Don’t miss the Brown County Republicans Reagan lunch tomorrow featuring US Senate candidate Stace Nelson
Tomorrow, April 9, will be the monthly Reagan Lunch hosted by the Brown County Republicans in Aberdeen. The event is from noon-1pm at Mavericks. If you are in the Aberdeen area this is a great opportunity to meet Stace Nelson in person.
For those that have yet to hear about Stace Nelson, here is a snippet about him from StaceNelson.com:
Stace Nelson is a proud 4th generation South Dakotan, Marine, State Representative and Christian family man. He was raised in Salem, Sioux Falls, and Mitchell area and graduated from Mitchell High School in 1985. Even before graduating, he followed a family tradition of enlisting in the service and served the country as a Marine and federal cop for over 23 years.
In 2010, he was elected to be a State Representative serving District 19 and holds a proud conservative voting record unmatched in the state.
• 2011 Session Republican Platform Voting Score Card
• 2011 South Dakota Freedom Index Report
He and his wife Aiza have six children and two grandchildren.
“I am who I am today because of my relationship with God. He has blessed, guided, and carried me through my whole life. With your support, and His hand on my shoulder, I will serve your interests and protect your rights in the United States Senate.”
In other Brown County Republican news, The Lincoln Day Dinner is set for Tuesday, April 22nd, at the Ramkota in Aberdeen. Governor Dennis Daugaard is the keynote speaker. Get your tickets by calling Char Cornelius, Bud Morris or Wayne Bierman. We will deliver the tickets to you.
I hope to see a good attendance at both events!
Tomorrow, March 13, will be the monthly Reagan Lunch hosted by the Brown County Republicans. The guest speaker this time will be Brown County Commissioner Rachel Kippley. Here is the info as sent out by the Brown County Republicans:
Come join other fellow Republicans at our monthly Reagan Lunch at Mavericks on Thursday, March 13, 2014. Our special guest speaker will be Rachel Kippley, Brown County Commissioner. Rachel is also the franchise owner of Aberdeen’s H&R Block. Rachel has been a great advocate for the Brown County Republicans. She will answer any questions you may have concerning county issues. A buffet is offered along with menu choices. The lunch is casual and social. Please invite a friend.
It is also worth noting that the Lincoln Day Dinner now has a date set. Here are the details:
The annual Lincoln Day Dinner will be April 22, 2014 at the Ramkota. Watch here for upcoming details. If you like to help on the planning committee, call Jason at 395-7577 or Char at 380-8370
I hope to see a full crowd at Mavericks tomorrow!
Governor Daugaard doesn’t really think the State of South Dakota spent a lot of taxpayer dollars on Northern Beef plant
Today Aberdeen is the honorary South Dakota Capital for a Day. As part of today’s Brown County Fair festivities there was a town hall meeting held with Governor Daugaard in attendance (he was late, but even I won’t blame dense fog on politicians). Last week I wondered if Daugaard would mention the vast amount of taxpayer dollars that have been poured into the now bankrupt Northerm Beef Packers plant. Today’s town hall was the perfect opportunity to find out his thoughts on the subject. He chose the stance that the State hasn’t really given much money to the beef plant.
The town-hall meeting was very short and had six panelists. Most of the time was taken up by the panelists giving short speeches touting how much they have done to support the economy in Aberdeen and South Dakota. Sadly touting their support for corporate welfare with taxpayer dollars appeared to be a winning topic. Below are the six panelists that were in attendance:
- Governor Daugaard – Much of his speech talked about the energy tax credits that Molded Fiber Glass relies upon to run the plant in Aberdeen.
- Dan Thielsen, Aberdeen coordinator for South Dakota Department of Labor – His little speech focused upon the vast amount of jobs available in South Dakota.
- Joe Fiala, GOED – Joe was there to represent the governors commitment to corporate welfare. He didn’t really have much to say.
- Jim Barringer, Aberdeen Development Corporation – Barringer spoke a lot about the housing expansion in Aberdeen. Also said how much he loves getting government money for ‘workforce training’ and that he would love to get more taxpayer dollars for that purpose.
- Julie Johnson, Absolutely Aberdeen – Julie spent most of her time thanking the Governor for the continued support of corporate welfare in Aberdeen.
- Dave Giovannini, representing Molded Fiber Glass (MFG) – Due to energy credits MFG is very thankful to any source of corporate welfare, espcially Governor Daugaard.
