The Associated Press has a somewhat meandering article on-line which cites “deep skepticism” of media coverage at the same time they try to stir up discontent about “Republicans” on either side of the Trump divide.

In reading the article, when they’re interviewing “Republican figures,” they take a jaunt through the distant past.

• “Longtime South Dakota Republican voter Jim Thompson is ready to leave the GOP, hoping that an exodus of Donald Trump supporters like him will punish the state’s preeminent politician, Sen. John Thune, for defying Trump….”
• “A private Facebook group called “Primary John Thune in 2022” has attracted over 3,000 members. One of them, Bruce W. Whalen, said Thune’s refusal to support Trump’s claims of fraud has fueled interest….”
  …”Whalen, who in 2006 had enough GOP support to represent the party in a statewide race for Congress…”
• “In the meantime, some longtime state Republican figures are frustrated with their senator’s hesitation to convict Trump.
  “He deserves to be convicted,” said David Volk, a former state treasurer.”

Read the entire story here.

You know, I like and enjoy former State Rep. Jim Thompson just fine.. but didn’t he leave the party once when he was in the State House back in April 1995 (and started an independent caucus with a couple of the liberal democrats)? Not in office since 1997.

Bruce Whalen was talked into running for Congress in 2006. There was no primary. The reporter characterizing his “enough GOP support to represent the party” was actually “party officials assisting with getting sufficient signatures” so the race had an opponent. Nevermind that Bruce Whalen hasn’t been a Republican official – even at the county level – for a while.

And again, while I’ve always found Dave Volk to be friendly and personable.. he hasn’t held office as a Republican in over 30 years, and he seems to jump the fence and endorse Democrats as much as ‘Republican’ Larry Pressler; (Volk endorsed Billie Sutton in the last Gubernatorial election).

This is not a group of people I’d argue are recognized as “Republican figures” in 2021.

And really, while the article mentioned people wanting to punish Thune, did they actually talk to Thune, or any Thune staff members? Did they chat with any current SDGOP executive board members, or at least any party officials, as opposed to those who last ran 15-30 years ago?

I was informed they spoke with at least one current legislator who gave the reporter a quote for the story (as related to me by the legislator).  But, did it make it to print? No. Not at all.  Instead, it seems they took time machine into the distant past and otherwise cherry picked out what would fit in their notion of an article.

It’s not unlike what happened in the Governor’s press conference this last Friday:

.@stephengroves good job doing what @ChrisVondracek tried to do LIVE during the press conference.@govkristinoem herself said it best “What you should report is what I actually said.” pic.twitter.com/0yDZq2ZGzi

— Ian Fury (@IanTFury) January 28, 2021

It just seems that it doesn’t fit the narrative the reporters want to portray, or the specific story they want to write, it doesn’t make it to print, or as Governor Noem found, they’ll just write what they want, and ignore what the person they’re writing about actually said.

And some reporters wonder why they find those with a “deep skepticism about the mainstream media coverage?”

Governor Kristi Noem appeared on NewsmaxTV recently speaking on a number of topics, including the past election, how the GOP failed, and how we need to reassess, and other topics:

Who’s running for statewide office in the SDGOP in 2022?

Here’s the newest version of my “Tale of the Tape, infographic, in the “too early to be thinking of 2022” edition:

Thune: Virtual March for Life Attendees Will Be United in Spirit 

“We have the truth on our side. The truth that every human being, no matter how old or how young, no matter their race or the color of their skin, no matter their religion or political persuasion, is created in the image and likeness of God and has infinite dignity and worth.”

Click here or on the picture above to watch Thune’s speech.

WASHINGTON — U.S. Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) today discussed the upcoming virtual March for Life and expressed his gratitude for those who will join in this ‘march’ to stand up for innocent lives. He thanked them for their commitment to the pro-life movement and offered encouragement to continue fighting for justice for the unborn. Thune also discussed his willingness to work with Pete Buttigieg, nominee for Secretary of the Department of Transportation, and expressed his disappointment in Senate Democrats’ alleged attempts to push their liberal agenda in an additional COVID-19 relief package.

