Sibby Online

Mercer says Stace Nelson is a victim of Tea Party manipulation, while Nelson exposes Rausch, Cronin, Hoffman, Turbiville, Wick, and Abdallah's use of the NRA to manipulate voters

Bob Mercer believes the the "mess" in regard to Stace Nelson was caused by Tea Party forces from outside the state of South Dakota:

The hard-right underground remains very active in South Dakota and has at least a half-d0zen to several dozen members of the Legislature. Whether they would describe themselves that way is unlikely, because it’s doubtful that many of them understand how they’re manipulated on a daily or near-daily basis during the legislative session. What’s not clear is whether some of these people have been duped into what they’re doing, without understanding the sources of the national money propping up their efforts, or if they are expressly their true thoughts as anti-government populists. Some of the people, who also include otherwise respected lobbyists and at least one statewide office holder, probably would be surprised to see how they have become woven into this same web. Nationally it’s been labeled as the Tea Party because there’s no good description for it. What’s happening in and around the Legislature goes beyond that label. A national agenda is being pressed upon South Dakota year after year, while identification and responses to our state’s real problems are too little addressed.

Yesterday during the House Judiciary committee hearing, Stace Nelson exposed the real manipulators using the outside help of the National Rifle Association to cover up their anti-gun votes from last year's session. Here is last year's HB1204:

FOR AN ACT ENTITLED, An Act to prohibit businesses and employers from establishing certain policies against the ability of an invitee or employee to store firearms and ammunition in a locked motor vehicle parked on the premises.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA:
    Section 1. No business or other public or private employer may establish, maintain, or enforce a policy or rule that prohibits any person from transporting or storing, on any area provided for invitee or employee parking or in any other public place, a firearm or ammunition if the person is otherwise in compliance with all applicable state statutes and rules and the firearm or ammunition is locked out of sight within the trunk, glove box, or other compartment or area within a privately-owned motor vehicle.
    Section 2. Any person who is legally entitled to transport or store a firearm or ammunition, but is denied the opportunity to do so by a policy or rule prohibited by section 1 of this Act, may bring a civil action in the appropriate court to enjoin any business entity or other public or private employer from violating section 1 of this Act. In any actions brought pursuant to this section, court costs and attorney fees shall be awarded to the prevailing plaintiff.
    Section 3. Any employee discharged by any business or other public or private employer for a violation of a policy or rule prohibited by section 1 of this Act, if the employee was lawfully transporting or storing a firearm or ammunition out of plain sight in a locked motor vehicle is entitled to the recovery of the following:

            (1)    Reinstatement to the same position held at the time of his or her termination from employment, or to an equivalent position;

            (2)    Reinstatement of the employee's full fringe benefits and seniority rights;

            (3)    Compensation for lost wages, benefits, or other lost remuneration caused by the termination; and

            (4)    Payment of reasonable attorney's fees and legal costs incurred.
    Section 4. No business or other public or private employer may be held liable in any civil action for damages, injuries, or death resulting from or arising out of another person's actions involving a firearm or ammunition transported or stored pursuant to this Act including the theft of a firearm from an employee's or invitee's automobile, unless the business or other public or private employer solicited or procured the injurious actions.

 Here are the sponsors:

Representatives Russell, Brunner, Greenfield, Hansen (Jon), Hickey, Hubbel, Jensen, Kloucek, Kopp, Liss, Nelson (Stace), Olson (Betty), Schrempp, Stricherz, Venner, and Verchio and Senators Begalka, Frerichs, Holien, Kraus, Lederman, Rampelberg, and Sutton

It was sent to the 41st day (killed) in the House State Affairs 12 to 1 by the following legislators:

Lust, Cronin, Rausch, Wick, Abdallah, Moser, Hoffman, Turbiville, Hunhoff (Bernie), Gibson, Fargen, Blake

Here is the list of those who testified:

Proponents:    Representative Lance Russell
        Scott Parsons, self, Rapid City
        Zach Lautenschlager, South Dakota Gun Owners
        Dan Beaman, self, Selby
Opponents:    Shawn Lyons, SD Retailers Association
        Dianna Miller, SD Network Against Family Violence & Sexual Assault
        Yvonne Taylor, SD Municipal League

Yesterday, the House Judiciary heard HB1132:

FOR AN ACT ENTITLED, An Act to prohibit businesses and employers from establishing certain policies against the ability of an invitee or employee to store firearms and ammunition in a locked motor vehicle parked on the premises.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA:
    Section 1. No business or other public or private employer may establish, maintain, or enforce a policy or rule that prohibits any person from transporting or storing, on any area provided for invitee or employee parking, a firearm or ammunition if the person is otherwise in compliance with all applicable state laws and regulations, and the firearm or ammunition is locked out of sight within the trunk, glove box, or other enclosed compartment or area within a privately-owned motor vehicle.
    Section 2. Any person who is legally entitled to transport or store a firearm or ammunition, but is denied the opportunity to do so by a policy or rule prohibited by section 1 of this Act, may bring a civil action in the appropriate court to enjoin any business entity or other public or private employer from violating section 1 of this Act. In any action brought pursuant to this section, court costs and attorney fees shall be awarded to the prevailing plaintiff.
    Section 3. Any employee discharged by any business or other public or private employer for a violation of a policy or rule prohibited by section 1 of this Act, if the employee was lawfully transporting or storing a firearm or ammunition out of plain sight in a locked motor vehicle, is entitled to the recovery of the following:

