Guest Author – Dakota Voice http://www.dakotavoice.com Exposing the pernicious lie Thu, 04 Sep 2014 11:52:16 +0000 en-US hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=4.8.5 Morality is Divinely Inspired http://www.dakotavoice.com/2011/12/morality-is-divinely-inspired/ Tue, 13 Dec 2011 13:00:49 +0000 http://www.dakotavoice.com/?p=62355 The American colonist’s believed it was necessary to build a moral culture in their communities if their experiment in self-government was to be successful. Their schools taught the moral values of Jesus Christ as recorded in the New Testament. But some 50 years ago, secularism became the new religion in our schools--bringing with it the tragedy of Columbine and similar incidents repeated every year.

]]>
A page from the 1690 New England Primer, a central textbook of American schools for more than a century (Source: Wikimedia Commons)

Dr. Thomas Udager
Board Vice Chair, Family Heritage Alliance

The American colonist’s believed it was necessary to build a moral culture in their communities if their experiment in self-government was to be successful. Their schools taught the moral values of Jesus Christ as recorded in the New Testament. Thomas Jefferson professed that, “The teachings of Jesus Christ are the most sublime moral instruction known to man”. Ruth Feldman in her book “Don’t Whistle in School,” says that schools in the original 13 colonies opened and closed their day with prayer. The first qualification for a teacher was that he or she be a Christian. The primary purpose of education was to teach the students to read so that they could study God’s word in the Bible. Benjamin Franklin believed that “only a virtuous people are capable of freedom”.

In the mid-19th century Charles Darwin wrote “Origin of Species,” in which he speculated that man was not created by God. Secularists, who do not have a moral base of faith in God, took encouragement from his writing and began a campaign to remove the influence of the Bible from public schools, but even as late as the 1950’s Christian moral values still shaped young students in our schools.

In 1963 the Supreme Court removed prayer from public schools and in 1980 they removed the Ten Commandments. Secularism became the new religion in our schools and morality and scholarship have both declined to this day. Alexander Solzhenitsyn was asked why there has been cultural decay in western nations and he replied, “Man has forgotten God, that is why this has happened.”

Without moral direction in our schools over the last 50 years, we have come to the tragedy of Columbine. The Colorado State Board of Education, after serious introspection in the wake of that tragedy, issued a letter stating in part, “We must remember, respect, and unashamedly take pride in the fact that our schools like our country, found their origin and draw their strength from the faith based morality that is at the heart of our national character. Today our schools have become so fearful of affirming one religion or value over another that they have banished them all. In doing so they have abdicated their historic role in the moral formation of our youth and thereby alienated themselves from our people’s deep spiritual sensibilities.”

The Colorado State Board of Education is saying that this nation and our schools were founded upon the principles of the Christian faith, and the strength of our character comes from the moral teachings of the Bible. Our schools and we as adults have failed to train our young people “in the way that they should go” (Prov. 22:6). The Colorado Board is challenging us to have the courage to stand and right the wrong that is devastating our young people.

The Family Heritage Alliance is based in Rapid City, South Dakota and exists to Champion the Judeo-Christian Values of Faith, Family and Freedom. The opinions, beliefs and viewpoints expressed by the various authors on this website do not necessarily reflect the opinions, beliefs and viewpoints of the Family Heritage Alliance or the official policies of the Family Heritage Alliance.

]]>
South Dakota’s New Campaign Finance System Goes Live http://www.dakotavoice.com/2011/12/south-dakotas-new-campaign-finance-system-goes-live/ Fri, 02 Dec 2011 15:00:26 +0000 http://www.dakotavoice.com/?p=61965 Today, Secretary of State Jason Gant unveiled his upgrade to South Dakota’s campaign finance reporting system to all of South Dakota, taking the system live less than a year after taking office. “This is the most significant development in campaign finance for SD in over a decade," said Gant.

]]> FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
December 1, 2011

FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Contact: Jason M. Gant (605) 773-3537

“This is the most significant development in campaign finance for SD in over a decade”

Today, Secretary of State Jason Gant unveiled his upgrade to South Dakota’s campaign finance reporting system to all of South Dakota, taking the system live less than a year after taking office.

“This is an exciting day for the State of South Dakota,” Gant said. “For a decade, South Dakota was ranked among the worst states in the nation when it came to campaign finance disclosure, consistently earning “F” grades. With our new system providing access with searchable fields, it’s a great day for open government and transparency in South Dakota.”

The on-line ledger system for candidates, known as the Campaign Accounting Statement History system, or C.A.S.H. system for short, allows candidates to track their campaign receipts and expenditures on-line as an accounting ledger. “When the candidate is ready to submit their report, they simply hit a button which will automatically populate fields in their report,” Gant said.

With data being entered by candidates on-line, the public, for the first time have the ability to directly search donors and expenditures, as opposed to the old system which only provided access to imaged paper documents.

Gant recently demonstrated the system to legislators, as well as members of the media and the public in Rapid City and Sioux Falls. “We added the suggested changes from those meetings, and were able to finish the system.”

“C.A.S.H. will make it far easier for the public to see who is giving to candidates, as well as where they are spending their campaign dollars. The same applies for Political Action Committees (PAC’s) and political parties,” Gant said.

“2011 year-end reports are due for all candidates, political parties, political action committees by February 1, 2012,” Gant said.

]]>
An Open Letter to Sean Hannity http://www.dakotavoice.com/2011/12/an-open-letter-to-sean-hannity/ http://www.dakotavoice.com/2011/12/an-open-letter-to-sean-hannity/#comments Thu, 01 Dec 2011 13:12:48 +0000 http://www.dakotavoice.com/?p=61932 An open letter from a Sean Hannity fan who is fed up that Hannity continues to give air time to RINO mudslinger Karl Rove. "Moving on to this primary season, its clear to anyone that the GOP has promised Mitt Romney the nomination and they are doing everything they can to see that, systematically, each of his rivals are destroyed."

]]>
Dear Sean,

I’m going to start this letter with the typical “I’m a big fan” comment that so many of the seminar callers on the left use in order to get your guard down.

In my case, it’s not a ploy, but the truth.  Years ago, before I retired and needed to get up early for work, I would, several times a week, stay up to hear your late night radio show.  Back when the beloved Marty and the bawdy Carpet Kitten used to call.

Now, to get down to business and the purpose of this letter.  While I still think you are a superb and entertaining talk show host I have begun to question where your allegiances lie.

I know what you claim and I have heard your spiel, about not being a “Republican” and that you are registered as a Conservative. You’ve said it, we’ve heard it. It rings true no more.  More and more, you should become aware, your listeners are coming to the realization that repetition does not represent certification. It’s a great tool of the left, but for you Sean, it’s not cutting it. Talk is cheap, actions prevail.

