For the last few days I’ve been in the Black Hills vacationing with the family and attending the Governor’s Agricultural Summit. We will be out here for a few more days.. So no more updates are expected to the blog until I return to Aberdeen (My internet access at the camp is very spotty). When returning I have the following posts planned:
Notes from the Brown County Democrat meet/greet fundraiser in Aberdeen this previous Tuesday.
Notes from the Thursday tour as part of the Ag Summit.
Notes from the Friday sessions of the Ag Summit. This portion of the Summit included one long session that was basically a sales pitch for Senator Vehle to raise fuel taxes.
Thoughts about the news (if any) from the SD Democrat convention.
Recently the Prison Policy Initiative created a chart showing the incarceration rate of countries around the world along with each state of the US as a comparison (their site seems to be having problems right now, if the link doesn’t work here is the cached version). This chart does not look good for South Dakota or the United States.
Here is a view of the top 16 incarceration rates:
Here are some takeaway numbers from the whole chart. It should be noted that these figures represent the number of people incarcerated per 100,000 people. These figures include local, state, and federal incarceration numbers.
The top incarceration honors go to Louisiana with a rate of 1341!
South Dakota has an incarceration rate of 777, nothing for us to be proud of.
The US incarceration rate is 716.
The next lowest country is Cuba with an incarceration rate of 510. I would however recommend taking this number with a grain of salt. These numbers are what each country officially releases; and Cuba has a long history of locking people up for political reasons. It is unknown if these numbers include such cases.
The lowest incarceration rate for a US state is Vermont with 254.
The United Kingdom-England & Wales has an incarceration rate of 148.
Another questionable number on the chart is China with a rate of 121. I would have the same concern with these official numbers as with Cuba.
Canada is way below the US with an incarceration rate of 118.
Comoros is at the very bottom of the list with an incarceration rate of 16.
The incarceration rate I’m seeing for South Dakota is shameful! As a libertarian I am often trying to make the case that victim-less crimes do nothing but create criminals out of normal people. I would suggest that the failed war on drugs is large part of our over-use of incarceration. Unfortunately this trend seems unlikely to reverse itself. Here in South Dakota the Attorney General is proud of locking up people who committed victim-less crimes and has vowed to do even more! I guess having the 16th highest incarceration rate in the world isn’t enough for the AG….
Here is a look at the level of public confidence in Congress from 1973 to 2014:
It is interesting to look at the numbers for the Bush and Obama years. In 2004 public confidence was at its recent high of 30. That ‘high’ number was likely do the country and Congress coming together after 9/11. From that point on the confidence in congress had more than halved by the end of Bush’s second term. There was a slight surge in 2009, most likely thanks to the hope and change campaign from then newly crowned President Obama and the Democrat Party holding a majority in Congress. Yet the Democrats were not able to hold that slight increase. Now confidence in Congress is half of what it was when Obama took office. If this trend continues (which it likely will) we may see confidence in Congress fall below the margin of error for the poll. At that point it might as well be said that Congress has no support.
With ever-declining public confidence in Congress I find it odd that people keep voting the same status quo politicians into office. With such low confidence numbers it seems almost inexcusable that people keep voting for the same people to return to DC.
Perhaps some part of the problem is related the poll results for news media:
Since 1993 the mainstream media has had a steady decline in confidence levels from the public. I think the two polls have at least a casual relationship. Over the years true investigative reporting has declined due to cutbacks in the newsrooms of mainstream media institutions. At the same time news organizations seem to have really given both big parties a pass when ‘reporting’ facts. Yes, there are news organizations that seem biased towards one party or the other. But a bigger bias seems to exist against third-party and Independent candidates. After the 2012 elections I had many people ask me why there was little or no media coverage for third-party candidates such as Libertarian Party candidate Gary Johnson. Such blatant bias against anything that doesn’t stand for the status-quo seems like a possible reason confidence has been lost in the news media.
I don’t think media is the largest factor in the low public confidence in Congress. Yet the media failing to actually hold the two large parties accountable may be causing the mainstream media to lose confidence from the very audience they need to exist. Further, since most media sources refuse to actually give third-party and independent candidates any attention, it makes the mainstream media look as if they no longer care about informing their audience. A lack of information about alternative candidates means the voters never get a chance to learn who these non- status-quo politicians are. If the mainstream media continues its current downward trajectory we may see the industry having the same dismal numbers as the Congress they have helped keep the spotlight on.