Thune Requests Guidance for Producers Applying for Second Paycheck Protection Program Loans

WASHINGTON — U.S. Sens. John Thune (R-S.D.) and Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.) today urged the U.S. Department of Treasury and the U.S. Small Business Administration to issue guidance excluding Coronavirus Food Assistance Program (CFAP) payments from farmers’ and ranchers’ 2020 gross receipts for purposes of obtaining a second draw loan through the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP).

“Recognizing the significant market volatility and financial hardships farmers and ranchers across the country faced because of the coronavirus pandemic, last year Congress provided the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) authority and funding to support producers,” the senators wrote. “As a result, USDA established CFAP, which provided critically needed financial assistance to producers to ensure they were able to continue providing our nation with a safe and abundant food supply. Therefore, we respectfully request that you clarify through additional guidance or an FAQ that CFAP payments provided to farmers and ranchers in 2020 do not count toward gross receipts for purposes of demonstrating a 25 percent reduction in revenue in 2020 compared to 2019.

Full text of the letter below:

Dear Secretary Yellen and Acting Administrator Perriello:

Thank you for your efforts thus far to administer the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) so small businesses can continue to obtain the necessary financial relief as our nation continues to recover from the coronavirus pandemic.  In response to the interim final rules issued on January 8, 2021, we write to bring your attention to how the rules, as written, may affect some of our nation’s producers and their ability to obtain a second draw PPP loan.

As you both know, the interim final rules establish guidance for how businesses, including self-employed farmers and ranchers, can obtain first and second draw PPP loans.  In outlining how businesses must demonstrate a 25 percent reduction in gross receipts in 2020 compared to 2019, the interim final rules state that forgiven first draw PPP loans do not count toward gross receipts.  However, they are silent on whether or not Coronavirus Food Assistance Program (CFAP) payments count towards farmers’ and ranchers’ 2020 gross receipts for purposes of demonstrating a 25 percent reduction in receipts in 2020 compared to 2019.

Recognizing the significant market volatility and financial hardships farmers and ranchers across the country faced because of the coronavirus pandemic, last year Congress provided the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) authority and funding to support producers.  As a result, USDA established CFAP, which provided critically needed financial assistance to producers to ensure they were able to continue providing our nation with a safe and abundant food supply. Therefore, we respectfully request that you clarify through additional guidance or an FAQ that CFAP payments provided to farmers and ranchers in 2020 do not count toward gross receipts for purposes of demonstrating a 25 percent reduction in revenue in 2020 compared to 2019.

Thank you for your attention to this request and for your work to assist small businesses.  We look forward to seeing clarity on this issue to ensure that farmers and ranchers can obtain a second draw PPP loan.

Sincerely,

  

###

Rounds Issues Statement on President Biden’s Executive Actions Expanding Obamacare and Attacking Life

U.S. Senator Mike Rounds (R-S.D.) issued the following statement today on executive actions taken by President Joe Biden to expand Obamacare and allow taxpayer dollars to be spent to fund overseas abortions:

“We’ve spent the last four years fighting to roll back government overreach in private healthcare and protect the sanctity of human life. In the early days of the Biden presidency, we are watching some of our progress be destroyed.

“Obamacare led to higher premiums, fewer options for consumers and caused millions of Americans to lose the health insurance they preferred. We eliminated Obamacare’s individual mandate giving patients better control of their health insurance. Today’s steps to expand Obamacare are steps reversing our progress. They do not move us forward, only backward.

“Additionally, I am deeply disappointed in President Biden’s decision to overturn the Mexico City Policy. This decision will allow federal taxpayer dollars to be spent to fund abortions overseas. This is flat-out wrong – an attack on life anywhere is an attack on life everywhere.

“President Biden has said he wants to be a president for all Americans. But actions speak louder than words. These actions prove that he is only interested in furthering a left-wing agenda.”

###

For a while it seemed it would be a sedate and quiet session, with legislators tending to business.  And in the last couple of days, it seems the crazy stuff is starting to pop up.