As an observer and participant in the flow of information, there appears to be no other person or commentator who represents the GOP talking points, better than you.  Having said that, it is important for you to understand that I too support the Republican ideology, but I have become more and more disenchanted with GOP political operatives and agenda.

They (GOP) continue to espouse support for grass roots organizations and conservative view points while working methodically and maliciously behind the scenes to undermine those they have not anointed.  And you Sean, are their loudest and most ardent mouth piece, despite your claims to the contrary.

The most egregious thing that you continue to do, is put that GOP operative and “muck-slinger” Karl Rove on both your radio and TV shows.  He represents himself, and you attest to it,  as an objective political analyst, when by now, you must know, as most of your audience does, that his viewpoints are carefully manipulated in support of the Republican elite to which he is indeed a full member.

During the Senate races last year, the GOP and Rove wanted their RINO friend to win the US Senate Primary in Delaware and when he lost, Rove and the Republican Party did everything they could do to see that the Democrat won the general election.  There can be no excuse for that and there is no forgiving it.  Rove was the attack dog for the “spiteful” GOP and you Sean, have been and continue to be the conduit for their agenda.

Moving on to this primary season, its clear to anyone that the GOP has promised Mitt Romney the nomination and they are doing everything they can to see that, systematically, each of his rivals are destroyed.

Romney was forced out after that fiasco of primary voter manipulation took place down in Florida in the 2008 Republican primary. It was evident that the GOP had at that time, promised the nomination to McCain. It was his turn.  Romney dropped out of that race, way too soon.  Only a fool would not see that he was promised the “next turn” if he would be a good little Republican and get out of the way.  And he did.  Now, despite the pretense of allowing the Republican voters to select their nominee, Karl Rove and the GOP, with the help of Sean Hannity, clandestinely are in full subversion mode to get the “promised one” the nomination.

Bring Rove on your show, introduce him for what he is, a functioning operative of the National Republican Party, rather than the objective viewer of the process, then at least you will be honest with your viewers and yourself.

In closing, at this point, for me its way too late for Mr. Rove.  Regardless of how he is presented, I will immediately turn off whatever show he is scheduled to appear.

Sincerely,
Dwight Kehoe
www.tpath.org
November 29, 2011

PS
This letter will be posted on several websites and emailed to TPATH readers as an “Open Letter”

Dwight Kehoe is a long-time business owner in the construction industry.  He is a great American who became a leader with the Bayshore Tea Party, and started the Tea Party Advocacy Tracking Hub (TPATH) to help Tea Party groups stay informed and connected. 

]]>
http://www.dakotavoice.com/2011/12/an-open-letter-to-sean-hannity/feed/ 11
Comrade Sam: Eat Your Broccoli or Else http://www.dakotavoice.com/2011/11/comrade-sam-eat-your-broccoli-or-else/ Tue, 29 Nov 2011 19:18:26 +0000 http://www.dakotavoice.com/?p=61882 Not only do we have to eat our peas, but we might have to eat our broccoli as well. The Obama Administration reached a tyrannical high recently when, during oral arguments before the District of Columbia Court of Appeals on the constitutionality of Obamacare’s health-insurance mandate, their lawyer, Beth Brinkmann, made the claim that a law requiring Americans to eat broccoli could be constitutional.

]]>

By Rebecca DiFede
Americans for Limited Government

Not only do we have to eat our peas, but we might have to eat our broccoli as well.

The Obama Administration reached a tyrannical high recently when, during oral arguments before the District of Columbia Court of Appeals on the constitutionality of Obamacare’s health-insurance mandate, their lawyer, Beth Brinkmann, was asked whether a federal law requiring all Americans to eat broccoli would be constitutional.

Her reply? “It depends,” but she could definitely see circumstances under which it would be appropriate.

And apparently she’s not alone. As previously reported by NetRightDaily, Supreme Court Justice and notable Obamacare cheerleader Elena Kagan, when asked the same question during her confirmation hearings, stated that she had no doubt that such a law would be constitutional.

This level of power over the people by the government is horrifying. If a law can be passed to require everyone in the country to eat a certain food, what’s to stop them from deciding what clothing we can wear, who we can talk to, and where we can live?

One of the foundational principles of our government is that individual rights are enumerated and protected from the reach of Washington, D.C..  We elect officials who we entrust with certain powers, but those powers are extremely limited under the law. If the people we elected and those who they appoint to help them execute their duties truly believe that it is not an abuse of power to mandate that the entire country must eat a certain food, then I am unsure of what their definition of ‘is’, is.

The Obama Administration has tried to make decisions about the eating habits of Americans before. In another report by NetRightDaily it was noted that Madame Obama launched her Let’s Move initiative earlier this year to try to cure childhood obesity by attempting to increase the amount of stores that sell fresh produce in ‘under-served’ communities.

The First Lady also sought to rid the nation of the cartoon characters that served as the mascots for major cereal brands, (such as Toucan Sam, Tony the Tiger and the Trix rabbit), claiming that they encouraged children to make unhealthy food choices and that, upon their removal, children would somehow stop craving Fruit Loops and start begging their parents for Wheatabix.

It is exactly these kinds of decisions that strike fear into the hearts of those opposed to big government. If our illustrious president and his merry band of health nuts can mandate that we purchase health insurance and under the guise of controlling health care costs also mandate what types of foods we can eat, where they can be served and how they are marketed, what else could they take control of?

Apparently, all the healthy food concerns have left the Obama Administration hungry.  Unfortunately, they are hungry for more power over the lives of Americans who they presume to know better than.

These ravenous Obama appointees must be closely monitored, lest they bite through the tethers of mainstream constitutionality and begin creating their own tyrannical wonderland.

Rebecca DiFede is a contributing editor to Americans for Limited Government.  Americans for Limited Government is dedicated to putting the principles of limited government into action. They work with local groups across the nation to promote freedom, limited government, and the principles of the U.S. Constitution. Their goal is to harness the power of American citizens and grassroots groups in order to put the people back in charge in states across the country.

]]>
Millionaires: You Can Spend Your Money Better Than Govt Can http://www.dakotavoice.com/2011/11/millionaires-you-can-spend-your-money-better-than-govt-can/ Mon, 28 Nov 2011 19:20:22 +0000 http://www.dakotavoice.com/?p=61847 After visiting the website of Patriotic Millionaires for Fiscal Strength, the group demanding higher taxes on wealthy Americans like themselves, one may lament the defiant, don’t-tread-on-me spirit that once defined our national character. They believe that there is no problem that can’t be solved by giving more money to the federal government. Yet any millionaire could easily make better, more productive use of their money than the government ever will.

