What issue is most important to you in the upcoming election?
The economy
Abortion access
Vaccine mandates
School Choice
Equity, Diversity and Inclusion
Dakota Leader
Subscribe for Free Email Updates
Name:
Email:
Search Articles
       


Your donations help to keep The Dakota Leader free for all to read and enjoy! Please consider a monthly donation.



Post an Event

View All Calendar Events


Op-Ed Debate on Convention of States- “Why Amend The Constitution When Our Current Government is Not Enforcing It?”
The Other Side of The Conversation Regarding an Article V, Convention of States

October 03, 2022 By Leah Southwell Program Director for The John Birch Society

Can an Article V Convention for the purpose of proposing amendments to the Constitution actually rein in the Federal government?

The Constitution is a Compact or Contract between We the People and the Federal government. It lays out very clearly and with simple language and stated as concisely as possible the limited and enumerated powers and proper authorities of the Federal government. The later added Bill of Rights, specifically in the ninth and tenth amendments, state clearly that just because it isn’t it isn’t named, the federal government can’t do anything not enumerated in the contract and that if we the people didn’t delegate a right or power, to the Federal government, it was to be retained by the states and or the people.

Does the Constitution limit the Federal government, yes, or no? If it hasn’t, why not? What error in the Constitution is causing the Federal government to have assumed unlimited powers?

Is the Constitution the problem and would amending it solve this problem? Or is the problem the lack of adherence? If a contract is not being abided by, do you add amendments or do you enforce it? Efforts to amend the Constitution to fix bad behavior of government is like amending the Ten Commandments to fix bad behavior of individuals.

You can not amend to remove a power never granted!

Why have we not been enforcing it? And who should have been doing this?

Primarily the state legislators should have been opposing usurpations of power? Finally, we the people should have been demanding it! We were supposed to be the guardians of the Constitution and electing representatives that took their oath to uphold it seriously.

Why have we not opposed these abuses of power?

Because often there is a benefit or bribe for complying with unconstitutional demands. Additionally, the Constitution was purposely eliminated from our education, leaving now three generations ignorant of it and to the principles needed to preserve liberty.

What would happen if the states stood up to these abuses and stopped complying?

Most states have over time made themselves deeply dependent on federal funding. They have agreed to comply out of fear of losing the free money and having to live within their own budget. Isn’t this like the pot calling the kettle black. We need to rein in federal spending but don’t decrease what you are sending to us, the states.

Where does this free money or bribe money come from?

The Federal Reserve System we live under is not Federal nor Constitutional. It is able to create money out of this air, used to bribe and enslave not only U.S citizens and states but the entire world. Please read The Creature from Jekyll Island by G. Edward Griffin. Should we perhaps look deeper at the root causes of our problems?

A D V E R T I S E M E N T

A D V E R T I S E M E N T

Is there a role for an Article V convention, as it is constitutional?

Yes, it is constitutional. It is also a mechanism that has never been used in 235 years. We were given two ways to amend the Constitution. The only way we have ever used is the Congressional method of proposing amendments. Could there be a reason for this? Yes, there are many reasons why.

Why is the Convention method risky and fraught with unknowns?

The well-funded and most vocal lobbying organization pushing for a Convention is called Convention of States Action. They claim that by calling it a Convention of States it is not a Constitutional Convention. We are both talking about an Article V Convention for proposing amendments. It is the same thing. Calling it something other than it has always been called doesn’t change its nature or it’s lack of rules.

Blacks Law Dictionary defines it as;

"A duly constituted assembly of delegates or representatives of the people of a state or nation for the purpose of framing, revising, or amending its constitution. Art. V of U.S. Const, provides that a Constitutional Convention may be called on application of the Legislatures of two-thirds of the states."

What are the rules for a Convention?