            (1)    Reinstatement to the same position held at the time of the employee's termination from employment, or to an equivalent position;

            (2)    Reinstatement of the employee's full fringe benefits and seniority rights;

            (3)    Compensation for lost wages, benefits, or other lost remuneration caused by the termination; and

            (4)    Payment of reasonable attorney's fees and legal costs incurred.
    Section 4. No business or other public or private employer may be held liable in any civil action for damages, injuries, or death resulting from or arising out of another person's actions involving a firearm or ammunition transported or stored pursuant to this Act, including the theft of a firearm from an employee's or invitee's automobile, unless the business or other public or private employer solicited or procured the injurious actions.

Looks exacly like last year's HB1204. And here is the list of sponsors for this year's try:

Representatives Rausch, Cronin, Gosch, Hoffman, Hunt, Wick, and Willadsen and Senators Olson (Russell), Brown, Gray, Rave, and Rhoden

Note that there lead sponsor Rausch plus Cronin, Wick and Hoffman were 4 of the 12 who voted against the legislation last year. Also note the absent of conservatives who sponsored the bill last year.

Here is the list of those who testified yesterday:

Presented by:    Senator Russell Olson
Proponents:    Brent Gardner, National Rifle Association
        Joe Kraljic, Rail Conference and Teamsters
        Representative Betty Olson
Opponents:    Shawn Lyons, SD Retailers Association
        David Owen, SD Chamber of Commerce and Industry
        Dianna Miller, SD Network Against Family Violence and Sexual Assault
        Myron Rau, SD Trucking Association
        Dick Gregerson, Sioux Falls Chamber of Commerce
        Julie Johnson, Absolutely Aberdeen
        Michele Brich, SD Innkeepers Association
        Lindsey Riter-Rapp, Sd Association Criminal Defense Lawyers

Normally the prime sponsor from the House would present the bill to the House committee hearing it, but yesterday the Senate prime Russell Olson presented. Wonder why? Around the time of the hearing I saw Rausch on third floor making what looked like small talk. I wonder if the small talk included Stace Nelson, who was still seated on the House Judiciary committee that was hearing the bill he was prime on?

And surpisingly the bill passed 10 to 2. The 10 voting Yeah were:

Abdallah, Boomgarden, Gibson, Hansen (Jon), Kopp, Nelson (Stace), Russell, Tornow, Turbiville, Gosch

Note that Abdallah and Turbiville were 2 of the 12 House State Affairs members who killed the very same legislation last year, and voted Yeah this year. So what caused the turnaround? Stace Nelson asked Senator Olson that very question, and Olson said he did not have a clue. No telling what would have happened if Rausch had presented the bill and Stace directed that question at him.

Well, we have to give Rep. Abdallah credit for being honest, so we have an idea on why these legislators had a complete flip-flop on this issue. He said last year the reason he voted no was because of the South Dakota Gun Owners promoting the legislation. This year he noted the presence of a "reputable gun lobby" (the NRA) and urged support for the bill. Again we have Abdallah caring less about the merits of legislation than carrying out revenge on those who dare expose his voting record to his constituents. How should citizens view representatives who think merits of a bill to their constituents are less important than their own pride? Clearly this mindset supports using bully tactics to shut down free speech of conservative limited government political activists. The premise that if the SDGO brings a bill, we will automatically kill, but if the NRA brings the very same bill, we will pass it, is not a civil approach to incivility. And incivility should not mean ones who expose others voting records.

Rep. Hoffman may be of like mind, as he said this last year:

In the House State Affairs we saw one bill HB1204 draw much attention. It would have restricted any business owner from designing policy against the ability of an employee from storing ammunition or weapons in a locked vehicle or in a locked trunk or glove box while on their personal property.  I consider this a personal property issue.  We drew a sharp line in the sand giving power to the owner of a private business in developing his or her own set of rules for engagement with that company or store.

What part of gun control does this HB 1204 fall into? If you feel the need to keep a weapon in your car then park on the street and walk into your business.  If the policy offends you than work for a company that does not have this in their rule making.  

A group called S.D. Gun Owners has sent some pretty vicious postcards around calling us anti-gun for killing this bill.  If the individual personal property rights mean nothing to you than you may agree; but to me balance is always a very good thing to have when setting policy into law.

 Shawn Lyons, of the SD Retailers Association, brought a SDGO postcard to the committee hearing as a complaint directed at the SDGO. Don't these people know that the NRA also sends out postcards? I received one in 2010 in regard to Rep. Lance Carson's "no" vote on this very same legislation.