]]>
By David Bozeman
Liberty Features

After visiting the website of Patriotic Millionaires for Fiscal Strength, the group demanding higher taxes on wealthy Americans like themselves, one may lament the defiant, don’t-tread-on-me spirit that once defined our national character.

It is not merely that these millionaires mimic the schoolroom apple-polisher who reminds the teacher that she forgot to assign homework (which they do), they are more like the choir members in the church of the benevolent state.  They believe that there is no problem that can’t be solved by giving more money to the federal government.

In fact, they demanded that any deal reached by the Super Committee include a tax rate for incomes over a million dollars of at least 39 percent — a few months ago, the call was for higher taxes only on the super rich, funny how the threshold in public debate keeps falling!  By promoting despair and dependency, statists have promised to cure America’s ills by dragging us to the brink of bankruptcy, but like curing alcoholism by offering another cocktail, we are to believe that cutting larger checks to a federal government that has a spending addiction and not a revenue problem will fix our financial woes.

But these millionaires claim that they’re only fulfilling their patriotic duty.  Speaking as a citizen who earns far less, might I suggest a few better uses for their extra funds than feeding the insatiable federal beast.

1)  Grow the economy.  Create jobs and stimulate revenue here in the USA.  Whatever happened to enterprise zones?  Not only in inner cities but in suburbs and small towns, businesses have moved out and large buildings sit vacant year after year.  With America’s innate can-do spirit, this is inexcusable.  Could it be that local zoning laws and regulations stifle business creation?  Survey the business climate throughout the country and change it when and where possible.

2) Economic education.  As a graduate of government schools, I was never taught the concept of capitalism, and only on my own did I discover the writings of Adam Smith and Milton Friedman.  While I cannot fully attest to the current state of economic teaching, I will submit that a few lessons in wealth and job creation are almost surely in order.  Like national campaigns touting math and science as cool, how about a national resource center to teach anyone interested in creating, investing and maintaining wealth, explaining it philosophically as well as practically?  Why not a scholarship program to send poor and middle-class students (of any age) to business and technical schools, and thus breed a few less disgruntled Art History graduates banging drums on Wall Street?  Obviously, every citizen can’t benefit, but maybe we can nudge a few more citizens into setting an example of the unlimited potential of individual initiative.

3)  A national campaign for American exceptionalism.  As Reagan knew, Americans and our founding ideals are not the problem.  American leadership is.  By embracing freedom and the fulfillment of individual ambition among our highest ideals, we lead the way for the rest of the world.  It is time for America to believe again in the greatness of our fundamental values as a beacon for future generations.

4)  Throw the bums out.  Sorry for the cliche, but use those millions to fund candidates who value capitalism and ordinary citizens as the triggers of economic growth.  Elect a president and Congress that will simplify our over-burdensome tax code.

5)  Pay down the debt yourselves.  The patriotic millionaires get testy when you challenge them to put their money where their mouths are.  Their contribution alone, they remind us, won’t pay down the debt. Still, it would be a start and might well challenge others.  But they must first demand a guarantee that any funds beyond their tax obligations be placed in a special fund solely for debt reduction (and even that is no guarantee), lest the tax and spend cycle continues.

Of course, nothing here is meant as a guarantee.  We’re in uncharted water, here, and our problems are as cultural and psychological as they are fiscal. Still, I would rather place my faith in the wealth creators than in a behemoth that swallows money, micro-manages lives and diminishes expectations.

David Bozeman, former Libertarian Party Chairman, is a Liberty Features Syndicated writer.

]]>
SD Sec of State: Sales Tax Increase Will Be on 2012 Ballot http://www.dakotavoice.com/2011/11/sd-sec-of-state-sales-tax-increase-will-be-on-2012-ballot/ Wed, 23 Nov 2011 15:00:25 +0000 http://www.dakotavoice.com/?p=61689 Today, Secretary of State Jason Gant announced that the petitions submitted for an initiated measure to increase South Dakota sales tax has passed the petition certification process, and will be placed on the November 2012 general election ballot.

]]>
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
November 23, 2011

FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Contact: Jason M. Gant (605) 773-3537

Today, Secretary of State Jason Gant announced that the petitions submitted for an initiated measure to increase South Dakota sales tax has passed the petition certification process, and will be placed on the November 2012 general election ballot. The measure, described in its title as “an initiated measure to increase state general sales and use taxes for additional K-12 public education and Medicaid funding,” will now appear on the 2012 ballot as Initiated Measure 15.

“From our 5% sample of 1,763 signatures, we validated 1,434 out of the 35,251 officially submitted, and invalidated 329 for various reasons including lack of voter registration, improperly filling out the petitions, legibility, and notary public errors. Invalid signatures comprised 18.66% of the total signatures sampled, and under state law, the number of valid signatures sampled was sufficient for the measure to pass validation for the ballot,” Gant said. “If we extrapolate the valid signatures, as per South Dakota Law, they submitted 28,673 valid signatures, well over the minimum requirement of 15,855 needed.”

“Any group wishing to challenge the validation has 5 business days, which will be Friday, the 2nd of December,” Gant said.

Gant noted, “This measure marks the final initiated measure that will appear on the 2012 general election. The legislature does have the option to include constitutional measures on the ballot, and citizens have the ability to refer laws passed this next session. Initiated Measure 15 now joins Referred Law 14, a referral of the Governor’s large project fund, on the 2012 ballot.”

Any petitions submitted to Gant’s office can be monitored via Twitter. “Our office enjoyed keeping people up to date on our review of petitions through our Twitter account @SOSGant. By going to Twitter.com, taxpayers can have the most current information coming out of our office on our current projects and issues we’re addressing. ”

]]>
Clarification on South Dakota Trademark Law http://www.dakotavoice.com/2011/11/clarification-on-south-dakota-trademark-law/ Wed, 23 Nov 2011 00:15:30 +0000 http://www.dakotavoice.com/?p=61645 Secretary of State Jason Gant noted today that the public should be aware that South Dakota Law places certain restrictions on trademarks, and those seeking to trademark their name for exclusive use need not apply. Gant clarified that personal names and geographical place names are not eligible to trademark. Recently, some have tried to trademark “Sturgis” and “Black Hills,” and a state prison inmate sued actor Mike Rowe because they share the same name.

]]>
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
November 28, 2011

FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Contact: Jason M. Gant (605) 773-3537

What’s in a name? Secretary of State Jason Gant reminds trademark applicants that names and cities cannot be trademarked for exclusive use under South Dakota Law.

Secretary of State Jason Gant noted today that the public should be aware that South Dakota Law places certain restrictions on trademarks, and those seeking to trademark their name for exclusive use need not apply.