Article V only gives us one clear instruction. Upon application of 34 states to Congress, Congress calls the convention. There are no other instructions for a Convention. If the goal is to circumvent Congress, then applying to them for a convention is a lousy way to do it! If the states want to have a meeting to discuss ways to rein them in, then suggest a regular meeting, don’t endanger the whole constitution! The rules being promoted to the state legislators such as them controlling it, that each state will have one vote, the ratification process ensures bad proposals from being ratified, that they will nominate and control the delegates and most egregiously promising that it can be limited, are not found in the Constitution. These assurances have been made up to sway the state legislators into believing this is a safe method.

In 1787 the convention delegates locked the doors and no one knew what the delegates were doing until they were done. Could they do that again? Would it be any better to televise it live where everyone knows the delegates. I’m sure no attempts to bribe or threaten the delegates by powerful interests could possibly happen!

Can a Convention be limited to specific topics?

Corpus Juris Secundum (a legal summary of 5 court decisions) states: “The members of a Constitutional Convention are the direct representatives of the people and, as such, they may exercise all powers that are vested in the people of the state. They derive their powers, not from the legislature, but from the people of the state. They derive their powers, not from the legislature, but from the people: hence, their power may not in any respect be limited or restrained by the legislature.

Under this view, it is a Legislative Body of the Highest Order and may not only frame, but may also enact and promulgate a constitution.

A D V E R T I S E M E N T

A D V E R T I S E M E N T

Court decisions and state conventions have followed the precedent set by the 1787 constitutional convention. As the 1787 convention did, a convention today can ignore limits of power imposed by the states, and appeal to the ultimate power of the people themselves. State legislatures have no reason to expect they can control the convention Thus, a “limited” convention is a myth.

Ronald Reagan said, “Well, constitutional conventions are kind of prescribed as a last resort, because then once open, they could take up any number of things.”

How do we ensure that a Convention would not exceed its authority?

In our one and only previous federal Constitutional Convention in 1787, the delegates from 12 of the 13 attending states, were sent with commissions. The delegates debated during the convention if they had the power to throw out the Articles of Confederation and create a new form of government and a new Constitution. None said they were within their delegated powers to do this. Some said they didn’t have the power and should not proceed, some said they don’t have the power but should proceed anyway. Some left, knowing they were exceeding their authority.

Does this mean our Constitution was created illegally?

No! After great debate the 1787 delegates appealed to the ultimate sovereign power of the PEOPLE (not) the state commissions) for their authority.

Our most important founding document, The Declaration of Independence says,

"That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends [of securing our rights] it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it and to institute new government…"

The delegates decided the Articles of Confederation where not sufficient to these ends and they were justified in throwing it out and creating a new Constitution, changing our form of government from a Federal system to a National one.

How could any bad amendments possibly be ratified when 38 states are needed to approve them?

Do we have any bad amendments now? I would say the 16th (federal income tax) and the 17th (direct elections of Senators) most definitely did not improve our situation or make us freer. Did the prohibition amendment not have to be rescinded? We know that destructive amendments could pass the current ratification process.

Could the ratification requirements be changed in a convention?

During the only one we had in 1787, they were! The Articles of Confederation stated that all states must unanimously agree to any amendments. During the convention it was changed in the new constitution to only ¾ of the states were needed to amend the constitution. What would stop them from changing it to a simple majority of the states or even a direct election of the people to approve amendments!

Is this the right time for a Convention?

With such extreme division in our country today. Would we be able to agree on anything? James Madison the father of the Constitution said, “If a General Convention [called by unanimous consent or by Article V] were to take place for the avowed and sole purpose of revising the Constitution… an election into would be courted by the most violent partisans on both sides; it…would no doubt contain individuals of insidious views, who … might have a dangerous opportunity of sapping the very foundations of the fabric.”

What in our constitutional structure needs to be changed? And who, in a modern convention, could be trusted with such awesome power?

Is the push for a Convention a conservative effort?

