When the going gets weird, the weird start planning their campaign. Rumors afoot that Frye-Mueller husband to run for D30 House.

Had word that the attached document was being handed out at the District 30 Crackerbarrel in Custer & Hill City on Saturday, by Mathew Monfore.. who if you’re not familiar with him, he’s the goofy evangelist who managed to get himself banned from the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation for, as they put it, distributing hate materials.

Well, he’s back distributing goofy materials, which make a specific point to attack Republican State Representative Dennis Krull..

Why the push by Monfore at the Cracker Barrels to attack Krull?  I’m getting word from out west that allegedly, “there is a plan” afoot that is being discussed for the hard right to run both Senator Julie Frye-Mueller for Senate AND to place her husband Mike Mueller on the ballot for District 30 State House.

Which doesn’t really sounds like a good idea, given what happened this session..

An LRC employee, a new mother, said that she had a concerning conversation with Frye-Mueller and her husband Mike, a lobbyist, last week in the LRC offices. The employee said Sen. Frye-Mueller engaged in an inappropriate conversation about breastfeeding and vaccinating her baby.

Read that here.

So not only would the person saying some pretty awful things to an employee represent District 30, her husband who was present and “smiling” during the conversation about how to get breastmilk flowing would be right along there with her.

Ugh.  I would think we could easily come up with two better candidates… two who weren’t involved in unwanted creepy conversations with a legislative employee.

22 thoughts on “When the going gets weird, the weird start planning their campaign. Rumors afoot that Frye-Mueller husband to run for D30 House.”

  1. This is disturbing but not surprising. When you never accept that you’ve done anything wrong or that your position on any one issue might just be incorrect, it stands to reason that you will try to convert everyone else to your side. The “Flat Earthers” here in western SD have converted quite a few “believers” to their side, now using victimhood as one of their anthems. Both JFM and her husband act like they are preachers attempting to lead their flock to righteousness under the banner of “we are the true conservatives”. When in fact, they are the most radical of right wing lunatics that exist. They quote Reagan yet they have never truly read the President’s teachings/writings fully to understand his vision, compassion and grace. They point to the Constitution but have not studied the founders/writers and what the truth behind the words really mean. District 30 voters hopefully will finally wake up and end this nightmare by soundly defeating both Muellers, sending a message that we are done.

    1. That is so correct. In the short time he has been there, he has already proved himself. Can you imagine the s**t show that would ensue if both radical Muellers were in Pierre.

      1. What has he done to prove himself? Do you have a link with a nice one page summary?


        What kind of chaos do you anticipate would happen if the Muellers were in Pierre?

        Family first values?

        No forced public drug treatments?

        No forced masking of children?

        Being imperfect humans holding Christian beliefs seeking to create beautiful things fairly?

        Insistence on having a ballot counting process we can audit?

        I’d like more details, please.


  2. Glad to have another person on the arena. It is not easy.

    I’m interested in hearing more details about aspects of his platform.


    Abortion will likely be addressed by the legislature for years to come.

    Do we go with the implications of the Hitch Hiker example? If you pick up a hitch hiker (consensual unprotected sex) you have to drop them off safely (pregnancy to term). If someone forces their way into your vehicle (rape) there are no such assurances of safety from the hitch hiker. Or, if the hitch hiker pulls a weapon and threatens the life of the driver (Fallopian Tube pregnancy), the hitchhiker has no such assurances of safety.

    In an age when pharma can abort children with a pill, how practical is it to ban abortion?

    If cases of Rape and Incest are exempted in law and a girl or woman unwillingly becomes pregnant, will this incentivize terrified young woman to falsely testify to rape in order to qualify for an abortion?

    In difficult economic times, young people do not want to have children for fear of not being able to support a family. What can be done to make families economically stronger?

    I would like candidates with deep understanding and good perspective issue-by-issue who listen and communicate well.

    1. The Hitchhiker example used in the abortion debate, I believe, is novel. I don’t claim copyright, but would appreciate to be cited as the perspective’s progenitor. 😀

      That is all.