PS. Yes, there re some good actual individual reporters in the mainstream media. Both in and out of South Dakota. However they appear to be the exception to the rule; and have no power to actually balance the decline of their industry.
Yesterday I noted the SD GOP state convention was pretty boring in its selection of candidates. That is not necessarily true in its passage of resolutions. One resolution in particular has garnered South Dakota quite a bit of national attention. By a vote of 191-176 delegate passed a resolution calling for the impeachment of President Obama.
Before continuing this post I will get three statements out of the way:
I support the idea of this resolution due to the many illegal activities performed against civil liberties by the Obama administration.
I supported the same idea of impeaching President GW Bush for the many illegal activities performed against civil liberties by the Bush administration.
The chance of any President actually getting impeached is so slight that it might as well be considered impossible.
With that out of the way it is time to look at the actual resolution. Here is what a delegate sent me as the text of this resolution:
WHEREAS, The president of the United States, Barack Hussein Obama has taken an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States and protect it from all enemies both foreign and domestic,
WHEREAS, The president has violated his oath of office in numerous ways with the latest being the release of five terrorists in exchange for a soldier without consulting Congress as required by law,
WHEREAS, The president of the United States has willfully and wantonly lied to the American people telling them they can keep their insurance company, and they can keep their doctor under Obama Care, prior to an election,
WHEREAS, The president has ordered Federal Agencies to enact rules (laws) that threaten the security of the people of this great nation (EPA regulations) by passing Congress and usurping its authority,
WHEREAS, the president has abused his executive privilege usurping his authority as decided by numerous federal courts,
WHEREAS, The Constitution and Declaration of Independence are very clear on the authority of the President and the Federal Government, and when they violate their oath it is the right, it is the duty of the American people to act,
WHEREAS, America was designed as a Lex Rex (the law is king) rather than a Rex Lex (The King is the law) system of government. It is a government of the people, by the people and for the people.
THEREFORE, be it resolved that the South Dakota Republican Party calls on our U.S. Representatives to initiate impeachment proceedings against the president of the United States.
I definitely agree with some of the WHEREAS statements, yet I could build a similar list for Bush (or almost any previous President). There are a couple of WHEREAS statements I would like to focus on a little bit.
Yes, the move by Obama to exchange POW’s was technically illegal since the President is required by the NDAA to notify Congress of such actions 30 days ahead of time. Yet it is the establishment war hawks in DC (from both parties) that have created this situation by keeping the Guantanamo Bay detention center open. If politicians truly cared about such situations they would work hard to end our interventionist wars and close Guantanamo Bay now; as opposed to playing political games in order to keep it open for at least another year. I somehow failed to see the SD GOP pass a resolution condemning the immoral and unconstitutional facility at Guantanamo Bay.
Yes, Obama lied to Americans and many people (including me) received letters saying their insurance would be cancelled. But should it be any surprise that a major piece of legislation that was written by special interest groups and unread by those voting on it (or signing it in Obama’s case) would be based upon lies? I never believed Obama. I can only think that enough people believed his “hope and change” campaign enough to think he was honest. Too bad they are just now realizing Obama was just a double-down on the same bad big-government policies of GW. I somehow failed to see the SD GOP pass a resolution condemning the many lies perpetrated by the Bush administration.
In order for an impeachment to actually happen the US House of Representatives would have to pass the resolution with a simple majority vote. Then the Senate must concur with that resolution by a 2/3 majority vote. Even if the resolution passes the House (which I doubt), it would be very unlikely to even be taken up in the Senate.
Basically this resolution was a political statement by the SD GOP. The resolution might have had more impact if the politicians representing the Republican Party would actually support small-government policies all the time.. instead of just when it suits their candidates.
For comparison, below is the resolution to impeach Bush (H.Res. 1258 – 110th) introduced by Representative Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) in 2008. Bonus question to those saying the impeach Obama resolution is the work of anarchistic anti-government Tea Party types: did you make similar statements about Kucinich in 2008 for doing basically the same thing?
Impeaches President George W. Bush for high crimes and misdemeanors.