The NRA will give more weight to legislators who sponsor successful legislation. It is clear that Rausch, Cronin, Hoffman, Turbiville, Wick, and Abdallah are using the NRA to counter the work of the SDGOs should they expose their past voting records during this year's election cycle. And they will certainly say the NRA has credibility and the SDGOs are the radicals when questioned by constituents. And I wonder how many NRA members will remember that the NRA threw conservatives under the Democrat's Disclose Act bus while they got an exception carved out for themselves? Some of us woke up to realize that yes we were manipulated into thinking that the NRA was simply a pro-freedom organization.

If Bob Mercer wants to report on outide interests with money manipulating people here in South Dakota, then he needs to report what I just researched. And the analysis does not end here. Stace Nelson is getting the same treatment as the SDGOs for being a part of the SDGOP Platform Voting Scorecard, that too is exposing the voting records of legislators. Here are how some of those in the House Chamber who have targeted Rep. Stace Nelson rate:

Lusk 40%

Rausch 35%

Moser 35%

Abdallah 29%

Turbiville 25%

 

Conservative Republican Caucus of Convenience

Bob Mercer continues to carry water for the SDGOP House leadership and claims that Rep. Stace Nelson is now all alone:

Nelson is now front and center. And, it seems, increasingly alone.

Yesterday I was in Pierre and attended an open caucus that was called "Conservative Republican Caucus of Convenience (CRCOC) [I suppose the SDGOP House leadership would call it a "CROCK"]. Rep. Stace Nelson was there along with more than just a hand full of House legislators. It was even bipartisan.

Yes Mr. Lawrence, nothing personal but it is fascism

Tom Lawrence, reporter for the Mitchell Daily Republic seems to not understand fascism as he reacts to my post regarding the SDGOP leadership's attack on Rep. Stace Nelson:

The Republican uncivil war continues online.
Mitchell’s own Steve “Sibby” Sibson, a constant thorn in the GOP establishment’s side, is very disdainful. In his blog, he wrote this about the current capitol chaos:
“The SDGOP Establishment will not tolerate standing up to their Big Government/Big Business fascist agenda.”
“Fascist agenda,” Steve? Really? The South Dakota Republican Party? The discussion is definitely sharp and bitter.

A person that goes by "John" explains it on Bob Mercer's blog:

It is dangerous but the disease is misdiagnosed. It is the same disease that led to and was used to justify, “The Plot to Seize the White House” in 1933 (also called the business plot to seize the White House). The far right wing corporatist justified their actions on over-wrought animated arguments that the nation was going to hell and the only thing that could save it was big business and government working together – a political construct called fascism.

And if you are still not convinced, then take from one who truly knows fascism:

"Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of State and corporate power."

Benito Mussolini, Fascist dictator of Italy

Stace Nelson attacked by a herd of RINOs on the schoolyard legislature created by the SDGOP Establishment

Bob Mercer has a mainstream media report on yesterday's dust up in the House Chamber of the South Dakota Legislature that involved the "punishments" directed at Rep. Stace Nelson:

A member of the South Dakota Legislature was moved to a different seat Thursday as punishment by the House of Representatives presiding officer.

In a separate action, he and a second legislator also were booted from the House Republican caucus.

Those steps were the latest in a series of incidents that have escalated since the 2011 session.

House Speaker Val Rausch said Thursday he reassigned Rep. Stace Nelson, RFulton, to a new seat in the House as punishment, because Nelson verbally abused another House member in the chamber Tuesday afternoon.

Rausch, R-Big Stone City, said he took the action after receiving confirmation from witnesses who saw the altercation.

The tension was obvious Thursday afternoon in the House chamber. There was little small talk, and several state Highway Patrol officers were highly visible in the halls around the House chamber.

Rausch also had a security shadow.

“Quite frankly, he’s scaring everybody,” Rausch said about Nelson.

I have been hearing that there has been other personal attacks directed at Nelson by the SDGOP House leadership. Not once douring all these battles have I heard Nelson threaten to use violence against these RINOs. But Mercer seemed all to happy to provide reasons for Rausch's paranoia:

Nelson is a retired member of the U.S. Marine Corps and is the tallest and physically largest member of the Legislature.

He speaks loudly and passionately during his many floor speeches, and he frequently comments on Internet blogs.

Last year Nelson won a friendly pistol-marksmanship competition during legislative session and displayed the trophy atop his House desk.

So if you are involved with guns and blogs, you are a threat? There are a lot more holes in Mercer's report, including who was "verbally abused". Nelson clears it up with a Madville Times comment that included emails he sent to Bob Mercer last night:

After several pointed personal comments towards me during debate on Tuesday, several legislators commented that it was inappropriate and that there was a concerted effort to go after everything I advocated on the House floor. Over the course of the afternoon, I talked with Hal Wick and Roger Hunt and asked them if I was overly sensitive to the comments or if it was in fact as it appeared. Both told me that some of the comments towards me were in fact not appropriate and they encouraged me to address it with the legislators or the majority leader if it could not be resolved.

...