“South Dakota law does not allow persons to simply trademark a name or a location to deny its use to others. Any trademark registration with a name or location can only be used in connection with additionally descriptive terms distinctive of the applicant’s goods or services,” Gant said. “In other words, I couldn’t trademark the name “Jason Gant” in South Dakota, but I could trademark “Jason Gant Widgets.”

“The same goes for geographically descriptive terms such as “Black Hills,” or “Spearfish.” In the past, based on state law, our office has denied such requests based on SDCL 37-6-10,” Gant said.

“The key for trademark applicants is that the requirement for a trademark is that a term’s use must be distinctive. You can protect the identity and distinctiveness of your product, but you can’t deny someone the use of their name, just because they might have the same name.“

Mike Rowe (Photo credit: Hell's Kitchen)

Controversies over protecting names have arisen recently due to a group in Sturgis filing for federal trademark protection for “Sturgis,” and “Black Hills” and a state prison inmate suing actor Mike Rowe because they share the same name. Gant noted, “In the case of trademarking “Sturgis” and “Black Hills,” this only could have taken place at the federal level, because my office has and will continue to reject similar applications, based on 37-6-10. Unfortunately, the parties involved are left to fight that battle in federal court.”

“In the case of South Dakota’s Mike Rowe bringing suit against Mike Rowe, the narrator of The Deadliest Catch, for virtue of having the same name, everyone has their right to have their day in court. However, anyone attempting to trademark a personal name for their own exclusive use would find their application rejected in South Dakota.”

]]>
ObamaCare Fight Involves More Than Just SCOTUS http://www.dakotavoice.com/2011/11/obamacare-fight-involves-more-than-just-scotus/ Wed, 16 Nov 2011 19:00:25 +0000 http://www.dakotavoice.com/?p=61455 While the Supreme Court decides the fate of Obamacare, there is no pause in the bureaucratic battle over Obamacare’s implementation. Since the passage of Obamacare a year and a half ago, there have been over 50 regulations. The regulatory documents that make up these regulations contain, by our count, 1,568,482 words. To put that into context, as massive as Obamacare was, its two statutes together consist of only 425,116 words.

]]>

By John Vinci
Americans for Limited Government 

While the Supreme Court decides the fate of Obamacare, there is no pause in the bureaucratic battle over Obamacare’s implementation.

Since the passage of Obamacare a year and a half ago, there have been over 50 regulations.  The regulatory documents that make up these regulations contain, by our count, 1,568,482 words.  To put that into context, as massive as Obamacare was, its two statutes together consist of only 425,116 words.   That makes Obamacare’s implementing regulations 350 percent the length of Obamacare itself.

One regulation, the Medical Loss Ratio, not only puts health insurance agents’ jobs at risk, it threatens to destabilize the insurance markets of entire states by forcing insurers to close their doors providing fewer options for consumers.  When the damage this regulation could do became clear, the Obama Administration chose to offer waivers to reduce the regulation’s burden for select states.  So far, 17 states have applied for this waiver certifying to the Obama Administration that, in the view of their insurance commissioner, this regulation would destabilize their state’s individual insurance market.

The Obama Administration has also had to issue over 1,500 waivers in order to prevent millions of Americans from losing their low-cost insurance plans due to a regulation that mandates minimum annual and lifetime limits on health claims.

Many of the organizations granted these waivers were unions — the same unions that supported the passage of Obamacare.  But when a recent regulation required insurance plans to offer free contraceptives (including those some consider to be abortion-inducing) the Obama Administration offered only a limited waiver for “houses of worship.”  It thus excludes all non-church religious organizations and forces them to provide medical products and services that violate their consciences.

While the Obama Administration has yet to release the total number of comments it has received on this regulation one report suggests it may be as many as tens of thousands.

We’d like to see this same response to all Obamacare regulations.

That’s why we’re encouraging thousands of Americans to voice their opinions.  For every Obamacare regulation open for comment, ObamacareWatcher.org provides a link to the appropriate Regulations.gov form where you can submit your comment electronically.  It also provides a brief summary of each regulation’s contents, links to text and PDF versions of the regulation, and links to appropriate articles on our website.

Unlike a letter written to your congressman, federal agencies have a legal duty to respond to every argument the public submits to them.  More than that, they must provide a reasoned response to such arguments.

Our attorneys on staff have written and submitted over a dozen of our own comments.  We exposed errors in the cost analysis of the indoor tanning tax regulation.  And when one regulation claimed that preventive services would save money, we pointed out that they had cherry picked a handful of cost-saving preventive services out of a study but ignored the 80 percent of preventive services in the study that do not have a cost-saving effect.  In several comments we have charged the Administration with overstepping its statutory limits.  In all of our comments we have championed limited and responsible government.

And we will continue to champion limited government as we monitor upcoming regulations — not the least of which is the Essential Health Benefit definition. The EHB definition will determine not only what minimum services health insurance plans must cover — they will necessarily determine how expensive those plans will be.

These are just a few examples of the daily activities of the Obama bureaucracy as they implement his signature health care law.  The changes they propose today, may very well become the law of the land tomorrow, so it is in everyone’s interest to stay up to date on the latest regulations.

ObamacareWatcher.org is the only site that provides a comprehensive review of Obamacare from a limited government perspective while providing a portal to the public portal for commenting on regulations that will impact their lives.

To keep up with Obamacare regulatory developments and to voice your opinion to the Obama Administration, visit ObamacareWatcher.org.

John Vinci is a staff attorney with Americans for Limited Government who specializes in health care policy.  Americans for Limited Government is dedicated to putting the principles of limited government into action. They work with local groups across the nation to promote freedom, limited government, and the principles of the U.S. Constitution. Their goal is to harness the power of American citizens and grassroots groups in order to put the people back in charge in states across the country.

]]>
Slaying Herman Cain Along With the Dream http://www.dakotavoice.com/2011/11/slaying-herman-cain-along-with-the-dream/ http://www.dakotavoice.com/2011/11/slaying-herman-cain-along-with-the-dream/#comments Wed, 09 Nov 2011 19:18:00 +0000 http://www.dakotavoice.com/?p=61183 Dr. Alveda King released a statement today defending Herman Cain against his attackers, stating that Cain naysayers want to slay the American Dream--and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s dream. "These are political ploys by the establishment to attempt a high tech lynching akin to racial profiling in a vicious attempt to eliminate this man who has the courage to present life affirming solutions for America's problems."