Most of the remaining town-hall after the speeches was fluff. The group of ex-employees from the beef plant that planned on attending where nowhere to be seen. Luckily towards the end a reporter asked about the State’s involvement in the beef plant. Daugaard’s answer was short and obviously prepared. The cliff notes version: South Dakota only provided a few million dollars here an there, no big deal.
I’ll leave it up to the reporter to actually pass his words on to the public. But I would like to address the impression I got from the Governors answer. He really tried to play it off as if Pierre had little to do with the beef plant. There were no mentions of how hard his office (and former Governor Rounds office) worked to get taxpayer dollars involved in the project. Also absent was any mention of the EB-5 (green-card for investment) money that was used on NBP. Instead the Governor focused upon “how little” direct money South Dakota has invested in the plant. I guess millions of dollars amongst cronyist friends is “not a big deal”.
Maybe I’ll be able to catch up with the Governor while he roams the Fair Grounds. I doubt he will give a better in-person answer than the one given at the town hall. Now is an opportunity to say this yet again: Norther Beef Packers and Governor Daugaard help make the case for a Libertarian Governor in South Dakota.
Will Governor Daugaard mention the beef plant corporate welfare when Aberdeen is ‘Capital for a Day’?
Next week it is Aberdeen’s turn to be “Capital for a Day”. Here is a portion of the news release posted on the South Dakota website:
Activities for the day include a main street walk, tours around town, meetings and a fair walk. Citizens are encouraged to attend the community roundtable meeting to discuss workforce, recruitment and training. This will be held at the Brown County Fairgrounds Clubhouse from 1 – 2 p.m. CDT.
The day concludes with a fair walk at 2:00 p.m., where constituents can talk with Gov. Dennis Daugaard.
The beef plant laying off its workforce last month is a large and recent enough issue to bring up at this community roundtable. As the release says this community roundtable will be used to “discuss workforce, recruitment and training”. This may be a good chance for Aberdeen as a community to bring forth answers (although if I goes like most townhall meetings I’ve been to it won’t really accomplish anything).
But after the townhall meeting Governor Daugaard will be going for a walk and talking with constituents. This would be the perfect time to find out if the Governor understands the dangers of large operations such as the beef plant being completely supported by taxpayer and greencard dollars.
However, I do not expect that to happen. As a true backer of corporate welfare I expect Governor Daugaard will find non-government issues to blame the failed beef plant on. He will also fail to share the blame with bad business decisions made at the plant (why make good business decisions when its the taxpayer dollars your playing with). Instead I expect the Governor to channel the favored progressive economist Paul Krugman. A couple of weeks ago Krugman had this to say about Detroit:
…for the most part the city was just an innocent victim of market forces.
I am betting if Daugaard will answer questions about the beef plant failing (after being built and supported with corporate welfare) the answer will involved the “free market” and make it sound as if nobody could have foreseen this tragedy. Sadly that may sound like the “truth” to someone who loves to use taxpayer dollars for subsidizing favored special interests. However, those of us that care about fiscal responsibility can see this situation, just as with Detroit, has nothing to do with “market forces”. In this case an inept management team being supported by government bureaucrats (backed by elected officials coming with gifts of taxpayer dollars) were the only real “forces” that are to blame..
If Daugaard does not start to become the conservative Republican he pretends to be (although honestly he doesn’t try too hard) maybe it is further proof South Dakota needs a libertarian Governor. I could be wrong. He might have good answers. But I think it more likely he will find ways to avoid touching any real corporate welfare topics. Maybe I’ll have to leave my fair booth for a while next Friday afternoon.
PS. He could try blame this on Rounds because that is who was governor when this beef plant fiasco started. But that doesn’t excuse Daugaard’s continued support of Rounds actions at the beef plant. It is also unlikely he will attack Rounds going into the election season.
Was Mark Remily’s attack on Dan Kaiser due to lack of research, or just another attack on liberty-loving Representatives
Last week the Aberdeen American News published the following public opinion from Aberdeen City Councilman Mark Remily:
Public Voice: Kaiser’s position on gays is hateful
2013-06-20 23:07 -0500
“Today, we still have legal discrimination against homosexuals, with many states forbidding legal civil marriage. But progress continues and we have come a long way toward ensuring the equal rights for ‘all’ people.”
Very gracious words, authored by well-respected associate professor of education at NSU Alan Neville and published in the Aberdeen American News on June 18. With that said, I am taking notes on District 3 South Dakota Rep. Dan Kaiser.
