Category: Uncategorized

I was taking my dad grocery shopping today, and had the #BozTrial running in the background this afternoon.

I don’t think she did herself any good with that campaign-speech like statement to the court. And that was evidenced with the admonishment the Judge gave her from the bench.  Ultimately, he gave her 2 years on each count to run concurrently. 3 years probation. 500 Hours community service – specifically in South Dakota. No fines.

I don’t think anyone expected jail time, although I thought Judge Brown would give her a token stay just to underline the point on her behavior. But, I don’t think her sentence is a walk in the park either.

What do you think – was this fair?

Anyone wagering or speculating on Annette Bosworth’s Jail Sentence today?

I think she will end up with some minor time; 30-60 days served on weekends, just to send a message.

Your thoughts?

Petitions to Refer Senate Bill 69 Validated by Secretary of State

Pierre, SD – Referendum petitions for Senate Bill 69, “An Act to revise certain provisions regarding elections and election petitions” have been validated and filed with the SD Secretary of State’s office. The referral process required that Senate Bill 69 needed 13,871 signatures in order to be referred to the vote of the citizens of South Dakota in the November 2016 general election.

According to state statute 2-1-16 the Secretary of State’s office is required to perform a 5% random sampling of the signatures submitted. The random sampling process was overseen and reviewed by Secretary of State staff to check the signatures for completeness and to ensure the signatures were registered voters in the county they stated on the petition.  Following the sampling, it was determined that 14,179 signatures were valid.

Secretary of State Shantel Krebs stated, “The referral process demonstrates that citizens who are willing to participate and work hard can ensure their voices will have an opportunity to be heard at the ballot box.” 

This referendum petition will be Referred Law 19.

#30#

State Board on Geographic Names votes 4-1 to recommend keeping name of Harney Peak.

— Bob Mercer (@pierremercer) June 29, 2015

Attorney General Jackley Joins Western State Attorneys General to Challenge EPA on Waters of the United States

PIERRE – Attorney General Marty Jackley joined with Attorneys General from twelve other states in filing a lawsuit against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) over the EPA’s new rule defining “Waters of the United States” under the Clean Water Act. The case was filed in the United States District Court for the District of North Dakota. Approximately 35 States have filed comments in opposition and several other State Attorneys General are similarly filing lawsuits.

“The EPA is overstepping its Congressional authority and seizing rights specifically reserved to the States,” Jackley said. “The EPA is creating uncertainty for our agriculture and business community that needs to have fairness and a degree of common sense in federal regulation.”

In their Complaint, the states contend the new definition of “Waters of the United States” (WOTUS) violates provisions of the Clean Water Act (CWA), the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and the United States Constitution.

The States assert that the EPA’s new rule inappropriately broadens federal authority by placing a majority of water and land resources management in the hands of the federal government. Congress and the courts have repeatedly affirmed the States have primary responsibility for the protection of intrastate waters and land management. The States argue that the burdens created by the new EPA requirements on waters and lands are harmful to the States and will negatively affect agriculture economic development.

The new rule greatly expands and brings numerous isolated bodies of water under the jurisdiction of the EPA and Corps with the result that landowners will have to seek additional federal permits or face substantial fines and federal criminal enforcement actions.

The States are seeking to have the rule vacated and the EPA and Corps enjoined from enforcing the new definition of WOTUS.

Participating in the filing are the attorneys general from the states of: Alaska, Arkansas, Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wyoming.

After an earlier bout of political correctness, the Board of Geographic Names is making the final decision on renaming Harney Peak today according to KELOLAND:

The South Dakota Board on Geographic Names is making its final recommendation on a proposed name change for Harney Peak in the Black Hills National Forest.
The board is expected to make its final recommendation on Monday at a meeting in Pierre at 1:30 p.m.
The board made a preliminary recommendation in May to change the name to name “Hinhan Kaga.” It’s believed that the phrase translates to “Making of Owls” in English.

Read it all here.

Anyone taking bets after the outrage over their preliminary recommendation?

I might find the subject matter slightly humorous, but somehow I think Marty is to the point of wishing people would leave him out of it.

Apparently the nut jobs from Georgia or Florida or wherever they are from are now demanding that Marty Jackley prosecute people for felonies that may not actually exist.

It might be creepy but I’m not exactly sure that it’s a felony.

July 1 can’t get here soon enough.

@SDGovDaugaard spokesman: Same-sex couples married in SD will get same state employee benefits as any other married couple.

— John Hult (@ArgusJHult) June 26, 2015

Divided United States Supreme Court Decides On The Definition of Marriage
Rapid City, SD, 06/26/2015
South Dakota Family Heritage Alliance

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:  Friday, June 26, 2015

FHA Executive Director Dale Bartscher announced today that the United States Supreme Court issued a decision in Obergefell v. Hodges.  The case involved four combined cases from Kentucky, Ohio, Michigan and Tennessee.  The key questions they ruled on are whether the U.S. Constitution requires states to give marriage licenses to same-sex couples and whether the constitution requires states to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex that was performed legally in another state.

Today five justices of the Supreme Court ruled that all states must redefine marriage directly.

The FHA sees this ruling negatively affecting three major issues.

First, Marriage and Parenting.  Every child deserves the best opportunity we can give them to be raised by their married mom and dad. Today’s ruling puts the government’s stamp of approval on intentionally depriving kids of either their mom or their dad.  Redefining marriage redefines parenthood.  This new definition of marriage further weakens the institution of marriage by making it about the desires of adults rather than considering the good of children.

Second, Religious Freedom.  Regardless of whether someone supports or opposes same-sex marriage, I think we can all agree government shouldn’t force Americans to violate their beliefs about marriage.  Today’s ruling only increases the likelihood that our government will force Christians and other people of faith to celebrate or participate in same-sex marriages that violate their beliefs.  Now that same-sex marriage has been forced on our country, will there be tolerance for those whose faith teaches that marriage is the union of a man and a woman?

And third, Judicial Overreach.  The freedom to democratically address the most pressing social issues of the day is the heart of liberty. The Court took that freedom from the people.  The Court overrode the will of over 50 million Americans in 31 states who successfully voted to preserve the millennia-old definition of marriage.

Today as South Dakotans move forward we believe that much as the Roe v. Wade decision awakened pro-life Americans, we expect this ruling will re-energize efforts to protect and uphold God’s design for marriage in our culture and our laws.

At this writing, it is unclear as to the far-reaching ramifications of this ruling, and its impact on people of faith.  We are in the evaluation phase and more information is forthcoming.

###

“Evil In Black Robes”
– Gordon Howie