Today, we have a second anti-vaxxer measure, solely sponsored by State Representative Phil Jensen:

Nothing in this chapter may be construed to interfere with each person’s inalienable right to bodily integrity. The right to bodily integrity includes being free from any threat or compulsion to accept any medical intervention, including any vaccination.

No person may, as a result of refusing to accept a medical intervention, including any vaccination, be subjected to discrimination or retaliation with respect to association, education, employment, housing, property rights, public accommodations, or public services.

Read it all here.

So.. if I’m reading this correctly, not only would grade schools have to accept people who are not vaccinated against measles and polio.. Phil’s bill would have even farther ranging consequences.

If a person appears to be clearly mentally ill, has no interest in treatment, and insists on living on a sidewalk in from of Phil’s house, or place of business, House Bill 1159 seems to give them a.) the right to refuse treatment, and b.) it appears they can’t be retaliated against for choosing to live on the public sidewalk.

Or, even better, someone clearly high on drugs could cut their wrists, and under Phil’s proposal, refuse medical intervention.. and bleed out. Literally, legalizing suicide.

That’s just great. Because legislators need to spend their time with goofy stuff.

Ugh.

If Democrats get their way, they’re going to demand all South Dakotans mask up if they venture out. Sort of:

Senate Bill 125

An Act to require the wearing of face coverings in the state under certain conditions and to declare an emergency.

Sponsors: Senators Nesiba and Heinert and Representatives Healy, Bordeaux, Cwach, Duba, Keintz, and Smith (Jamie)

Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of South Dakota:

Section 1. Definition–Indoor retail business. For the purpose of this Act, the term, retail business, means any enclosed business operating as a bar, restaurant, brewery, café, casino, coffee shop, recreational or athletic facility, health club, grocery store, market, retail store, hardware store, sporting goods store, convenience store, home improvement store, pharmacy, drug store, food pantry, vehicle for hire, transportation networking company, theater, or entertainment venue.

Section 2. Mask requirement. Within the state, all persons shall wear a face covering in an indoor retail business and city-owned facility where six-foot social distancing cannot be achieved or maintained. A face covering shall be worn to cover the nose and mouth completely, and can be a paper or disposable mask, a cloth mask, a scarf, a bandana, or a neck gaiter.

Section 3. Exceptions. The requirements of section 2 of this Act do not apply to:

(1) A person under the age of five years old;

(2) A person seated at a public place to eat or drink, or while immediately consuming food or beverages;

(3) A person who is receiving dental or medical care that prevents the person from wearing a face covering;

(4) A person with a medical condition, mental health condition, or disability that makes it unreasonable for the person to maintain a face covering;

(5) A person who is engaged in swimming or a team sports activity where the level of exertion makes it difficult to wear a face covering;

(6) Public safety workers actively engaged in a public safety role, including law enforcement personnel, fire fighters, or emergency medical personnel, in situations where wearing a face covering would seriously interfere in the performance of the person’s public safety responsibilities; and

(7) Any member of a group of persons who are in an indoor retail business together and live in the same household or are a party of ten less, so long as the group maintains a continuous physical distance of at least six feet from all other persons not part of the household or party.

Section 4. Repealer. This Act is repealed on September 30, 2021.

Section 5. Whereas, this Act is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety, an emergency is hereby declared to exist, and this Act shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage and approval.

Read it here.

So, they will let you off the hook if you’re swimming.. but for not much else?  I have to go look and see who the three Democrats are who didn’t sign onto this mess.   .. Red Dawn Foster.. Lesmeister.. Pourier..  yep. That would be mainly the Democrats west of the Missouri River not in leadership.

I guess I’m not sure what the point is, especially since it just says “all persons shall wear a face covering.”

What if they don’t? Does it mean it’s just a strongly worded suggestion?

This might be one of the dumbest pieces of legislation this session. Good luck with that one.

Governor Noem must be getting more popular on a national basis, as no less than the New York Times did an attack piece against the Governor for her stewardship during the COVID-19 Crisis.