No, there are lobbying organizations on the left and the right pushing for a convention. The left opposes the Convention of the States efforts but support a convention for their leftist issues like abolishing the 2nd amendment and the electoral college and now to enshrine the right to an abortion. The left works toward a convention in left leaning states and the right works on it in the right leaning states.

Why did Sen. Tom Coburn, Sen. Jim de Mint and now Sen. Rick Santorum endorse Convention of States efforts?

Could it be because they were paid well to do that? Based on the 990 from COSA, we know that Coburn and de Mint were both paid around a quarter of a million $ to be their spokesmen. Maybe someone could ask how much Sen. Santorum is being paid? Being a lobbyist is much more lucrative than being a legislator.

We also know that the founder and leader of Convention of States, Mark Meckler in combination of salaries from his wife and son have had a combined income of close to a half a million dollars in some years. Who wouldn’t give their all to promote a convention for that kind of money? Not exactly grassroots!

Those opposing a convention have no organization or financial support, just the passion for preserving and protecting one of the most successful forms of government ever conceived.

If not Article V, then what?

The answer is enforcement, nullification and an educated electorate who holds their representatives accountable for their actions and replaces them when they don’t.

Nullification is firmly grounded in the text of the U. S. Constitution. Specifically, Article VI binds state legislators along with members of Congress, judges and all other officers at large to their oath “to support this Constitution.”

Article VI also states, “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United Stated which shall be made in Pursuance thereof… shall be the supreme Law of the Land.”

State legislators are required to uphold and implement only those laws that are “made in Pursuance” to the Constitution. Any laws not made in Pursuance thereof” are therefore not the “supreme Law of the Land” and as such state legislators are under no obligation to enforce or carry out their provisions.

An excellent read to understand this principle from a biblical view is The Doctrine of the Lesser Magistrate by Matthew J. Trewhella State legislators have the power to stop abuses right now and have always had this power. A simpler and effortless solution for state legislators, would be to abdicate their role and let a convention try to fix an out-of-control D.C. The odds of any amendments that could force the Feds to abide by them when they are currently disregarding all the others is zero.

A D V E R T I S E M E N T

A D V E R T I S E M E N T



Without a well-informed electorate, who understands what a Constitutionalist looks like, we have no hope. Current Representative Thomas Massie of Kentucky said, “Show me a single state where Constitutionalists comprise a majority of the state legislature. At this point in history, an Article V Convention would be a disaster.”

We need a revival of understanding of our Constitutional principles and the ideals of liberty. We can’t expect less government if we aren’t willing to take back our own responsibilities as states and as individuals! No proposed constitutional amendment can substitute for an electorate and elected officials who are well educated about the Constitution.

If you have legislators standing strong against government overreach, support them and encourage them to do what so few will. If you agree that a convention under the current sentiment is a dangerous and an ineffective solution, then contact your representatives now and let them know. They are being bombarded, threatened and bribed from well-funded lobbying organizations attempting to pressure them to apply to Congress for a convention. So far this year, Convention of States Action has invested large sums of out of state money to influence elections of SD legislators through dirty attack ads on those who have held strong in opposing this as a viable solution. They need to hear from you! Let’s address the true root of the problem and work on a real but not simple solution!

This article expresses my own personal opinions and may not be those of my employer, The John Birch Society. For more information you can go to The New American magazine. www.thenewamerican.com and the John Birch Society www.jbs.org There you will also find our excellent Constitution Course called, The Constitution is the Solution, exposing the many threats to our American foundation. You may also contact me at lsouthwell@jbs.org. I would also be happy to speak to any groups wanting to learn more about this issue and would be happy to debate anyone in favor of a convention.



Help Support The Dakota Leader... DONATE TODAY!