I noticed that Rep. Moser had came back on the floor. Taking Wick & Hunt’s advice I thought to try and resolve the issue at the lowest level and avoid any future issues by discussing it with Moser. I said “excuse me Rep. Moser, do you have a moment?” He said he did and I told him that I was hoping that we could discuss the debate today, that I felt some of his comments were pointed personal attacks, that I was offended and hurt and I was hoping to resolve the issue civility.Right away he derisively demanded I specifically recount exactly what he said and I replied that I do not have a photographic memory and that I could not dictate exactly what he said, that if we could simply avoid such things in the future it would be appreciated. He again demanded to know what specifically he said, I said I didn’t want to get into the nanoweeds on it but if needed to if he would simply consider reviewing his comments of the day, and if he confirmed that they were pointed personal comments to avoid doing so again in the future. He then launched into comments that I offend him and that I made a personal attack against him during the debate when I mentioned the Republic Party Platform plank on lowering taxes. He alluded to the past report card put out on him by voters as my report card on him and said I offend him because he said that I believe I am the expert on all that is Republican and started going off on the issue. I explained that I have never stated that or wrote that and that it was his errant opinion. He was continuing to go off on a tangent on the issue, repeating his comments that I am offensive to him, that I don’t know what I am talking about on being a Republican, etc.I realized it was a lost cause, and I had already put up with a sufficient amount of his arrogant tirade so continued to move away and told him “maybe we can talk someday when you finally get your big boy pants on.” After I made that comment, he said something to the effect of “oh that’s real civil, you idiot” and more. When he initially started becoming animated, I moved away from him and there were several chairs between us. As he got more animated, I increased the distance. By that time I was almost at my seat, on the front side of Jim Bolin’s desk, and he was standing behind his desk, when I turned looked at him and said “you’re a dumbass.” Stop the personal attacks in debates or I will return the favor during debates and eat you alive on the floor.” I turned and sit down at my desk. That is the extent of my conversation with Rep. Moser and that is what they are trying to claim is a threat.

So Rep. Moser seems to be the legislator that Nelson allegedly threatened. So far I can't find anything that would necessitate taxpayer funded law enforcement, but it does help make for a good story. And I was in Pierre Tuesday morning and got the cold shoulder from Rep. Moser. I assumed it had something to do with the SDGOP platform scorecard, and it appears that I am right. Note that there was nothing from Mercer's reporting that referred to the scorecard as an issue with the upset RINOs. Here is what Nelson sent to Lust after his confrontation with Moser via email:

There were several pointed ugly untrue comments made towards me on the House floor today (“self-serving,” etc) by Rep. Moser, Abdallah, and Turbiville. It was my understanding that such things were inappropriate, yet nothing was done to reign it in. While some may have taken my comment about the GOP platform personally, it was not directed at anyone and simply cited the platform.

I attempted to discuss this matter civilly with Rep. Moser just now semi-privately and it degraded to angry comments. I would appreciate it if the matter was addressed in general terms and people reminded to avoid such personal attacks.

Again, that was on Tuesday. Note that Abdallah and Turbivelle were also a part of Nelson's complaint to Lust. Remember Abdallah has only told then Argus Leader that Nelson can "Go to Hell", just before this session started regarding the LRC controversy. And also remember Abdallah being part of the recent concealed carry controversy where legislators desregarded the merits of the issue and decided it was more important to attack the South Dakota Gun Owners organization. This has been a long running grudge match between Abdallah and the SDGOs. Here is what Abdallah said back in 2005:

Judiciary Committee members asked Ray Lautenschlager, director of Gun Owners of South Dakota, what happens to the money he collects from members and whether the organization's tax records are public.

"At this point, I do not believe the question is proper or relevant," Lautenschlager said Wednesday.

Sen. Gene Abdallah, R-Sioux Falls, questioned why Lautenschlager has labeled him and Rep. Tom Hennies, R-Rapid City, as anti-gun legislators. Abdallah is former U.S. marshal and superintendent of the state Highway Patrol; Hennies is a former Rapid City police chief.

"You have zero credibility with me and, I hope, with the rest of the committee," Abdallah told Lautenschlager.

A year earlier, Abdallah complained of a "threat" he received via a SDGO email and so the House State Affairs Committee spent most of a hearing attacking the Lautenschlagers. Excerpt:

Several members of the House State Affairs Committee accused the lobbyists of using questionable tactics and fooling SDGO members into flooding lawmakers with postcards, e-mail and phone messages regarding bills dealing with the governor's powers in times of emergency.

We clearly have a pattern here where legislators do not like to be held accountable to the citizens of South Dakota, so they gang up on the political activists who are responsible for the citizen involvement. First was the long running feud with the SDGOs and now we have the SDGOP Platform Voting Scorecard. And these elected officials will use the executive branch to invoke revenge, followed by a policy that says it does not matter what is the merit of issues these people bring forward...we will not vote for it. Does this not sound like a bunch of schoolyard bullies? Does this sound like a properly functioning representative form of government. What more, then go the the SDGOP Establishment's web site and read the latest anonymous personal attacks directed at Stace Nelson.