In the American News on June 15 (“Legislature split over protection orders for same sex abuses”), columnist Bob Mercer refers to Senate Bill 147, which defines family members covered by domestic abuse protection orders. Its original Senate version was fair. Then it went to the House. There, Kaiser offered his amendment to change the wording to cover only those in domestic abuse be of the opposite sex.
I cannot find the words to describe how angry I am at this hateful position by a person supposedly representing the people of District 3. Kaiser is saying that if you’re gay or lesbian you have no right to be protected by law enforcement. And this despicable legislator is an Aberdeen Police officer. How hypocritical is that?
In my opinion, Dan Kaiser as an elected official is a crime. Someone in District 3 needs to step up and run against this discriminating individual and get him gone from South Dakota politics forever.
Aberdeen City Council
As an Aberdeen resident I find it disheartening that Mr Remily relies upon one sentence in a newspaper to determine that Representative Kaiser is a “Despicable legislator”. The article Mr Remily refers to can be read here.
Mr Remily apparently skimmed the original article too quickly. He did not notice it was mentioned the Senate version was changed when it hit the House Judiciary Committee where the major word changes had happened. The passed Senate version of SB147 had the following language:
(2)(c) Persons who are or have been in a dating relationship with each other;
(5) “Dating relationship,” any social relationship between the persons of a romantic or sexual nature. The term does not include any platonic, casual relationship in a business or social context.
After Rep. Anne Hajek amended the bill in the House Judiciary Committee the bill removed section 5 defining “dating relationship” changed (2)(c) to as follows:
(c) Persons who are or have been living in the same household;
This amendment in the House Judiciary Committee seems to have completely undone the very intent of SB147. According to testimony provided by Pennington County State’s Attorney Mark Vargel it is important to pass SB147 so the definition of domestic violence can be narrowed and simplified for use by police officers. Mr Vargel goes on to say that domestic violence cases have mandatory arrests and potential protection orders issues. However as the law currently stands anyone that lives together can be charged with “domestic violence”. This could mean an officer would have to make an arrest when college roommates fight.
Representative Kaiser provided testimony before the whole house that mirrored what Mr Vargel had said. Basically it was important to narrow the scope of domestic violence so police officers were not forced by law to make an arrest when they knew it wasn’t really ‘domestic’. The amendment offered by Rep Hajek and passed in committee actually changed the language in the bill to “Persons who are or have been living in the same household”. Now the bill was in a state that essentially undid what was done before.
So far I have added very little information to Mr Mercers original article. However here is where Aberdeen City Councilman Mark Remily should have done more research.
An amendment was placed before the house to change the bills original language back to that which Dan Kaiser (and many others) had co-sponsored. It turns out the Senate did not in fact introduce the bill that was planned. That amendment to return the originally indented language did not pass. Rep Kaiser then added language to an amendment he knew would stop the bill during the House/Senate bill reconciliation process. Rep Kaiser did not add “of the opposite sex” because he is anti-gay; he did so because he knew such language would cause problems.
Representative Kaiser then spoke against the “of the opposite sex” amendment before the conference committee because it was unfair. The committee agreed and removed the amendment. However the committee would not accept Kaisers proposal to return the bill to its originally intended state. The bill died when an agreement could not be reached.
I believe Representative Kaiser should be commended for taking the necessary steps to stop a bill that was not going to work as advertised. Had Councilman Remily done even a little research on the LRC website he would have known that Mr Kaiser did not take any actions that were ‘anti-gay’ or discriminatory. Instead Rep Kaiser was trying to return the bill to a state that would actually help law enforcement by narrowing the definition of domestic violence. I only hope that Councilman Remily researches Aberdeen City Council matters better than he does legislation in Pierre.
PS. I need to check Facebook every day. Representative Kaiser actually released a statement on Remily’s letter. It would have saved me a lot of research (time spend listening to legislative audio files) had I seen his statement before writing this post. Here is Rep Kaisers statement from Facebook:
What a morning, if you have not read the Aberdeen American News Public voice, I would encourage you to do so. Mark Remily Aberdeen city council (as identified in the paper) makes some wild accusations about me, below are the facts
We must all understand how domestic violence may affect you and your family. The way the law is writing currently if you have ever lived with someone (college roommate, basic training room mate) it qualifies as a domestic. So if you lived with someone ten years ago and you get into an argument and you push your roommate, now as the law is, Law Enforcement MUST (they cannot use discretion,, if they did they would be breaking the law) arrest you. So you go to jail (career may be over, you lose your gun rights etc.)