  3. “engaged in an inappropriate conversation about breastfeeding and vaccinating her baby”

    They were willingly engaged in a conversation about child rearing. Policing of viewpoints within a topical area is NOT a good look.

    “The ministry tightly controlled information available to their citizens. Almost all Modernist art, such as Impressionism and Expressionism, was considered degenerate art by the Nazi regime, and much modern music such as Jazz and Swing was also barred as degenerate music. Jewish composers like Mendelssohn and Schoenberg were also banned.”

    I suspect that there are people who pushed for the sh0t thingies and people who took them who are embarrassed. Looking at the data, it is obvious they were not a good idea.

    Some were right.

    Some were not.

    And the consequences are pretty severe.

    If you try to issue a warning about them, you have your vote taken away?

    Not a good look indeed.


    1. Got any substantial proof besides anecdotal evidence or nonsensical ramblings proving any vaccine regret? Or are you just going to skip any proof of evidence as usual and continue your snake-oil salesman ramblings.

    2. The new approach that we need to set as precedent, is using morality, values, and spirituality within the governing process with the intent to best manage over decorum, but yet encourage strong debate on differences of opinion on every issue. When you allow for religion to be part of the process of adopting laws, you get a more positive law being created. Today, we got a he said, she said scenario occurring in the legislative process, and it leads to more obstructive, narrow minded political view points setting the example. When you block people from truly saying what is on their mind, you begin to restrict the voice of the people, based on what the wants and wishes of political parties. It does not matter if you are republican or democrat, it matters more importantly if you are supporters of the free republic, of where all persons have the same equal access to debate. This is why we built a republic designed on the concept where we discuss among our selves in mode of committee meetings, conventions, deep within the state itself, by means of our counties, precincts, let alone districts. This is why we elect precinct people to meet with their neighbors holding public gatherings, it is why we hold county meetings to bring people together, and it si why we elect delegates as per districts to bring public meetings of the people as per the districts. All those meetings are designed to bring as many people into the fold, to concur with, to meet with, and to hold a strong republican form of government, where the people rule, and where the representatives act merely as caretakers of that public opinion as formed from within their districts, counties, and precincts. In a true republic, the people have the ultimate say, not a small group of elected representatives. Therefore, eventually the 27 group of legislators will be held accountable within their districts as the people rise up against them, to shut them up, by censuring them from within the districts themselves. Julie Frye-Mueller did nothing wrong, however, she was simply a victim of the establishment’s goal to silence the majority’s opinion.

      1. “When you allow for religion to be part of the process of adopting laws, you get a more positive law being created.”

        Ah yes just as the Taliban currently are! And which religion(s) would be utilized? All religions? Anything less would be a violation of the separation of Church and State, and would fly in the faces of our Founding Father’s intent.

        1. All Statutes and City Ordinances in South Dakota are Ordained under the State Constitution, as per the vows established by our preamble. We have taken an oath to Our Lord, the Father Almighty, The State constitution does not violate the first amendment, since the first amendment restricts the federal government from interfering within the republic itself. The first amendment says the federal government shall not do such things. The state constitution protects the people under it to ordain their own set of rules governing over their subdivisions as they wish. As a state, we have agreed to restrict males from going into female bathrooms, and we have restricted males from playing in female sports, and we have agreed that marriage is between a male and female And we have established a uniformed statewide policy as to grant to people of townships and cities to adopt a charter, thus governing over their own private homesteads, giving them the right to establish themselves as free people under home rule power, giving to them the right to live and prosper as they commonly believe.

          1. Wrong, the First Amendment and the rest of the Bill of Rights apply to states also thanks to the incorporation doctrine and the 14th amendment.

  4. if only you could make thirty thousand clones of yourself mr.dale you could be a real help to the muellers.

    1. district 30 has a real chance to prove if anyone’s awake at the wheel down there. don’t blow it.

  5. There have to be moderate, business minded Republicans in District 30 willing to do a significant public service and end this couple’s political career.

  6. i got gerrymandered recently into a political district that i just don’t care to be in. can’t we gerrymander d30 into a western border corridor from lemmon to igloo and see how that goes?

Comments are closed.