Category: Uncategorized

A reader sent this to me from Gettysburg.

From the Argus comes a story on how the State’s lone refugee placement center is not increasing their numbers for refugee placement, despite what the federal government is asking them to do:

South Dakota won’t participate in the White House’s next push to increase the number of refugees escaping poverty and violence.

The director of the lone resettlement program in South Dakota said it would not participate in the federal effort, citing the debate over immigration in the state.

and..

Fewer refugees are finding a home in Sioux Falls and the rest of the state in recent years in spite of the federal government’s wishes. Lutheran Social Services plans to end a direct resettlement program in Huron at the end of the month.

and..

LSS also ignored the last attempt by the White House to spur resettlement. Last year, the administration bumped the goal from 70,000 to 85,000 refugees and South Dakota’s numbers continued to wane.

The nonprofit is spending $5.4 million to buy and remodel the old Kilian Community College building in an effort to expand space for refugees. It asked the public to pitch in $1.25 million this spring. But the improvements aren’t designed to make room for a larger caseloads.

“It just simply allows us to consolidate programs and allow for more efficient services to individuals throughout the community,” Jurgens said.

Read it here.

Over history, refugee resettlement and the community objections to it have been one of those issues that never goes away. It’s been with us for a good chunk (or all) of our national history.

It just changes form over time.

It’s interesting as I’ve done extensive genealogical research, you see as these new American families start out dirt poor when they hit the shores of our nation, and over generations build themselves up in affluence and social status.

My great-great grandparents hit the shores as a Boston maid and a paper mill worker at a time when anti-immigrant sentiment in America made today’s objections look mild.

One of their sons was a cigar factory worker, and his son, an attorney and lobbyist. At that point in the early to mid 1900’s, public prejudice against Irish Catholics had largely gone away as they’d assimilated into the American fabric.

The questions and fears over modern refugees are the same, but a bit more complex than they were 160 years ago.

Back then – not dissimilar from now – support for these new Americans came from churches. But in these modern times, a far greater proportion of support comes from public tax dollars. And it’s not just housing support – it affects communities on a much wider basis.

Imagine dropping a number of families who have a very limited, if any, mastery of the english language in a typical South Dakota town. Given that we guarantee a free and appropriate public education, the children of these families may require ESL instructors, and a great amount of public school support. All of this costs taxpayer dollars.

Further adding to the complication in South Dakota is that we have one of the lowest unemployment rates in the nation. Until these refugees can find gainful employment, we’re further subsidizing them until they can find jobs.

Since the Cuban resettlement in the 1960’s, the Federal Government began to take the primary financial role in assisting refugees. And what does the federal government do better than anything else? Dump their problems and decisions on lower levels of government.   Some people like to characterize resettlement objections as prejudicial, but I can’t help but note that communities and Americans have always had a hard time when decision makers in Washington try to ram their decisions down people’s throats.

In South Dakota, we’re fighting the EPA over unilateral and somewhat stupid decisions on coal emissions and the waters of the US. Don’t even get me started on their pipeline stupidity. So, why wouldn’t everyday citizens take other decisions seemingly made by a federal government from 1500 miles away with a grain of salt?

Yes, absolutely, some of it is implemented locally. But that’s not how the average everyday citizen sees it.  And I would argue that the federal government’s involvement does not help things at all.

The federal government has their goals for refugee resettlement. LSS has their own goals for refugee resettlement.  And amazingly, this is all subsidized by the American taxpayer.  The parts people see in the equation are “refugee,” “federal government” and “taxes.” And things go downhill from there.

It’s less a matter of stone-hearted communities as much as objecting to what they see as unilateral placement decisions by fiat, at their expense.  I don’t believe that helps communities accept significant numbers of people who – like most immigrants – start out their time in a country alien to them in poverty as they start their journey to catch the American dream.

We all come from somewhere. But maybe it should be about opening our hearts, and less about the federal government.

Campaigning for @defeat_22 with a fresh CR face!! 🇺🇸😀 pic.twitter.com/udxmMNfuAw

— Augie Republicans (@AugieCRs) September 16, 2016

In case you’re not attending Saturday Night’s SDSU football game, the Lincoln County GOP is hosting a dinner with 3 potential Gubernatorial contenders for 2018 – Congresswoman Kristi Noem, incoming Speaker of the House Mark Mickelson, and Attorney General Marty Jackley:

Tickets are available at the door, and are $40 each or 2 for $75 at the “All Occasions” center, at the Tea I-29 exit.