]]>

Dr. Alveda King

Contact: Eugene Vigil, 757-593-9982

ATLANTA, Nov. 9, 2011 /Christian Newswire/ — The following statement is submitted by Alveda King:

Once again, the American Dream is under attack. Cain naysayers hope to ‘slay the dreamer.’ The establishment is horrified by Mr. Cain because of what he represents. Mr. Cain is the epitome of the American dream; he grew up poor, worked his way up to success through hard work using a work ethic he inherited from his father and mother. He’s a true bootstraps story.

Mr. Cain is the fulfillment of Dr. Martin Luther King’s dream. He lived the Black American experience in the South and, by the content of his character – not the color of his skin, he has studied hard, worked hard, successfully run corporations, had a successful radio show and now aspires to the office of President of the United States. Like Martin Luther King, Mr. Cain graduated from Morehouse College, is a minister of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and is not a politician. Mr. Cain has done all this because he loves this country and not out of some sense of self-importance.

If the general presidential election features two black men of opposing political views and Black America has an honest political debate, the Democrats would lose a portion of their 90% stranglehold on the Black vote.

If we have an honest discussion on whether the war on poverty should be fought with welfare or with economic growth in the private sector, Democrats will lose Black votes. When Mr. Cain says that our welfare system has held blacks back, and that it promotes single parent households, that it kills incentive and breeds a culture of, helplessness; he is correct. As this truth resonates, the establishment knows that we will see more blacks becoming economic conservatives. So their answer? Slay the dreamer.

When Mr. Cain says that abortion is bad business, and is hurting America and denying our youngest the civil right to, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, that is a dangerous discussion.

This is all a dangerous discussion for President Obama and the establishment to have. A strong, charismatic Black conservative like Mr. Cain on such a large platform is dangerous; he threatens their voting block. Not only does the Cain policy threaten them, but also the fact that his life story personifies his policy rocks the establishment. What are their options? Mr. Cain’s opponents will use the media in their to attempts to assassinate Mr. Cain’s character.

Sounds like history in action here; Joseph was accused of sexual harassment by Potipher’s wife. Sampson was targeted by Delilah. Am I suggesting that sexual harassment doesn’t exist? Of course not: I was a victim of what some consider to be sexual harassment as a young woman.

When I went for a job interview, the male interviewer commented that I had pretty legs, and he looked at my legs. I responded in this manner: “Sir, I am someone’s wife, mother and daughter. Would you like the women you care about to have an experience like this?” His eyes immediately turned to my job application and he asked: “when can you report for your competence exam?” I was offered that job. No court, no attempt to destroy his character, just a correction which was received.

These baseless allegations about Mr. Cain remind us of the story of The Crucible, where many people lied and said they “saw Goody dance with the devil,” when in fact they were trying to cover up acts which they themselves were involved in, with the hopes that the strength of numbers of the accusers would lead to hysteria and make their allegations more believable. The Crucible teaches us that we must not be swayed by the number of the accusers but the validity of the accusations. These are political ploys by the establishment to attempt a high tech lynching akin to racial profiling in a vicious attempt to eliminate this man who has the courage to present life affirming solutions for America’s problems.

Someone please call 9-9-9.

]]>
http://www.dakotavoice.com/2011/11/slaying-herman-cain-along-with-the-dream/feed/ 1
Curb on EPA Farm Dust Regulations Moving Forward http://www.dakotavoice.com/2011/11/curb-on-epa-farm-dust-regulations-moving-forward/ http://www.dakotavoice.com/2011/11/curb-on-epa-farm-dust-regulations-moving-forward/#comments Thu, 03 Nov 2011 23:18:16 +0000 http://www.dakotavoice.com/?p=60926 he Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Energy and Power, chaired by Rep. Ed Whitfield (R-KY), today approved bipartisan legislation to provide much-needed certainty and regulatory relief to America’s farmers, ranchers, and rural businesses. H.R. 1633, the Farm Dust Regulation Prevention Act, passed the panel by a vote of 12-9 and now moves to the full Energy and Commerce Committee for consideration.

]]>

John Deer combine (Photo credit: Peter Facey)

PRESS RELEASE
Rep. Kristi Noem (R-SD)

WASHINGTON, DC – The Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Energy and Power, chaired by Rep. Ed Whitfield (R-KY), today approved bipartisan legislation to provide much-needed certainty and regulatory relief to America’s farmers, ranchers, and rural businesses. H.R. 1633, the Farm Dust Regulation Prevention Act, passed the panel by a vote of 12-9 and now moves to the full Energy and Commerce Committee for consideration.

H.R. 1633, introduced by Reps. Kristi Noem (R-SD) and Leonard Boswell (D-IA), addresses the threat of increased federal regulation of dust by preventing EPA from imposing more stringent federal dust standards. It also exempts nuisance dust from EPA regulation where dust is already regulated under state, tribal, or local law.  The bill passed with an amendment introduced by Rep. Mike Pompeo (R-KS) clarifying the definition of nuisance dust to underscore that the bill does not exempt particulate matter generated from combustion, such as from industrial facilities and power plants.

While EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson has announced the agency’s intent to propose retaining the current dust standards, uncertainty still remains. Without this legislation, EPA’s standard could change during the rulemaking process or as the result of legal challenges. In fact, EPA made changes to its original dust standard proposals in 1996 and 2006 during the review process.

Because EPA staff recommended consideration of a more stringent standard, rural Americans remain concerned that the standards could change and believe this legislation is necessary to protect the rural economy. Farmers and ranchers are already subject to a number of costly EPA dust regulations. Over 125 stakeholders have voiced support for the legislation which they say would “bring some much needed certainty to agriculture and other rural resource-based industries during these current perilous economic and regulatory times.”

“Even under the current standard, there is extensive regulation of rural dust, and EPA has been considering a range of more stringent alternatives.  We applaud Administrator Jackson’s recent statement that she has decided she will propose a rule that retains the existing standard that covers farm dust.  But there are many reasons why this falls short of providing certainty for farmers and ranchers,” said Whitfield. “This bill provides needed certainty that the agricultural sector and rural America will not be burdened with costly new EPA dust regulations.”

“Like virtually everything we have done this year, this bill is about jobs. It’s about regulatory certainty and relief. It’s about making government work for America, so that Americans can get back to work,” said Energy and Commerce Chairman Fred Upton (R-MI).

“Today’s vote is a huge win for farmers and ranchers who are concerned about regulatory certainty.  Anyone who has driven a combine through a field knows that dust is a part of rural living.  It is hard to think of something more symbolic of Washington’s regulatory overreach than the potential punishment of farmers and livestock producers for kicking up dust,” said Noem.

Rep. Robert Hurt (R-VA), an original sponsor of the legislation, welcomed today’s vote by stating, “At a time when our economy is struggling to recover, we simply cannot afford to continue to perpetuate unnecessary regulations and uncertainty for farmers and small businesses in our rural communities. I look forward to the full committee’s consideration of this important jobs legislation.”