Sets forth articles of impeachment stating that President Bush, in violation of his oath of office:
(1) illegally spent public dollars on a secret propaganda program to manufacture a false cause for war against Iraq;
(2) misused intelligence reports to deceive Congress and the public about a connection between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda and the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001;
(3) mislead Congress and the public into believing that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction and posed an imminent threat to the United States;
(4) illegally misspent funds to begin a war in secret prior to congressional authorization;
(5) invaded Iraq in violation of U.S. law, the United Nations Charter, and international criminal law and failed to obtain a declaration of war;
(6) failed to protect U.S. troops in Iraq by not providing them with body and vehicle armor and promoted false stories about the deaths and injuries of members of the U.S. military;
(7) used public funds to construct permanent U.S. military bases in Iraq;
(8) invaded Iraq to obtain control of its oil resources;
(9) created a secret task force to guide U.S. energy and military policy in usurpation of the role of Congress in legislating such policy;
(10) misused classified intelligence information and conspired to identify a covert agent of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA);
(11) established policies granting U.S. government contractors in Iraq immunity from prosecution;
(12) recklessly misspent public dollars on private contractors in Iraq;
(13) detained U.S. citizens and foreign captives indefinitely and without charge;
(14) authorized torture of captives in Afghanistan and Iraq;
(15) kidnapped and transported individuals to countries known to practice torture;
(16) authorized the arrest and detention of at least 2,500 children as enemy combatants in violation of the Geneva Convention;
(17) mislead Congress and the public about threats from Iran;
(18) created secret laws through the issuance of legal opinions by the Department of Justice and violated the Posse Comitatus Act;
(19) authorized warrantless electronic surveillance of U.S. citizens;
(20) directed telecommunication companies to create databases of the private telephone numbers and emails of U.S. citizens;
(21) used signing statements to claim the right to violate laws enacted by Congress;
(22) failed to comply with congressional subpoenas and instructed former executive branch employees not to comply with such subpoenas;
(23) tampered with the conduct of free and fair elections and corrupted the administration of justice;
(24) conspired to violate the voting rights of U.S. citizens;
(25) pursued policies calculated to destroy the Medicare program;
(26) failed to prepare for the predictable disasters caused by Hurricane Katrina;
(27) mislead Congress and the public in an effort to undermine efforts to address global climate change; and
(28) failed to take proper steps to protect the United States against the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, obstructed investigations into such attacks, and recklessly endangered the health of first responders near the site of such attacks.
This previous Saturday the Constitution Party of South Dakota held its State Convention in Sioux Falls. At the Convention two candidates were chosen to run for statewide office. Here are the candidates named in the press release:
Wayne Schmidt of Mobridge for Public Utilities Commissioner and Lori Stacey of Sioux Falls for her second run for Secretary of State won their nominations by unanimous vote.
I think its great to see the Constitution Party putting forth candidates. It is too early to know if I support either candidate. But as always I will give candidates of all parties (or none) a fair chance and follow their actions over the next few months. It should be noted however that both candidates have a long road ahead of them to get votes.
Public Utilities Commissioner
Way Schmidt is not a surprise candidate. Technically the Constitution Party announced his entry into the Public Utilities Commissioner race back in January. As noted before Schmidt has run for a legislative seat in District 23 twice; once in 2006 going for a State Senate Seat and then again in 2008 going after a State House seat. This will place Schmidt against Gary Hanson this fall (who was chosen by Republicans at their convention to seek re-election). The Democrats have yet to hold their convention, so it is still unknown who the third candidate in this race will be.
No matter what it will be a tough battle for either third-party candidate (Constitution Party and Democrat Party). Here are the results of the 2012 PUC races:
The almost 6% that voted for Libertarian candidate Russell Clarke is likely mostly from the “I won’t vote for either big party” group. If Schmidt has any hope he is going to have to find support from outside of that group. Perhaps as the election progresses we will find out more about this candidate and see why he should (or shouldn’t) get votes.
Secretary of State
Lori Stacey’s entry into the Secretary of State race is no surprise. Stacey has been an activist trying to get voters away from the two big parties for years (well, one big party in SD). She also ran for this office in 2010. Here are the results from then:
It is worth noting Stacey received just over 6% of the votes. Similar to the amount of votes received by the Libertarian PUC candidate in 2012. This time at it Stacey must find a way to reach more voters. Her best chance may be to show how she can fix the problems that currently plague the SOS office. She might try some GOTV efforts with the reservations since ballot access is one of the issues I’ve heard speak about before.
