurance game, but he hasn't left public policy and politics behind.

Rounds said Friday that he has joined a task force affiliated with the Bipartisan Policy Center in Washington, D.C., where former South Dakota Sen. Tom Daschle has been a co-leader in health care reform work since 2008.

Rounds said he will be a co-chairman in a new health care initiative along with Daschle, former U.S. Sen. Bill Frist of Tennessee and former Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland. The task force will examine ways for states to meet health care challenges and to address provisions of the new health care reform law.

"We're looking to find bipartisan responses to some of these things," Rounds said. "I have a real interest in the health care project, where Sen. Daschle will be actively involved."

Rounds said he liked the philosophy of the Bipartisan Policy Center, which engages people of differing political backgrounds and philosophies to seek compromise solutions to important problems.

"We don't check our credentials at the door. We bring them," Rounds said. "But we respect other points of view and look for areas where we can agree."

Daschle said Friday that he welcomes Rounds to a bipartisan effort he considers crucial to health care reform.

"It is the only way this will ever work," Daschle said of. "Our primary purpose is to explore how states can move forward in providing health insurance under the Affordable Care Act. I am delighted to be working with Gov. Rounds on this."

And as I posted before, Rounds handpicked successor has Obamacare ready to go and if any South Dakota Republican wants to have a future, you better listen to the governor. And Dennis Daugaard joined Sen. John Thune, who is promoting Romney, in the Argus Leader to complain about Obamacare. And sadly most South Dakota Republicans will be fooled by it.