]]>
http://www.dakotavoice.com/2011/11/curb-on-epa-farm-dust-regulations-moving-forward/feed/ 2
Rep. Noem Announces Missouri River Flood Hearing http://www.dakotavoice.com/2011/11/rep-noem-announces-missouri-river-flood-hearing/ Thu, 03 Nov 2011 18:16:07 +0000 http://www.dakotavoice.com/?p=60915 Rep. Kristi Noem (R-SD) announced today that the U.S. House Missouri River Flood Working Group will hold a hearing in Washington, DC on November 30th to discuss the Missouri River flooding of 2011. The Working Group has agreed that their top goal is to make flood control a greater priority in Missouri River management.

]]>

A home beginning to flood on Spyglass Circle. This home is located in the southern section of Dakota Dunes next to the Missouri River. (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers photo by Jay Woods)

WASHINGTON, DC – U.S. Representative Kristi Noem (R-SD) announced today that the U.S. House Missouri River Flood Working Group will hold a hearing in Washington, DC on November 30th to discuss the Missouri River flooding of 2011. The group received approval from House Transportation & Infrastructure Committee Chairman John L. Mica (R-FL) to host the hearing through the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment.

“The waters may have already receded but we are not done asking questions about how this year’s flooding happened and what we can to do to make sure it doesn’t happen the next time we have a wet winter and spring,” said Noem. “This hearing will give working group members a chance to get additional answers from the Corps of Engineers and others.”

The Working Group has agreed that their top goal is to make flood control a greater priority in Missouri River management. Some are concerned the Corps won’t modify management based on 2011 and we could be in this same position in 2012. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is currently conducting public meetings for its 2012 Annual Operating Plan of the Missouri River system. The November 30 hearing will be a chance for House members to voice questions and concerns about the 2012 plan and press the Corps if decisions made this year had any impact on their plan for next year.

]]>
South Dakota Sales Tax Increase Petitions Submitted http://www.dakotavoice.com/2011/11/south-dakota-sales-tax-increase-petitions-submitted/ http://www.dakotavoice.com/2011/11/south-dakota-sales-tax-increase-petitions-submitted/#comments Tue, 01 Nov 2011 18:13:25 +0000 http://www.dakotavoice.com/?p=60860 Secretary of State Jason M. Gant just announced that officials from the South Dakota Education Association (SDEA) and the South Dakota Association of Health Care Organizations (SDAHO) appeared at his office today to turn in petitions for a measure to place a one percent sales tax increase on the ballot, with the purpose of the additional funds raised by the tax increase to go towards education and Medicaid.

]]>
Secretary of State Jason M. Gant just announced that officials from the South Dakota Education Association (SDEA) and the South Dakota Association of Health Care Organizations (SDAHO) appeared at his office today to turn in petitions for a measure to place a one percent sales tax increase on the ballot, with the purpose of the additional funds raised by the tax increase to go towards education and Medicaid. The measure is described in its title as “an initiated measure to increase state general sales and use taxes for additional K-12 public education and Medicaid funding.”

Gant noted, “The petition circulators estimated that they were submitting over 33,000 signatures to refer the measure to a vote at the next General Election. The process now is to validate the measure for the ballot which will involve checking signatures and verifications, including a mandatory audit of 5% of the signatures. 33,000 total signatures would require us to validate roughly 1,650 signatures as part of the audit. A minimum of 15,855 valid signatures are required to place the measure on the November 2012 General Election ballot.”

Gant said, “Today marks the final deadline for any initiated measures to be submitted to my office. As of today, the only citizen initiated measures set for the 2012 ballot are the HB 1230 referred law measure, which completed petitioning in June and will appear on the ballot as Referred Law 14. And, if today’s measure successfully completes our signature review, it will be designated as Initiated Measure 15. ”

As a nod to the social media technologies that the Secretary of State’s office has embraced, petitions can be monitored via Twitter. “Our office will be keeping people up to date on our review of the initiated measure petitions through our Twitter account @SOSGant. By going to twitter.com, and following us, they’ll have the most current information on where we are in the process.”

]]>
http://www.dakotavoice.com/2011/11/south-dakota-sales-tax-increase-petitions-submitted/feed/ 1
Taxpayer Subsidies for Drug Use http://www.dakotavoice.com/2011/10/taxpayer-subsidies-for-drug-use/ http://www.dakotavoice.com/2011/10/taxpayer-subsidies-for-drug-use/#comments Wed, 26 Oct 2011 18:20:50 +0000 http://www.dakotavoice.com/?p=60483 Recently, federal Judge Mary Scriven in Florida issued a temporary injunction against the law which requires all candidates for welfare to be drug tested. Judge Scriven’s crusade against welfare drug-testing, backed by the ACLU, is nothing short of ridiculous. It assumes that receiving welfare is a right deserving of constitutional protection.

]]>

By Rebecca DiFede

Recently, a federal court judge in Florida issued a temporary injunction against the law which requires all candidates for welfare to be drug tested. Within her 37 page order Judge Mary Scriven stipulated that her reason for blocking the law was that it might violate the citizens 4th amendment rights against unreasonable search and seizure.

This event stemmed from a suit brought against the state by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) on behalf of a man named Luis Lebron. Lebron applied and qualified for welfare, but refused to take a drug test because he maintained that there was no evidence that he used drugs, and therefore no need to test him.

Governor Rick Scott signed the bill into law on May 31st and said that “Hopefully more people will focus on not using illegal drugs.” In order to determine whether or not someone has been using drugs, as we have seen time and time again with addicts, it is not sufficient to simply ask them. Gov. Scott’s deputy press secretary Jackie Schutz remarked that, “Drug testing welfare recipients is just a common-sense way to ensure that welfare dollars are used to help children and get parents back to work.”

Judge Scriven’s crusade against welfare drug-testing, backed by the ACLU, is nothing short of ridiculous. It assumes that receiving welfare is a right deserving of constitutional protection.

Those who apply for taxpayer assistance through welfare have decided that they are willing to accept the stipulations that taxpayers through their elected representatives have established.

While hidden behind high-minded rhetoric, it is clear that refusing to take the test and saying it is a violation of their rights is simply a way to avoid taking responsibility for the way recipients spend the welfare money taxpayers gave to them. There is no reason to not want to prove one is clean and sober.

Once again, the Obama Administration is proposing more laws to allow for more tax dollars to flow unhindered from our pockets to those of those anxiously awaiting their welfare check.  It is certainly reasonable to make sure that they are using the money productively and not for drugs.