Just as with the PUC candidate Schmidt, I am glad to see Stacey in this race. It is far too soon to know if I support her as a candidate. But I definitely support her being in the race and hope learn more about her solutions over the next few months.
Today the constitutional offices were voted on by delegates at the South Dakota GOP convention in Rapid City. There are no surprises in the results… Of course the fact that only one office had multiple nominations made it a pretty boring set of ‘races’. Here are the results from today for the Republicans that will show up on the ballot this fall. I’ve also added some brief thoughts about what this means for the Democrats.
South Dakota Secretary of State – Shantel Krebs – This is the race I was hoping Shantel Krebs would win; and wow, she had a dominating victory over current Deputy Secretary Miller. If the Democrats decide to go after this office (which I hope they do), they will need to find a good candidate that can Shantel head on. The Democrat candidate cannot simply run on returning integrity to the office. Such an approach would make it appear they are simply mirroring Krebs campaign. I still think this is the office Democrats should go after with all they’ve got.. But the big question is: do the Democrats have enough to take the one constitutional office that is actually winnable for them? If Miller had won I think the answer to that could have been a strong maybe; but with Krebs in the race I would say it is a strong very unlikely.
Attorney General – Marty Jackley – Jackley being unopposed is not a surprise. I think the Democrats will make a case Jackley mishandled the EB-5 investigation. But I don’t think the general public will really care. The Democrats will also likely try to attack Jackley for defending South Dakota’s same-sex marriage ban in court. But there again that will go nowhere. It is the job of the AG to defend the states laws in court. Technically a Democrat AG would have to defend the law as well. Unless the Democrats bring out an outrageously strong candidate I can’t see this race being competitive during the general election. Personally I will be interested to see how he handles the felony charges against former US Senate candidates Annette Bosworth and Clayton Walker.
Commissioner of School and Public Lands – Ryan Brunner – State Representative Jim Bolin was also in this race; but he decided to pull out of this race so he could focus on the fight against Common Core. I’ve spoken with Brunner a number of times since doing a post about the race last fall; these conversations generally revolve around the dam leak at Richmond Lake. I feel he would continue to push for what is right. I really don’t see how the Democrats will be able to be competitive in a race against the current Deputy Commissioner for a job that the average person doesn’t even understand or care about (they should if they care about education funding, but that is a rant for a different day)…
Lieutenant Governor – Matt Michels – No surprise here. Since the Democrats went with the timid choice in the Governors race I can’t see them doing much better in their choice for Lt Gov. Independent gubernatorial candidate Mike Myers should also be mentioned. He chose lawyer and former Democrat lawmaker named Caitlin Collier as his Lt Gov. She is likely to be much more interesting than anyone the Democrat party puts forth.
Auditor – Steve Barnett – There are rumors the Democrats will try hard to take this office. I believe that would be a mistake. Barnettt is well-liked and has done a pretty good job from what I can tell. The problems with transparency in Pierre have to do with lack of open government laws; and not with the auditor.
Treasurer – Rich Sattgast – I can’t see the Democrats mounting any successful race against Sattgast. Overall people are happy with now the finances of the state are being handled.
Public Utilities Commission – Gary Hanson – The Democrats can maybe make a case the PUC should change hands. I just can’t see how they would make that case right now.
Overall I don’t see any of the above offices changing party hands this year. There are likely to be cases made by politicos and bloggers this summer against some or all of the above candidates (including possibly by me); but at the end of the day there simply isn’t the infrastructure in place for the South Dakota Democrat Party to be competitive in these races. That is sad. Even if I support a candidate I hate to see a race with no real opposition. It is unhealthy to the whole election process when one party dominates.
I’ve been looking through the amendments added to the Department of Defense Appropriations Act of 2015 (HR 4870). Earlier today I noted that South Dakota’s Representative Kristi Noem voted on the side of civil liberties by defunding illegal NSA activities. I applaud her for that vote. Now it is time to look at another amendment to the defense appropriations act she voted for that I feel is bad.
Rep Cotton (R-AR) submitted an amendment (905) that basically prevents President Obama from transferring prisoners from Guantanamo Bay for one year. This amendment was offered by Rep Cotton as a response to Obama unilaterally choosing to swap Sgt Bergdahl for Guantanamo Bay prisoners. That act from Obama was technically illegal because the NDAA requires the President to give a thirty-day notice to Congress before such transfers can happen.
I call bullshit on Rep Cotton’s reason for submitting this amendment.