 

Honored to receive the @NFIB Guardian of Small Business Award this morning. pic.twitter.com/fpoRcP7IWP

— Senator John Thune (@SenJohnThune) September 15, 2016

There was an article at the Mitchell Daily Republic website yesterday about the two sides clashing on Amendment V (for vile). If you’re not familiar, this is the ballot measure funded by out of state interests, which would hide party affiliations, as well as ensure that no independents or third party candidates would ever appear on a November ballot again.

As noted in the Mitchell Daily Republic:

Neither of the state’s political parties, which would see their organizations wiped from the ballot if Amendment V were to pass, offered support of the initiative.

South Dakota Democratic Party Executive Director Suzanne Jones Pranger said her party will remain neutral on Amendment V as some state Democrats have come out both for and against the proposal.

and…

Unlike its counterpart, the South Dakota GOP has taken a stance on the proposal.

Ryan Budmayr, executive director of the South Dakota Republican Party, said his party opposes the proposal, citing the “big money out of New York” that is supporting the effort. And while supporters say Amendment V would favor individual voters rather than political parties, Budmayr has a different view of the proposal.

“This is the farthest thing from nonpartisan,” Budmayr said. “The guys running this are former Democrats, party bosses, staffers, and I don’t think South Dakota should be fooled.”

Read it here.

Given the lukewarm opposition, at best, that the Democrat party apparatus is offering, I have to openly question whether the State Democrat Party is suppressing their party members who actually want to be identified as a political party, as opposed to a petition gathering organization.

However, aside from the Democrat party leaders, who mention dissent but give it no credence, it appears that at least a couple Democrat party loyalists are out there who recognize how bad Amendment V will be for South Dakota.

At RapidCityJournal.com today, Democrat stalwart Jay Davis voices his dissent from the weak-spined Democrat leaders who are happy to shed the Democrat label, mistakenly thinking that hiding who they are from voters will help them gain more offices. And Davis correctly points out that in conservative South Dakota, it’s more likely that Democrats are going to find themselves shut out:

FIRST AD RELEASED BY “NO ON V” COMMITTEE:
Ad Calls for Rejection of Out-of-State Meddling in South Dakota

Pierre – Today, South Dakotans Against V released an ad exposing the real masterminds behind the so-called “nonpartisan” election amendment.

“South Dakotans don’t need to be told how to govern by big, hidden money from out-of-state,” said Will Mortenson, Chairman of South Dakotans Against V.

More than three-quarters of Amendment V’s contributions are coming from outside the state, including more than 70% from a single organization in New York that does not disclose its donors. The New York-funded effort attacking South Dakota’s political system is led by a billionaire Obama-fundraiser and former Enron financier, along with other hidden, out-of-state donors.

“We need to stand up to the New York billionaires and out-of-state interests who are working with Democratic Party Bosses in South Dakota to destroy our state’s ballot transparency and long-time political traditions,” Mortenson added.

The Chairman of the Yes on V Ballot Committee in South Dakota is Democratic Party Boss and failed 2014 U.S. Senate Candidate Rick Weiland.

“Since he can’t win elections in South Dakota, Party Boss Rick Weiland is trying to confuse voters by hiding party labels on the ballot,” said Mortenson.

Amendment V hides party labels on the ballot and puts a California-style merged primary in South Dakota’s constitution. Vote NO on Amendment V in November.

The ad can be viewed at the link: https://youtu.be/5TPP6xF7tAI.

NOEM EARNS PRO-LIFE, PRO-FAMILY ENDORSEMENTS

SIOUX FALLS, SD – Rep. Kristi Noem has been recognized as a leader in the pro-life and pro-family movements. Today, her campaign announced endorsements from national and local pro-life and family values organizations, as well as a number of South Dakota religious leaders. 

“I am, and always have been, pro-life. I believe every human life is sacred, including the unborn, and my voting record in Congress will always reflect that belief,” said Noem. “It’s an honor to receive endorsements from the organizations and individuals who also believe in the sanctity of life and understand the importance of traditional family values.” 

Rep. Noem has been endorsed by: 

• National Right to Life
  
• WallBuilders
• Family Heritage Alliance Action
• Steve Ferguson, Watertown Foursquare Church
• Pastor Pam Gaikowski, Watertown Foursquare Church
• Roger Day, Highmore, SD – Hosanna Restoration Church
• Pastor Ray Greenseth, Murdo, SD –  Messiah Lutheran Church
• Reverend Hyle Anderson, Aberdeen SD
• Pastor Gary Wileman, Aberdeen, SD – First Assembly of God
• Pastor David and Pastor Jeanne Kaufman, Brookings, SD – Holy Life Tabernacle
• Pastor Wesley Wileman, New Underwood Community Church

“Congresswoman Noem exemplifies what FHA stands for: faith, family, and freedom. Her unwavering stance on protecting the unborn and standing up for traditional family values is why we are endorsing Rep. Noem in her re-election bid for U.S. House of Representatives,” said Dale Bartscher, FHA Action Executive Director. 