When waiting to board an airplane, the vast majority of passengers aren’t carrying anything more dangerous than an 80’s Christmas sweater, however they do not insist on not being searched because there is no suspicion that there is any contraband in their bag.

As NetRightDaily has previously reported, students in Michigan who qualified for welfare were caught using their EBT cards for beer and cigarettes, hardly life essentials, so it is not without cause that the state of Florida wishes to screen its welfare recipients.

Government assistance is to help people who don’t make enough money to survive to purchase food and other items which are necessary for their day to day sustenance.  One way to make sure this money is not getting abused is to test the applicants before handing over their check.

The government is giving away the taxpayers’ money, and they should be allowed to choose the requirements for those whom they choose to send that money to.  The people of Florida should hope the injunction put in place by Judge Scriven gets appealed because if not, it will give people who are receiving aid even more excuses to remain on the taxpayers’ dime.

Rebecca DiFede is a contributing editor to Americans for Limited Government.  Americans for Limited Government is dedicated to putting the principles of limited government into action. They work with local groups across the nation to promote freedom, limited government, and the principles of the U.S. Constitution. Their goal is to harness the power of American citizens and grassroots groups in order to put the people back in charge in states across the country.

]]>
http://www.dakotavoice.com/2011/10/taxpayer-subsidies-for-drug-use/feed/ 1
Myth vs. Fact on EPA Regulation of Farm Dust http://www.dakotavoice.com/2011/10/myth-vs-fact-on-epa-regulation-of-farm-dust/ http://www.dakotavoice.com/2011/10/myth-vs-fact-on-epa-regulation-of-farm-dust/#comments Wed, 26 Oct 2011 18:15:24 +0000 http://www.dakotavoice.com/?p=60488 The following is from a press release from Rep. Kristi Noem's (R-SD) office concerning the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) efforts to regulate dust on farms. Rep. Noem has sponsored legislation to prevent the EPA from intruding in this area. The release deals with erroneous beliefs concerning the EPA, farm dust, and attempts to regulate yet another area of American's lives.

]]>

Rep. Noem and Rep. Hurt (R-VA) discussing their bill that would provide farmers and ranchers with relief from further dust regulation by the EPA. (From Rep. Noem's Photostream)

The following is from a press release from Rep. Kristi Noem’s (R-SD) office concerning the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) efforts to regulate dust on farms. Rep. Noem has sponsored legislation to prevent the EPA from intruding in this area.

OVERVIEW: HR 1633 is a bipartisan bill that addresses the regulation of dust, which is subject to regulation under the Environmental Protection Agency’s standard for coarse particulate matter (“PM10”) within its National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) program. EPA is currently conducting a review of that standard.

DESCRIPTION: The bill uses a two-pronged approach to eliminate uncertainty for rural America about federal regulation of farm dust. First, it provides immediate relief to farmers and rural areas by preventing revision of the current dust standard for one year from the date of enactment. Second, it provides additional regulatory relief by exempting “nuisance dust”[1]from EPA regulation if such dust is regulated under state, tribal, or local law. Under the bill, the EPA would continue to be authorized to regulate such dust in geographic areas where it is not regulated at the state or local level if the nuisance dust is found to cause substantial adverse public health and welfare effects, and the benefits outweigh the costs.

MYTH:  The EPA doesn’t regulate dust.  This is a “phantom issue.”

FACT:  EPA already regulates dust including farm dust.  As part of a regularly scheduled 5-year review of NAAQS for particulate matter, EPA is reviewing its standard for “coarse” particulate matter. Coarse particulate matter includes particles between 2.5 to 10 micrometers in diameter, and is commonly known as “PM10,” or dust.

MYTH:  Didn’t EPA recently say they aren’t going to change their regulatory standards?

FACT:  Although EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson recently said that she plans to propose retaining the current standard, EPA could still finalize a standard that is different from the proposed standard. This occurred in both the 1996 and 2006 reviews of the PM10 standard.

MYTH:  The EPA has said they won’t change their standard which means no changes for 5 years.

FACT:  Without legislation, an EPA proposal to retain the current standard could still be challenged in court and eventually modified, imposing greater burdens and costs on rural America. EPA itself added to the regulatory uncertainty earlier this year when it produced conflicting recommendations for the current PM10 standard – one recommendation to keep the current standard and another recommendation to lower the level, despite uncertainty about a scientific justification for modifying the standard.  By directing the Administrator not to change the current PM10 standard, HR 1633 eliminates regulatory uncertainty associated with the current rulemaking process.

MYTH:  Rural dust is just as dangerous as urban dust.

FACT:  There is no scientific evidence that says rural dust is as dangerous as other dust, including urban dust.

MYTH:  States can’t be trusted to regulate dust, that’s the job of the EPA.

FACT:  State and local regulators have developed nuisance dust control measures that are currently being implemented in rural America. Dust is an inherently local issue. Different environmental and geographic characteristics mean effective dust control can vary from region to region. HR 1633 exempts nuisance dust from federal regulation where it is already subject to regulation under state, tribal, or local law.  Yet it is important to remember, HR 1633 preserves EPA’s authority to regulate such nuisance dust under its NAAQS program where such dust is not regulated at the state or local level, and the EPA Administrator finds substantial adverse public health and welfare effects and that the benefits of EPA regulation outweigh the costs.

MYTH:  This is a partisan political issue, not something that “real people” care about.

FACT:  A group of over 100 agriculture organizations have voiced their support for this bipartisan bill saying, “[the bill] would bring some much needed certainty to agriculture and other rural resource-based industries during these current perilous economic and regulatory times… HR 1633 is common sense legislation that retains the protections of the Clean Air Act and, at the same time, would stop EPA’s regulatory overreach.” Signers of the letter include South Dakota Association of Cooperatives, South Dakota Cattlemen’s Association, South Dakota Corn Growers Association, South Dakota Farm Bureau, South Dakota Sheep Growers Association, and South Dakota Soybean Association.  The South Dakota Stock Growers have also voiced their support for the bill along with Western Business Roundtable, National Federation of Independent Business, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce .

[1] “Nuisance dust” is defined in the bill as “particulate matter (1) generated from natural sources, unpaved roads, agricultural activities, earth moving, or other activities typically conducted in rural areas; or (2) consisting primarily of soil, other biological materials, windblown dust, or some combination thereof.”

]]>
http://www.dakotavoice.com/2011/10/myth-vs-fact-on-epa-regulation-of-farm-dust/feed/ 1
RINO Redistricting Reprisal? http://www.dakotavoice.com/2011/10/rino-redistricting-reprisal/ http://www.dakotavoice.com/2011/10/rino-redistricting-reprisal/#comments Thu, 20 Oct 2011 11:03:22 +0000 http://www.dakotavoice.com/?p=60247 Obviously, some changes are to be expected whenever redistricting is necessary - and inevitably some primaries are likely to result when changes like this are made. But it now appears that several pro-life legislators will be forced to run against each other in the next election, and thus reduce the number of conservative pro-life votes in the South Dakota Legislature. Is this by design by the RINO establishment?