Back when campaigning for this first term the closure of Guantanamo Bay was one of Obama’s biggest campaign promises. A promise he has failed to accomplish. There appears to be two very large reasons Obama has failed to keep this promise:
Congressional war hawks in both parties do not want Guantanamo Bay closed. Rep Cotton is among those who will do anything possible to keep Obama from closing Guantanamo Bay.
Obama has never really tried to close Guantanamo Bay. It is true that Obama has raised Guantanamo Bay as a talking point many times over the years. Yet he has failed to ever try using his political power to accomplish this goal. Now this late into his second term Obama simply doesn’t have the political power to make such a change actually happen.
Rep Cotton is using the current Obama Bergdahl scandal as political cover in a means to keeping Guantanamo Bay open. The Obama administration in turn is playing political games by saying this amendment would actually be unconstitutional because it would diminish the President’s power as Commander-in-Chief. Both Congressional war hawks and the White House are content with this battle because it keeps focus away from the debate that should actually be happening: should Guantanamo Bay be closed.
Personally I think Guantanamo Bay is the antithesis of what American is meant to stand for. The indefinite detaining of people without any true means of due process goes against the principles this country was founded upon. Ironically some of the very same politicians I hear talk about “natural-born rights” are also the same the politicians that support the existence of Guantanamo Bay. If someone believes in natural-born rights it has to be for EVERYONE; and not just for people who are born in the United States. Allowing the government to arbitrarily choose who gets natural-born rights and who doesn’t has the endgame effect of reducing the potential liberties for all people; including US citizens. Government officials have often claimed Guantanamo Bay is important because our Constitution and laws do not apply there. The very fact that claim is made in support of Guantanamo Bay should actually be the reason to show why it should not exist. Our morals should not disappear when we leave our national border!
Are the people in Guantanamo Bay bad? Most likely they are. But it is time to stop pretending we as a country have the right to detain people indefinitely in an ambiguous and unwinnable “War on Terror”. I don’t know what should be done with the prisoners that currently ‘reside’ in Guantanamo Bay; but I most certainly believe the current solution is NOT Constitutional or morally acceptable. It is time for Congress and the White House to actually try looking for an answer to removing this morally bankrupt detainment center from our country.
Back to Cotton’s amendment. The amendment passed 230-184 along highly partisan lines. Yet it is important to remember the vote was only among party lines because the Democrats voting knew it would pass not matter what they voted. If there were too many Republicans parting from leadership in this vote there is no doubt more war hawks from the Democrat side would have stepped up and ensured the amendments passage.
I don’t really think the amendment will make it through the Senate. But it doesn’t have to. Debate will take place about the amendment. Reid will accuse Republicans of playing political games. McConnel will accuse Reid of being a dictator. In the end the amendment will be dropped. That will be a case of Reid and McConnel showing modern-day bi-partisanship: both parties arguing over political games to keep attention away from the real issue.
Unfortunately in South Dakota our lone Representative Kristi Noem decided to be part of this political straw-man battle; instead of actually standing up for what is right and arguing about whether Guantanamo Bay should remain open. Maybe I was expecting too much to think that DC Republicans care about little things like natural-born rights……
Here is the actual text of Cotton’s amendment for those interested. Basically if passed it would prevent the President from transferring prisoners until the next defense appropriations bill is passed in 2016.
At the end of the bill (before the short title) insert the following:
Sec. __. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may be used to transfer or release any individual detained at United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba to the individual’s country of origin or to any other foreign country.
Last summer South Dakota’s lone representative in the US House of Representatives, Kristi Noem, voted no to the Amash amendment. That amendment to the Department of Defense Appropriations Act would have basically prevented the NSA from collecting data on American citizens that were not part of an actual investigation. To me that vote was the final sign that Noem doesn’t care about civil liberties and she has to go. Sadly Noem has no real competition in her bid for re-election this year. The good news however is that she appears to have learned from her mistake last year.
On Thursday night the House voted on amendments to the Department of Defense Appropriations Act of 2015 (HR 4870). Included in those amendments was one offered by Representative Massie (R-KY) that is aimed at preventing the NSA from continuing its backdoor spying. I’ve included the text from this amendment (935) at the end of this post for any who wishes to read it. But here is what the amendment basically does:
Prevents the NSA from using its funding to conduct warrantless searches.