After reading the article I’m disappointed in Mark Remily’s mistaken idea of how the legislative process works. First of all, Mark states (Senate bill 147) “its original senate version was fair”. But Mark never cites I was a Co-Sponsor of the bill! I sponsored this bill because in its original fair state it removed the wording of people who have lived together and replaced it with people in a intimate relationship. Now when the bill went to the Senate, the Senate removed the new wording and put in the old wording where law enforcement must arrest college roommates back into the bill.
When the bill came to the House, I tried to pass an amendment to restore the bill to its original Fair state. My amendment failed. I knew if I did pass an amendment the bill would have to go to conference committee and be voted on again, so in order to protect college roommates and people who went to basic training from arrest, I added the amendment to change the wording to opposite sex. It passed.
I testified in conference committee about how the opposite sex bill was unfair and based on my testimony the amendment was taken out. I attempted one last time to amend the bill to its original “fair” state. It did not pass and because the committee could not come to an agreement the bill died.
Anyone who knows me knows I want all people to have protection under the law. I also do not want people wrongfully arrested because the state legislature cannot agree on terminology of a simple bill. I’m happy to go into further detail of domestic law and (in my opinion) a somewhat vague assault law, if you would like more information please email me at email@example.com or shot me a Facebook email.
I think this response from a local Aberdeen area resident on Facebook is also worthy of mention:
MR. Remily I was greatly disappointed and frankly very offended by your letter to the editor in yesterday’s American News where you said “I cannot find the words to describe how angry I am at this hateful position by a person supposedly representing the people of district 3”. Rep Kaiser’s position is not in the least bit hateful to ANYONE. Yesterday you managed to take Rep. Kaiser’s amendment WAY out of context, as well as hurting your ability to do your job as a city councilman, by damaging your working relations with Rep. Kaiser and his ally’s. I respectfully demand that you publicly apologize to Rep. Kaiser and the citizens of Aberdeen for greatly misrepresenting the truth.
I think Mr Dennert will be disappointed. It is unlikely Remily will apologize. That would mean he would have to admit either:
- He is not good at researching (making him look like a bad city councilman)
- He was looking for an opportunity to attack an outspoken friend of liberty (and also someone looking to take Kaisers job next eleciton)
This last Monday the Aberdeen City Council met in their regular meeting. At this meeting the pit bull ban failed by a vote of 3-6. I’m glad the city council saw reason and understood that breed specific legislation does not work. This is a local victory for reason and liberty!
However, at the same time it is essential for dog owners to act responsible. It has been pointed out before that dog attacks and dog biting has a root cause of the owners actions. In order to keep council-members like Bunsness from repeatedly bringing this issue forth pet owners must be responsible.
Instead of going on a long rant I’ll re-post the conclusions of the NCRC:
We have always known the cause of dog bite injuries
From the first dog bite study published more than 50 years ago until today, the conclusions and recommendations of the researchers have shared a lot in common.
”This study of the epidemiology of dog bites would seem to indicate that human factors are more important than environmental factors in the genesis of dog bites.”
– Henry M. Parrish, 1959
”Education programs aimed at influencing the behavior of pet owners, particularly with respect to the responsibilities of ownership, would do much to reduce the magnitude of the problems.”
– H. Michael Maetz, 1975
”Poor owner control blamed for increase in dog bites.”
– Washington Post, 1975
”The growing problem of dog control can only be solved if dog owners realize their responsibilities as pet owners.”
– Lancaster Farming, 1978
”Efforts to prevent severe dog bites should be focused primarily at the level of the owner.”
– John C. Wright, 1985
”Generic non-breed-specific dangerous dog laws can be enacted that place primary responsibility for a dog’s behavior on the owner . . . In particular, targeting chronically irresponsible down owners may be effective.”
– Jeffrey J. Sacks, et al, 2000
”The dog bite problem is not a disease problem with a single vector; it is a complex societal issue that must address a wide range of human behaviors in ways that deal with irresponsible behavior that puts people and animals at risk.”
– Randall Lockwood, 2007
If we want better outcomes in our communities, we need to promote responsible pet ownership: the humane care, custody and control of all dogs.
So please, pet owners be responsible. Without responsible pet owners its only a matter of time before a meaningless pet ban will be passed. And then one more shred of liberty is lost.
As someone who often goes to the courthouse I think the addition of a digital monitor in the entrance is great (I go as an observer for certain cases). The information displayed on the new monitors appear to be a much better system than the old paper posting. Just thought I would post this hat-tip for something I see right in government!