]]>
By Federal Farmer

As many of you are now aware, there will be some significant changes taking place in legislative districts across South Dakota due to the results of the 2010 Census and the resulting redistricting process that is now in its final stages.

On the east side of the state, in appears that the redistricting process will result in four additional House seats and two additional Senate seats for the Sioux Falls area.

In addition, according to published reports, including this one quoted in the Mitchell Daily Republic, the redistricting will result in several current Republican legislators being forced into primaries. Several of those legislators reside in the Sioux Falls area including the ones mentioned in the quote below:

The legislative committee’s recommendations also would create a Republican primary in a Minnehaha County district between three House incumbents. They are Rep. Bob Deelstra, of Hartford, Rep. Steve Hickey, of Sioux Falls and Rep. Lora Hubbel, of Sioux Falls. All are serving their first terms.

Now obviously, some changes are to be expected whenever redistricting is necessary – and inevitably some primaries are likely to result when changes like this are made. And with a redistricting committee composed of 12 Republicans and 3 Democrats, there are bound to be complaints about how the redistricting is being done.In remarks to the Argus Leader regarding some of the newly drawn district boundaries in the Sioux Falls area, Rep. Fargen (D- Flandreau) opined that:

It does a dishonesty to the people in the rural areas. They may not get as much representation in those areas as they should.

Perhaps his point is a valid one, but that is a topic best suited for another article.

Lost in all the “Republican vs. Democrat” rhetoric over the redistricting map, is the fact that there appears to be a disturbing trend emerging in regard to how some of the more conservative members of the legislature are being treated by the S.D. GOP in the proposed redistricting plan.

It appears now that the new district boundaries could possibly result in noted Pro-Life advocate Roger Hunt (R-Brandon), who is now term-limited in the House, having to compete for a Senate seat against Senator (and S.D. GOP party chairman) Tim Rave. Running against an incumbent state party chairman is not what you would call an enviable position. In fact, running a primary campaign for Senate in that situation would qualify as an ‘uphill battle’. And that’s probably an understatement.

In the case of Rep. Steve Hickey from District 9, and Rep. Lora Hubbel from District 11, the committee is proposing that Precinct 3-9 (where Rep. Hubbel resides) be added to District 9. This proposed change is likely to result in two conservative and solidly Pro-Life members of the Republican party being forced to run against each other in a primary in 2012.

If that were to end up being the case, the Pro-Life community could very well end up losing valuable support in the legislature.

One of the “interesting” things about the redistricting committee’s proposal to shift Rep. Hubbel out of District 11 and into District 9, is that there were at least three other redistricting proposals under consideration for the Sioux Falls area. Those other proposals would have in all likelihood allowed Rep. Hubbel to not only remain in District 11, but would have also allowed the voters of District 11 to retain their duly elected representative.

If these were the only two instances where conservative Republicans might possibly be facing a primary challenge or other impediment in their re-election campaigns due to redistricting, perhaps we could chalk it up to mere happenstance.Unfortunately, that does not appear to be the case.

In the case of Rep. Jenna Haggar (I), another Pro-Life legislator from Sioux Falls, the boundaries of District 15 have been gerrymandered to specifically exclude Precinct 5-16 where she resides. That change would move her into District 10 where she will have only about seven months to introduce herself to a totally new group of voters before the primary.

At the same time, Precinct 4-4 which was part of District 9 and is the precinct adjoining Precinct 5-16 has now been added to District 15. This is significant for two reasons:

First of all, Precinct 4-4 just so happens to have an almost 350 person advantage in Democrat voter registrations, which allows the redistricting committee to consolidate even more Democrat voters into what is an already heavily Democrat district.

Secondly, by moving Rep. Haggar to District 10 and a different voter base, they are essentially going to make re-election more difficult for yet another conservative Pro-Life legislator.

Click to enlarge

However, the Sioux Falls conurbation area is not the only part of the state where these redistricting shenanigans are taking place.

Over in District 25, we see the exact same redistricting theme emerging once again.

In the Mitchell/Alexandria/Fulton area, Rep. Stace Nelson who is also a solid conservative and Pro-Life House member, will be bumped out of District 25 and into District 19 due to the new proposed redistricting plan.Although Rep. Nelson will not necessarily face a Republican primary challenger this time around, he will however, be matched up in the general election against well-funded and veteran Democrat legislator Rep. Frank Kloucek who ran for a seat in the House in 2010 after being term-limited in the Senate.

We are of the opinion that these examples are not merely coincidental, but part of a deliberate effort to marginalize conservative Republican and Independent lawmakers.Now, to be fair, one political website has noted there may possibly be one or two districts where incumbent Democrats could also end up having to run against each other in a primary.But doesn’t it seem more than a little odd that a Republican-dominated redistricting committee would seemingly make it even more difficult for some of the more conservative members of its own caucus to get re-elected than members of the opposing party?

One might expect to see some potential district realignments or outright gerrymandering if the aim was only to achieve (or protect) a Republican majority in both the House and Senate.

But with already substantial majorities in both houses of the legislature it seems increasingly clear to many observers that the establishment Republicans and now the redistricting committee as well, seem to be focusing on making it as difficult as possible for several of the most conservative and Pro-Life Republican legislators to get re-elected in 2012.

It appears that they are doing so in an attempt to minimize the influence of conservative Independents and Republicans and to preserve the political status-quo in Pierre.

Our question to those of you reading this article is this: Are you willing to do something to protest against the unfair treatment of conservative and Pro-Life legislators?

If your answer is ‘YES’ then please click this link to send us an e-mail if you would be willing to sign an online petition in support of our conservative legislators or to receive information on how you can send e-mails to the members of the redistricting committee to let them know that you disapprove of how they are treating conservative legislators in the redistricting process.

In addition, if you would like to support any of the conservative candidates mentioned in this article, please check out their websites and make a contribution to their campaigns.

http://www.lorahubbel.com/donations.html
http://www.stacenelson.com/donate.html
http://www.jennahaggar.com/?page_id=5
http://www.voicescarryblog.com/steve-hickey-running-in-district-9-for-state-rep/

Note: No website for Rep. Roger Hunt was available at the time this article was submitted.

Federal Farmer is a concerned citizen from East River South Dakota.

]]>
http://www.dakotavoice.com/2011/10/rino-redistricting-reprisal/feed/ 5