Nelson also tells Mercer that House rules are being broken:

There is a proper due process for handling complaints in Chapter 6 http://legis.state.sd.us/sessions/2012/houserules.pdf There is a reason when someone departs from that process either to improperly convict someone or to acquit themselves. Please note that the Speaker does not have the authority to “punish” anyone. House rules chapter 6 is clear on how ANY complaints of misconduct are to be handled and that it is the House body that decides if a member should be punished, not the Speaker of the House or Majority Leader.

Please note that Joint rules 1-4 & 1-5 indicate that it is NOT the speaker’s discretion to keep members from speaking on the House floor. He also violated this rule with Rep. Kloucek during ’11′s final appropriation’s bill. http://legis.state.sd.us/sessions/2012/jointrules.pdf

I would ask you to review this with the an educated eye and remember that Rausch did admit during the recent hearing that he was aware of the charges for months and notice the similarities to his current professed intent to remove me from judiciary as punishment:
https://secure.forumcomm.com/?publisher_ID=4&article_id=59478&CFID=288207798&CFTOKEN=20569412

Of note, Russ Olson told the Senate Republican Caucus at 1:00 sharp yesterday that Russel and myself were kicked out of caucus, the news was given to lobbyists, etc,. as you noted, and someone spread the untrue rumor that I was in a meeting this morning with Rausch and was heard hollering. Hope you can see all of this for what it is. If I can be of service, you got my contact information.

So Rausch and Lust must view themselves as the principles of a school, and the rest of the legislators are a bunch of children who have to be told what to do. And one bad boy has to now sit in the front row. Every see bullies picking on a kid at school until the kid reacts, only to get himself into trouble for being a tattle-tale.

And one more point. Note Nelson refused to meet with Rausch and instead asked for him to send his issue in writing. Looks like Nelson learned something from the Kangaroo hearing he received in reaction to his complaint regarding the LRC and the SDGOP House leadership.

Stace Nelson and Lance Russell kicked out of the SDGOP Establishment's closed caucus?

[Another Update: Stace Nelson explains himself at a Madville Times comment.]

[Another UPDATE: Here is a comment from SDWC:

Yes Gary, we are told this. However, the vindictiveness continues. Heard today, Thur, that Speaker Rausch would not recognize Stace Nelson when he rose to speak on a bill. Totally ignored him and then called on Rep Gosch who had already spoken once. Stace Nelson could not have been accidently overlooked by Rausch as Stace stands, what, about 6′ 6″, and weight maybe 280.

The lack of fairness, class and maturity is very evident in our House leadership.

I have a source that says that is true. Not only has it been a bad day for representative governemnt, it is a bad day for free speech and the First Amendment.]

[UPDATE: Just got off the phone with Stace Nelson. I am not going into detail about our conversation, but today is clearly a sad day for representative government.]

Bob Mercer is reporting that Stace Nelson and Lance Russell are maybe now banned from the SDGOP legislative caucus:

House Republicans are up on the Capitol’s fourth floor in their closed-door caucus at this moment, but Republican Rep. Lance Russell of Hot Springs is down at his desk in the House chamber on the third floor. The whereabouts of another Republican House member, Rep. Stace Nelson of Fulton, wasn’t immediately known. But good sources say there was a shout-down in the office of House Speaker Val Rausch, R-Big Stone City, this morning with Nelson present. Supposedly Russell and Nelson are persons non grata among the Republican caucus for their past behavior regarding House Republican leadership. Russell had stopped going to the daily caucus meetings long ago.  Whether they have been truly barred from attending isn’t clear. One reason is that House Republicans have a rule: What’s said in caucus isn’t repeated outside of caucus. Russell said this afternoon that nobody’s directly spoken to him about his official status. “All I’ve heard is back channels,” he said. There is at least one state Highway Patrol office in uniform who has been present in the third-floor hallways around the House chamber. We’ll relay more as we can reliably learn it.

UPDATE: Nelson just confirmed that he received word, in a phone message from House Republican leader David Lust at 4:45 p.m. yesterday, that he was kicked out of the caucus. Nelson said that when he spoke to this reporter earlier yesterday he thought the question about his status was a joke. “The joke’s on me,” he said this afternoon. Among the complaints against him, he said, was the legislator voting-record report card that was linked to his web address. Another was that he spoke too much to reporters about certain internal disputes within the House Republican ranks involving him and others. You have to wonder where, and how, all of this will come to a head. Others evidently are, too; at least two HP officers are now walking the third-floor halls around the House chamber.

Nelson left this comment at the Mercer post:

The first I saw Rep. Rausch this morning was when he came into local government late. I did NOT have any shout out with anyone this morning. I got to the building at about 930, went to Tax Committee and waited there for Rep. Russell. We both then went to LRC to request an office for next Monday. We left there at about 0950 at which time I rushed to my desk to get my folders and laptop. At that time I found a note on my seat from Raush dated 25Jan12 requesting I be in his office at 9:30 (26Jan12). That meeting never occurred. After committee, Rausch asked me to meet him in his office. I declined and requested he provide me anything he wanted to say by written memo. Between yesterday and today, seems that certain plans have been unwittingly foiled.