Prevents the NSA from using its funding to have private companies and organization create backdoors in security products that use encryption.
These measures are not as good as the Amash amendment from last year, but it is definite step forward in restoring civil liberties. Unfortunately threats of budgetary defunding appears to be the only tool Congress has to reign in federal agencies such as the NSA.
The amendment passed the House floor roll call vote 293-123 in an bi-partisan fashion. Yet it is worth noting that the majority of the Aye votes actually came from Democrats, in a Republican controlled chamber. Outgoing Majority Leader Eric Cantor and incoming Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy both voted no for this amendment. South Dakota’s Representative Kristi Noem actually broke from leadership and voted Aye this amendment. She should be congratulated for actually standing up for civil liberties against the wishes of leadership within her party. Perhaps the Aye vote from incoming Majority Whip Steve Scalise gave her the courage to do so. Or maybe Noem finally understands that civil liberties are important to her constituents. Either way it is great to see her vote this way.
At this point it is still going to be a tough road ahead for this amendment to actually becoming law. The Obama administration is likely to pressure the Senate into removing this amendment from the appropriations bills (he threatened to veto the bill with Amash’s amendment last year). Right now the only hope is that the coalition between Senators Wyden, Udall, and Paul is able to pressure Reid into keeping this amendment as a part of the defense appropriations bill. It is too soon to tell if the three Senators have enough support in the Senate to actually protect civil liberties.
It really does feel good to do a post where I don’t have to attack Noem for voting against civil liberties. Hopefully she will make this a trend!
Here is the text of HR 4870 Amendment 935:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the following new section:
Sec. __. (a) Except as provided in subsection (b), none of the funds made available by this Act may be used by an officer or employee of the United States to query a collection of foreign intelligence information acquired under section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1881a) using a United States person identifier.
(b) Subsection (a) shall not apply to queries for foreign intelligence information authorized under section 105, 304, 703, 704, or 705 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1805; 1842; 1881b; 1881c; 1881d), or title 18, United States Code, regardless of under what Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act authority it was collected.
(c) Except as provided for in subsection (d), none of the funds made available by this Act may be used by the National Security Agency or the Central Intelligence Agency to mandate or request that a person (as defined in section 1801(m) of title 50, United States Code) alter its product or service to permit the electronic surveillance (as defined in section 1801(f) of title 50, United States Code) of any user of said product or service for said agencies.
(d) Subsection (c) shall not apply with respect to mandates or requests authorized under the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (47 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.).
The State of South Dakota put out a press release giving details of how to donate to the Wessington Springs Relief Fund through the Red Cross. I have included the press release at the end of this post for any that wish to help that way. But I am not a fan of the Red Cross, so I usually look for alternative means of helping people in such disasters (Red Cross has great people locally, but still has big problems at national level).
Instead I prefer to give directly to families that have been impacted. So far I have found two families that have donation funds setup on the CrowdFunding website GoFundMe. I checked out the creators of both funds, and they come from reliable sources (always check out the validity of a charitable campaign, there are a LOT of scams out there!) Below are the two funds I have found. If anyone knows of other means of helping the families of Wessington Springs please let me know and I’ll pass it on somehow (either via another post, twitter, or Facebook).
Nobody thinks tragedy will ever strike their family, but unfortunately, sometimes God has plans we may never understand. On the evening of June 18th, in the vibrant little town of Wessington Springs, SD, a tornado uplifted the lives of the town’s 1,000 residents. Every mom, dad, grandma, grandpa, child, aunt, uncle, and friend were affected, some worse than others.
The Thompson family did not fare well. Chad and his wife Sara are parents to three young boys, hard-workers on their family farm/ranch, and do their best every day to keep their business running. The night of the tornado, the Thompson family took cover and road out the storm. Thankfully, every person is okay, however every possession is damaged or completely gone.
Their house is currently uninhabitable, but will be fixed up enough in a few days to live in. The bigger issue is that every piece of equipment, machinery, trailer, car, working pen, barn, machine shop, working shoot, and gate they use to work, are gone.
Chad and Sara are eager to push ahead to regain normalcy for themselves and their boys, and have already started working with insurance adjusters. Insurance will cover the larger costs, however it is clear there are many smaller things that need to be replaced which will add up quickly, financially. Chad and Sara are determined to be up and running again soon.