###

Was that the sound of a U-Haul backing up to Jay Williams Campaign Office, so they can start moving equipment into storage?  Because according to the website Morning Consult, Jay’s opponent John Thune is ranked as the 3rd most popular US Senator in America.

According to their methodology, “Based on interviews with almost 72,000 registered voters since May, Morning Consult crunched how constituents feel about their home-state senators (see more on methodology here).”  Bernie Sanders is #1, and John Thune is neck in neck with Maine’s Susan Collins for #2.

He’s 1 percentage point behind on popularity, but has a lower negative. That’s a pretty tough row to hoe for Thune’s opponent Jay Williams, (who will likely respond by muttering that we need to quit using fossil fuels, and that taxes are too low).

And it’s not like South Dakota’s Junior Senator fared poorly himself. Mike Rounds narrowly missed the top ten by coming in at #13:

Go read the entire story, complete with rankings here. 

Not that it comes as a shock to us, but it’s a testament to Republican leadership in South Dakota that we know how to pick ’em, and that they do a good job for our State.  Keep up the good work, Senators!

And sorry Jay. Better luck next time.

If you ask nicely, I’d let you use my appliance cart to load your stuff.  This might be good time to start loading.

Schatz-Thune Bill to Improve and Grow Tourism in Native Communities Heads to the President’s Desk

Bipartisan NATIVE Act Passes House, Set to Become Law 

WASHINGTON — The U.S. House of Representatives passed the Native American Tourism and Improving Visitor Experience (NATIVE) Act, bipartisan legislation introduced by U.S. Sens. John Thune (R-S.D.) and Brian Schatz (D-Hawai‘i) that will enhance and integrate native tourism, empower native communities, and expand unique cultural tourism opportunities in the United States. The bill, which passed in the Senate in April, now heads to the president for his signature.

“I’m glad the NATIVE Act received the same broad bipartisan support this week in the House as it did earlier this year in the Senate,” said Thune. “This is a good, common-sense bill that will have a real impact in tribal communities throughout the country, including the Lakota, Dakota, and Nakota nations in South Dakota. I want to thank Sen. Schatz for his strong partnership in helping get this legislation to the president’s desk for his signature.”  

“This bill will empower native communities to tell their own stories and build their own economic opportunities. For too long, tourism has focused on so-called major destinations and while that’s important, we have the opportunity to support cultural revitalization and economic renewal through the passage of this bill,” said Schatz. “Visitors are increasingly seeking out a more authentic and historically rich travel experience, and there is nothing more authentic and unique than the cultural tourism experience our native communities provide.” 

The NATIVE Act will require federal agencies with tourism assets and responsibilities to include tribes and native organizations in national tourism efforts and strategic planning. It will also provide Native Hawaiian, Alaska Native, and American Indian communities with access to resources and technical assistance needed to build sustainable recreational and cultural travel and tourism infrastructure and capacity; spur economic development, and create good jobs. 

U.S. Sens. Jon Tester (D-Mont.), Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), Tom Udall (D-N.M.), Dean Heller (R-Nev.), Al Franken (D-Minn.), Mike Rounds (R-S.D.), Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D.), John Hoeven (R-N.D.), and Gary Peters (D-Mich.) are cosponsors of the NATIVE Act.

“The NATIVE Act is a strong piece of legislation that will drive economic growth not only in areas that house Native lands and cultural attractions, but also for communities in every corner of the country,” said U.S. Travel Association president and CEO Roger Dow. “We are pleased to see our lawmakers prioritize a measure that expands travel and tourism promotion opportunities for these lands—particularly allowing them to attract more international visitors, whose trips often have a tremendous positive ripple effect on the surrounding local economy. We applaud the House for advancing this bill, and thank Sen. Schatz for his leadership on the NATIVE Act, along with his consistent dedication to facilitating travel across the United States.”

The NATIVE Act is supported by a broad coalition of stakeholders including the Council for Native Hawaiian Advancement, Native Hawaiian Hospitality Association, Sovereign Councils of the Hawaiian Homeland Assembly, U.S. Travel Association, American Indian and Alaska Native Tourism Association, Southeast Tourism Society, Western States Tourism Policy Council, National Congress of American Indians, Alaska Federation of Natives, and the Native Enterprise Initiative of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. 

U.S. Rep. Markwayne Mullin (R-Okla.) led companion legislation in the House of Representatives.

###