Let this be a lesson to you outspoken conservatives. The SDGOP Establishment will not tolerate standing up to their Big Government/Big Business fascist agenda. You either quietly play along and help maintian the conservative limited government base, or else. And if they need to help of the media to paint you as dangerous potential criminals, then...

Lust, Cutler, and Feinstein want a Super Committee for South Dakota

Keloland has a report on a plan to create a legislative Super Committee in South Dakota:

In order to get a better handle on key issues, House Republican Leader David Lust is looking to set up a committee that would meet year round.

It's an issue that seems to come up fairly often when talking with South Dakota politicians.

"It is difficult in these short sessions and the limited amount of time we're in Pierre to really engage in a long-range plan," Republican Senator Joni Cutler said.

Cutler is interested in seeing a new year-long committee change that.

"I think it is a good idea any time we can increase the amount of information, the long-term planning, that the legislature can provide since we are the voice of the people. We're the closest to the voter. I think it makes sense to do that," Cutler said.

While Democrat Marc Feinstein sits on the other side of the aisle, he too favors the idea.

"When you talk about the long, repeating issues such as education, I think that makes a lot of sense," Feinstein said.

Feinstein recognizes that there is a very strong executive branch right now in Pierre and said a group like this could help even things out.

"If you have a strong legislature, and you have some balance there to offset some of the strength and power of the executive branch, which is the governor's office, you can get better government," Feinstein said.

He says it all comes down to time and money. But this committee would help set the agenda for some of the most important issues for the legislative session even before lawmakers arrive in Pierre.

"It's a matter of priorities and maybe some of these priorities could be established earlier with a combination of leadership from both parties in the legislature," Feinstein said.

"I think this might be one way to provide some of that structure given that fact that we have term limits and it's difficult to keep people up to speed with all the mechanisms that are involved in state funding," Cutler said.

House Republican leader David Lust says he has not drafted a bill yet, but plans to have one ready in the coming weeks.

Feinstein actually has good intention. Unofrtunately, having a full-time relationship with the executive branch is not the solution. Better to be home listening and building a relationship with the citizens is what would be good for a healthy functioning representative government.

South Dakota legislators putting their pride above the merits of legislation, opposed to accountability

Should a law abiding American citizen be required to pay for a concealed carry permit in order to have a Second Amendment right to carry a firearm for protection? A SDGOP lead committee said yes:

Rep. Don Kopp's proposal to let most South Dakotans carry concealed handguns without having to get a permit was defeated Friday in the House Judiciary Committee.

The 7-5 vote to kill Kopp's bill came after more than an hour of testimony, including from proponents who said it would promote personal safety and defend gun ownership rights, and from opponents who worried it would lead to more criminals and mentally unstable individuals carrying concealed weapons.

Kopp, a Rapid City Republican, said that requiring a law-abiding citizen to get a permit in order to carry a concealed weapon was a violation of the right to bear arms for self-protection under the South Dakota Constitution.

Other supporters agreed.

"South Dakota should not be in the business of criminalizing self-defense," said Ed Randazzo, a lobbyist for the South Dakota Gun Owners Association.

But it was a personal grudge against who was bringing forward the legislation and not the merits of protecting constitutional rights that carried the day in Pierre on Friday:

Multiple lawmakers also said a factor in their "no" votes was opposition to the South Dakota Gun Owners Association.

"I won't vote for anything associated with the South Dakota Gun Owners," Abdallah said.

Rep. Brian Gosch, R-Rapid City, said he had promised Kopp he would support his bill. But on Friday he changed his mind because "one of the backers of this bill is the South Dakota Gun Owners."

Both lawmakers, along with Rep. Peggy Gibson, D-Huron, said the South Dakota Gun Owners had unfairly targeted legislators who had opposed them.

Randazzo said it was his organization that was being unfairly targeted.

"I'm disappointed in the vote. I believe that it was done for political reasons," he said. "There was very little criticism of the bill. There was criticism of South Dakota Gun Owners Association, and I don't think that was germane to the bill."

The concealed carry bill isn't necessarily dead for good. A legislative maneuver called a "smokeout" could let supporters try to pull it directly to the House floor for a vote.

Here is another version:

The bill received support from the South Dakota Gun Owners, and two lawmakers said they received threats from the group if they failed to support it. Rep. Peggy Gibson said members told her they would "come after" her if she voted against the bill.

The gun rights group — officials for which could not be reached for comment — has a controversial history in the state.

"They send letters saying if you don't vote for bills, they'll ruin your political campaign by sending postcards to your constituents that you don't support gun rights and legislation," said Gibson, D-Huron.

Republican Reps. Gene Abdallah, who said he also received threats, and Brian Gosch said they voted against the bill in part because of the group's support for it.

"I won't vote for anything associated with the South Dakota Gun Owners," said Abdallah, of Sioux Falls.