If you are able to make a donation to support the Thompson family in their time of need, your generosity would be greatly appreciated. All donations will go to the resources needed to rebuild their farm and ranch.
If you prefer to send a check, please make it payable to Chad & Sara Thompson and mail it to:
Chad & Sara Thompson
36951 229th St.
Wessington Springs, SD 57382
On Wednesday, June 18th at about 8pm, a tornado tore into the small town of Wessington Springs, SD. This storm destroyed the home on Blowers Avenue of my great uncle and aunt, Ward and Connie Barber. They are now left without a roof over their head and no running vehicle. They are safe and will be staying at a family members house in Mitchell, but they have lost every possession that is dear to them.
Ward and Connie are the nicest couple and are very much loved by their community and by their family. They deserve all that we can give them especially after one of the most difficult times in their lives.
Even if you are unable to make a donation, please help by sharing this page. All donations will go directly to Ward and Connie Barber to help them in their long recovery.
Here is the Press Release from the State of South Dakota:
WESSINGTON SPRINGS, S.D. – Officials in Wessington Springs have established a relief fund and are finalizing a donation-reception center as the community works to recover from a devastating tornado Wednesday evening.
Any business, organization or individual wishing to help Wessington Springs residents impacted by the tornado is urged to donate to the Wessington Springs Relief fund by contacting the Red Cross. To donate, visit the Red Cross website at www.redcross.org and designate your donation for Wessington Springs or call 1-800-Red-Cross.
Cash donations designated to the Wessington Springs Relief Fund may also be dropped off at American Bank & Trust locations in Wessington Springs, Alpena, Huron, Wolsey, Miller, Huron-Walmart, Pierre, Mellette and De Smet.
Community leaders are working to establish a donation-reception center and are preparing a list of community needs. Once local leaders have identified what the community needs for its recovery, that list will be announced and donations will be gratefully accepted.
Mayor Melissa Mebius said the community is still very much in the process of recovery, so heavy equipment is moving through the streets, debris remains in many areas and power is still being restored in some areas. Until that part of the recovery is complete, for both individual and public safety, individuals wishing to visit the community are asked to consider delaying a trip.
One of the few potentially interesting statewide offices up for grab in South Dakota this year is for the Secretary of State (SOS). I’ve been no fan of the current SOS Jason Gant. Last year I wrote that Gant had made the case he must be replaced; then I buried any venom I have for Gant after he announced he was not seeking re-election. Now with all of the party state conventions coming up we will see who actually makes it on the ballot this fall. So far I am not over-excited about the race; but I could be if the right people are chosen to be on the ballot.
Before going on I think it is important to look at what is important for the next SOS to do. Here is my short-list of what I am looking for in the new SOS:
Someone who can continue Gant’s push for technology. One of the things I like about Gant was his push for the use of technology in the SOS office, especially in business filings. There have been problems with the implementation, but that can be fixed by a later bullet point I have in mind.
Someone who can work with County Auditors. On the election side it is important for the SOS office to work well with all of the County Auditors. Any successful SOS candidate must figure that out and come up with a way to work with each and every auditor.
Someone who can fix the current problems with business filings. Business filings have become notoriously slow and the SOS office seems to lose paperwork a lot (I own a business services office, I’ve seen the problem first hand). A good SOS candidate must find a way to actually fix the current problems in the office. I have a feeling the problems are caused mainly by an unusually high turnover rate of employees in the SOS office.
Project Management experience! Let me say that again: Project Management experience! The failure of the current office I believe could all be fixed by a good project manager. Even though Gant has good ideas and has done some good work getting technology, it seems the actual implementation of such technology and procedural changes has been dismal. The new SOS must be able to build on the good ideas Gant had and actually implement them.
If you’ll notice I didn’t include any experience with elections or business filings. That is all stuff that can easily be learned by a good candidate. But what can’t easily be learned is the leadership and project management skills that are required to successfully run the SOS office and move it forward. There are many other things I am looking for in a candidate, but I would say the above bullet points are my main requirements.
With that said it is time to look at the actual presumed candidates going into the state party conventions.