However, Governor Noem has the truth on her side, as related by the Gov’s Senior Advisor Maggie Seidel, who dropped a truth-bomb on the problematic reporting via e-mail to the state’s media:

For those of you who get questions about the agitprop the New York Times put out this morning about Governor Noem, I thought you’d like to have the actual facts in hand.

The Times asserts that Governor Noem is “a uniquely dangerous kind of politician, one who’s reckless but sounds rational, smart but intellectually dishonest and is willing to endanger South Dakotans just to get a few political points.”

Not quite the “tender embrace” we had hoped for, but there’s still time…

I’m going to skip the point-by-point rebuttal, and instead highlight a couple of the most absurd issues with the piece.

The opening CNN clip stating, “More people are testing positive than negative” in South Dakota, is not true. At no point during the pandemic was it true. Anybody following the data put out by the South Dakota Department of Health knows that this claim is 100% false.

The claim that China stopped the spread of the virus is laughable. How did the virus – which originated in China – spread to every across the globe

Why did the Times make no mention of South Dakota’s outstanding deployment of the vaccine. Governor Noem is the “Vaccine Queen,” according to the Wall Street Journal. Of course, this is a testament to the people of South Dakota, the outstanding team at the Department of Health, and our health care providers across the state.

Given the Times’ attempt to rewrite history here, it’s probably time to revisit the facts we sent out when these hit pieces originally ran back in November.

Using a 7-day rolling average is ridiculous. The virus moved across the globe in waves. The better statistic would be to layer each of the waves on top of each other and compare data points. When you do that, you get a very different picture.

As I pointed out back in November, the entire United States hadn’t broken the top 10 list for deaths (per 100,000) globally.

The death rate (per 100,000) on November 16^th:

1. New Jersey – 187
2. New York – 175
3. Massachusetts – 150
4. Connecticut – 133
5. Louisiana – 132

North Dakota was 8^th on the list at 97.

South Dakota was 17^th on the list at 73 – lower than the overall US death rate per 100,000.

Also at the time, the world was seeing a rise in cases. The Midwest – not only North and South Dakota, but also Illinois, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and many others – saw cases rise. Then, and still today, there is zero science – yes, zero – to support the claim that South Dakota saw a rise in cases because Governor Noem wouldn’t issue a mask mandate or other harsh restrictions.

We shared:

Illinois health officials reported 10,631 new cases, and 72 deaths on Sunday. Illinois has had a mask mandate for everyone over the age of 2 since May 1.

 Minnesota health officials reported a record 8,703 new cases and 35 new deaths on Saturday. Minnesota’s mask mandate has been in place since July 25.

Wisconsin health officials reported more than 5,100 new cases and 52 more deaths on Saturday. Wisconsin’s mask mandate has been in place since August 1.

Today, if we look exclusively at death rate, South Dakota still fares better than the Times’ beloved lockdown states:

The death rate (per 100,000) as of January 27, 2021:

1. New Jersey – 238
2. New York – 220
3. Massachusetts – 206
4. Rhode Island – 201
5. Mississippi – 197

South Dakota is 7^th on the list at 193.
North Dakota is 8^th on the list at 189.

But the story runs deeper than that. Because the author moves back and forth between case and death-rate data as if they’re interchangeable – a frequent and deliberately misleading tactic of those agitating for more intrusive government mandates. The viewer is left with the impression that South Dakota is somehow unique when it comes to Covid deaths. That’s totally false.

The Times also failed to note that our cases in the fall/winter came down as fast or faster than states under severe lockdowns, like Illinois..

The sad news is that this piece recycles the same stale narrative the mainstream media has attacked Governor Noem with for months. This piece is irresponsible, intellectually dishonest, and the latest example of purposeful media manipulation.

Curious, should we hold our breath for the Times to do a similar piece on Andrew Cuomo?

Stay well.

-Maggie

Maggie Seidel
Senior Advisor & Policy Director
Office of Governor Kristi Noem

What do you think?