Gosch, of Rapid City, said, "The merit of the bill is something I support, but I can't support this bill because one backer is the South Dakota Gun Owners."

Cory Heidelberger loves the tryanny because he hates conservatives:

Representative Steve Hickey (R-9/Sioux Falls) is hoping for a smoke-out of HB 1015, Rep. Don Kopp’s (R-35/Rapid City) really crazy idea to effectively get rid of concealead weapons permits. The bill died because certain right-wingnuts got a little too pushy in the lobby. The smoke-out may well happen, just to satisfy certain scorecarders gunning for more press-release fodder. I wonder if such scorecards may be stiffening the spines of various sane Republicans to vote againstwingnut legislation. Oh, the irony! Let’s hope so!

So who are those sane Republicans? The RINOs. Clearly Cory has an issue with scorecards and political activists informing citizens and promoting their involvement in the political process, simply based on "who" they are.

And what these politicians are saying about the SDGO is lacking merit. Here is an excerpt from a SDGO email that mentioned Abdallah:

Please contact Sen. Abdallah and the six other committee members who voted for extensive city gun bans. Politely inform them of your strong displeasure toward their anti-gun vote.

So what is wrong with urging citizens to politely voice their position. Seems that the RINOs and the far-left Democrats have a problem with not only the Second Amendment, but also the First. And the last thing they want is to be held accountable for their votes.

And now that I have spoken out in defense of the SDGO, I will probably be placed on the same blacklist, if I am not on it already. This is how tyrannical the political process in Pierre has become.

And Steve Hickey has already accused those who put out scorecards as liars. Here is his response to this issue:

Please read David Montgomery's post giving the details of the fate of this bill. Several on the committee admitted to voting against it at least in part because it was being pushed by a dubious and fringe gun owners group whose renowned friendly-fire tactics have earned them the ire of many in the legislature. There is such a thing as you getting in the way of your cause. And in this case, it's a good cause… one that I wholeheartedly support. When we aren't winsome, we lose some and here a good gun bill was shot down.

YES we should just vote on a bill based on it's merits. But, politics is people too. It's too bad. Hopefully there will be a smoke out attempt Monday as it's justified because of the stated reasons committee members rejected it - not on it's merits but for other reasons.

I appreciate Hickey's support for the smoke out and his reason why. I hope he also understands that those who are attacking the South Dakota Gun Owners are the true false witnesses.

Governor Daugaard: "The education community has a lot of lobbyists"

When Governor Daugaard was in Mitchell Monday, he said this:

“The education community has a lot of lobbyists,” he said. “The big schools have their own lobbyist or two, the small schools or middle schools have a school lobbyist or two, Sioux Falls has its own lobbyist, SDEA (the South Dakota Education Association, a teachers’ union), the school board association.

“The only one that doesn’t have a lobbyist is students,” Daugaard said. “I’m their lobbyist now.”

So the only ones without lobbyists are the parents and taxpayers.

Daugaard says no more money for ineffective public education, and then pours on the pork

Here is some Mitchell Daily Republic's coverage on Monday's visit to Mitchell of South Dakota GOvernor Dennis Daugaard:

Gov. Dennis Daugaard said Monday in Mitchell that the state must focus on teacher quality, student performance and better training opportunities for both.

That will mean changing how teachers are evaluated, Daugaard said, and eventually lead to the end of tenure for South Dakota teachers.

During the governor’s State of the State speech last week in Pierre, he said he hopes to give students better opportunities through training and attracting better teachers to the state. He envisions a three-year implementation of the program.

Daugaard spoke Monday morning at the Highland Conference Center in Mitchell to a crowd of about 50 and later sat down with The Daily Republic editorial board to discuss his education goals, as well as other issues.

Daugaard compared education in 1971 to 2011. He said the number of K-12 students in South Dakota has dropped by 49,377, but the state is spending more per student.

In 1969, the state spent about $4,000 per student in today’s dollars, he said. Forty years later, the state was spending nearly $9,000 per student.

“It’s perfectly reasonable to assign more human resources or more dollar resources to any job,” he said, but he added that the extra investment should produce results.

The governor’s staff also compared state ACT scores from the last 40 years and found the scores have remained flat from 1985 to the present.

“We should not measure our schools based on the money we’re putting in or how many people are in the school,” he said. “We should measure our schools by what our students are doing.”

Daugaard said he cannot justify putting more money into what he termed the current ineffective educational system in South Dakota.

Then he shows his plan to throw tons more money into the monopoly:

The common set of core standards will be based on problem-solving and a higher order of thinking, he said. The budget will call for $8 million to train teachers on the common core standards.

The accountability system will test students at the beginning, middle and end of the year. This will enable teachers to understand how students have grown through the year.

The teacher evaluation system will include administrators looking at growth in test scores and classroom evaluation.

Daugaard said the new education plan will be implemented over the next three years, so by the 2014-15 academic year, teachers performing in the top 20 percent in each district will receive $5,000 bonuses.

“They could be eligible to earn it each year,” he said.

South Dakota also needs to train teachers to work in math and science, he said.