Potential Republican Party SOS Candidates
There are currently two Republicans seeking the SOS office. First there is current State Senator Shantel Krebs. She entered the race last fall and has the most endorsements. I spoke with Sen Krebs last fall at the Spink County Republicans Lincoln Reagan Family Lunch. One thing I really like about Krebs is that she is VERY enthusiastic and has a lot of energy. If she were to become SOS I have no doubt she will give everything she has. I am apprehensive however. There are more than a few people who have said Krebs supports the National Popular Vote (NPV). I have no confirmation if this is true, but I think it is a good question for all SOS candidates. There are also quite a few people who have tied Krebs to the Rounds campaign (not hard since Mr Krebs works on the Rounds campaign team). This is a case where I’ll dismiss such connections. The South Dakota political environment is small, VERY SMALL! Almost any candidate can be connected to any other candidate in a Kevin Bacon Game sort of way. Finally there are other apprehensions I have about Krebs during her tenure as a State Senator; but I’ll wait to see if she is the actual nominated candidate before digging to deep into that.
Then there is the latest entry Pat Miller, who currently works in the SOS office as the Deputy . She is part of the current Gant administration. I’ve heard many people say she is a great lady and has been a huge asset in the SOS office. Her experience as deputy SOS would be invaluable when tackling the job of being SOS. Yet I don’t see her as a good candidate in this race. First, Miller has a LONG history in public service. I think it would perhaps be better to bring someone into the office that isn’t overly comfortable working with bureaucrats. The new SOS will likely have to make some changes, and that is hard if the SOS was part of what was not working well before. Which is the second reason I do not like Miller in this race. She has worked in the office as the Deputy director and has apparently been unable to fix the many problems that have existed. She may be a terrific lady, but I can’t see anything about her that makes me think she would move the office forward.
In the Republican race I hope the delegates will choose Krebs. Even though I have reservations about here possible support of NPV, I feel she would be a large improvement over the current SOS administration. But whichever candidate makes it through the convention I plan to meet with them and try to discover if they have the Project Management and leadership skills that will be necessary to bring the SOS office into the future.
Democratic Party SOS Candidate?
This is tough because we don’t yet know who the Democrats have that actually want to run this race. But I’ll put in my two cents about who they should run for this office: Angelia Shultz. She ran against Mark Remily in the District 3 Democrat primary and lost. I feel she would have been the better candidate; but since the primary election has ended I have heard she didn’t get out and knock on enough doors. If she goes on to a statewide race it will be important for her to commit to the amount of time that will be necessary to run such a race. Her experience is not very heavy on business, but it is heavy on project management and working with others. If she enters this race she will have to show she has the leadership skills to take the SOS office into the future.
Last week Shultz was asked to run for a statewide constitutional office. The current rumor-mill is that she is looking to take on Barnett in the State Auditor’s race. I believe that would be a mistake. I do think the State Auditors office should be someone completely independent of the ruling party; but I don’t think this is a race winnable by any Democrat during this election cycle. Barnett is well liked and has done a pretty good job as State Auditor. I feel the Democrats will say the State Auditors office has failed in its oversight of state agencies in Pierre. I however don’t think the problem is the auditors office; instead I think it is the laws that fail to set transparency in Pierre that is the problem. Replacing the auditor will do little or nothing to fix any of the many accountability and transparency issues in Pierre. Throwing Shultz in a race against someone who people love (especially in the Aberdeen area) will do nothing but sacrifice her with little or no possibility of winning. I know transparency and accountability is important to her, but running in the wrong race won’t help her advance either cause.
Perhaps the Democrats have someone else in mind. Yet any of the other names I’ve seen in the rumor mill seem either unlikely to actually run or are too unknown to me so I have no opinion of them at this time. But no matter what I believe the SOS is the constitutional race the Democrats should focus on. It is the only statewide race where they have a fair chance of winning.
It is unlikely there will be a Libertarian Party candidate. The party seems to have all but disappeared in the last couple of years and that seems unlikely to change quickly enough for anyone to make the ballot.
I had also looked at entering this race. I believe my personal experience with business, elections, and project management would be perfect for the position. But I had to stop that thought because of situations in my personal life that make such a commitment impossible this election cycle.
Final thoughts before the convention
Right now I think the Republican delegates should choose Krebs at their convention. I don’t know if she is actually worth supporting in the general election; but I do feel she would be a better SOS than current Deputy Pat Miller. The Democrats can possibly make this race competitive… if they can get the right candidate and that person is willing to put in the time and effort to win. If Krebs wins the nomination and the Democrats get a good candidate this could be the race to watch. If not.. well then whoever wins the Republican nomination might as start writing their acceptance speech for the general election now.