Last year, 179 elementary education teachers were trained in the state while two science teachers were trained.

“We need to incent them to choose high school science and math,” Daugaard said.

Starting in the 2013-14 academic year under Daugaard’s plan, math and science teachers in South Dakota will automatically receive a $3,500 bonus each year they stay in the field. Those teachers are also eligible for the $5,000 bonus.

Because this new system is based on evaluation, Daugaard said the tenure system must disappear.

Current teachers who have reached tenure status will keep it, but new teachers entering the field will never see tenure, he said, if the Legislature passes the proposal.

He said it’s an outdated concept that is difficult to defend.

“I don’t think they even know why they have it, other than it’s institutionalized,” Daugaard said.

Daugaard was accompanied by South Dakota Education Secretary Melody Schopp and Tony Venhuizen, his director of policy and communications, and he said all three will work to pass the package through the Legislature.

This is all smoke and mirrors. Governor Daugaard is implementing the National Governor Association's Common Core Standards. The bonus plan is a bone thrown out to get teacher support. Tenure is removed to get rid of the teachers who do not go along with the international based Common Core Standards. Expect costs per students to continue to rise and mediocrity to continue. As I said before, this is a world-wide plan to make all of us the same and under the control of the monoply capitalists.

Governor Daugaard leading South Dakota to the New World Order

I attended Governor Daugaard's budget presentation this morning in Mitchell. His goal was to promote two initiatives. One was a Workfarce Initiative and the other was in education, as the Secretary of Education was present. He actually admitted that the two were to be connected at the hip.

He started out with the South Dakota Workforce Initiative, Not sure how you get the "WINS" Initiative out of that, but he mentioned the importance of South Dakota being a part of a "global high-tech economy". The WINS web site also mentions that goal:

That's why we've launched South Dakota Wins, a workforce development program that brings together government, education and business leaders to capitalize on South Dakota's tremendous potential. The components of this program will help South Dakota develop and attract a stronger, more educated workforce, positioning us well to compete in an ever changing a dynamic global economy.

Clearly this is the "Planned Global Economy" of the New World Order as stated here. And also note the combination of "government, education and business leaders". Education is now about providing human resources to the monopoly capitalists. And for those of us who are critical thinkers, we know that planned economies are not the most efficient, and they lead us to a tyrannical situation. Daugaard proved it with statistics. From 1971 to 2011, the numbers of students in K-12 decreased 28.5% as the number of teachers increased 10%, while support and administrative headcount jumped 65%. The result has been the doubling of the cost of per student while academic results remained flat.

So he made the argument that it would be foolish to put more money into a system that does not provide results. Unfortunately, his "change of focus" was actually mean doing more of the same. He correctly stated that the key was effective teachers (versus added a bunch of mediocre teachers as we have done). What he proposed next has already been underway, and that was establishing standards with recently adopted Common Core Standards as the criteria for tests that are to be used three times a year. Based on those results, the top 20% of teachers will received a $5,000 bonus. This is promoted as merit pay, but I see it more as a pay-off to the teacher's unions to get their support to force international standards down our throats. He will probably drop the threat of removing tenure to pull a Hegelian dialectic based compromise.

A three year implementation plan consists of a $8.4 million in training teachers on Common Core Standards, and then $15 million more to put together the testing programs over the text two years to make sure the standards our being indoctrinated. The talk during last year's South Dakota Board of Education's approval of CCS was this:

South Dakota is part of a multi-state consortium pursuing a common assessment. By pooling resources, states are expected to save on their annual assessment costs.

“The Core Content Standards may also alleviate some of the expense that states are dealing with at this time in developing achievement test that meet individual state standards,” said Frederick. “By sharing core content standards states will be able to utilize the same achievement exams.”

Now we know the cost savings was not true. The Governor is now proposing more of what caused the the administrative and support costs to jump 65% from 1971 to now.

He tried to deny that these were national standards but agreed that the tests were to be national. He is partly right in saying that these are not national standards, they are actually international has clearly stated on the CCS web site:

 The present work, led by the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) and the National Governors Association (NGA), builds on the foundation laid by states in their decades-long work on crafting high-quality education standards. The Standards also draw on the most important international models as well as research and input from numerous sources, including state departments of education, scholars, assessment developers, professional organizations, educators from kindergarten through college, and parents, students, and other members of the public. In their design and content, refined through successive drafts and numerous rounds of feedback, the Standards represent a synthesis of the best elements of standards-related work to date and an important advance over that previous work.

As specified by CCSSO and NGA, the Standards are (1) research and evidence based, (2) aligned with college and work expectations, (3) rigorous, and (4) internationally benchmarked.

So what the governor is doing is simply "enhancing" the system that has been in development over the decades by the international monopoly capitalists, not changing the current system as he claims. Our national, state, and local standards are now based on an internationally planned education system to provide human resources for the "Planned Global Economy". And he is getting his marching orders from the National Governors Association, as the legislators are getting their marching orders from the Council of State Governments. This looks all too much like a march toward the New World Order or the Beast of Revelation.