--By Leah Southwell

Post Date: 2022-10-03 08:17:16Last Update: 2022-10-03 15:13:02

    


Inflation: How-To Prepare and Protect Your Small Business
Leaders Of Industry Segment

How does inflation impact a business, and how can you build an inflation-proof business by making critical changes to boost revenue? The reasons and the remedies might surprise you, but they can be critical to preparing for inflation and surviving its impact. In fact, how your company reacts to small business inflation can become a sustainable competitive advantage! Here's how:

Is inflation ever normal? In less turbulent economic conditions, inflation is a normal and manageable fact of business life. In short, small business inflation can be defined as:

A continual rise in the pricing of goods and services.

Of course, inflation impacts buying power for the consumer, too. When inflationary price increases across the economic landscape are small and expected, preparing for inflation is somewhat easily accomplished in one (or both) of two ways:
  1. Raising prices of products and services to cover the cost of goods and cost of operations
  2. Cutting source material and/or operating costs
It's when unexpectedly high inflation prevails that businesses often lack the confidence and agility to respond.

How Does Inflation Impact a Business?

Preparing for inflation and executing steps for protection against inflation first requires understanding how inflation impacts businesses. Again, in stable economic times, inflation is less troublesome for business owners. In fact, research shows that inflation barely registers as a concern for most. But when inflation spikes, worry grows.

A D V E R T I S E M E N T

A D V E R T I S E M E N T

Specific Small Business Inflation Challenges

Inflation certainly brings its share of big-picture concerns. It can also manifest with specific challenges which may include: How Inflation Impacts Businesses ... Positively

Although inflation is often seen (rightly so) in a negative light, it can spawn some positive outcomes as well. These include: How to Respond to and Protect Against Inflation by Focusing on Sales

After cutting costs and raising prices, what can the small business owner do to turn inflation's business impact into a competitive advantage? One way is to focus on sales. Here are some strategic and tactical ways to make sure your sales operation can be more effective, efficient, and profitable in response to inflationary influences:

Enhance Your Sales Plan

A new economic landscape can change industries and marketplaces almost overnight. Is your Sales Plan still relevant? If you're not sure, take steps to: Improve Your Sales Process

Does your current sales process still work in the altered competitive landscape? If not, be sure to: Execute and Grow Sales

Beyond strategy and processes, empower your sales operation by: For a clearer picture of how inflation impacts businesses and how to "inflation-proof" your business, contact me today (DM or johnlee@salesxceleration.com) to learn more.



Help Support The Dakota Leader... DONATE TODAY!

--John Lee CSL- Contributing Writer

Post Date: 2022-09-20 08:10:13Last Update: 2022-09-20 17:16:15

    


Open Letter to Educators
[OPINION] “The Hillsdale 1776 Curriculum was made by professors and teachers—not bureaucrats, not activists, not journalists—teachers.”- Dr Kathleen O

Dear Teacher,

As you know, teaching is one of the most important professions in human history. As an institution whose purpose it is to teach, we at Hillsdale College are acutely aware of what it takes to teach and to teach well, especially today. We thank you for taking up this charge in general and this curriculum in particular. We hope and trust that it will serve you and your students in the ways that you and they most deserve.

The pursuit of truth is an unapologetic pursuit. For those who strive for honesty, it cannot be otherwise. As such, you the teacher should be aware of the truths which Hillsdale College holds to be accessible to human reason, proven through the ages, and true of all people and all times. This curriculum is based on these truths. They are as follows.


Hay Shortages Are Affecting Food Security
Op-Ed on The Importance of Hay

Hay does not feed Americans in the way that other crops do like potatoes, wheat, corn, beans, and other commodity crops. Even though we don’t have hay at our dinner table, its production is vital because it feeds livestock, and that livestock in turn feeds us. Without hay, we find ourselves with a break in the food security supply chain.

Farmers and ranchers across the United States are currently facing a hay shortage due to extreme drought and inflation. These issues have led to increased costs of fuel, fertilizer, and other inputs. The general population may not notice this issue right now, but the shortage of hay will impact our food security in America as it becomes more apparent in the colder months.

The hay shortage will have a three-fold effect. It will first hit the bank accounts of farmers and ranchers who grow and sell hay. Then the shortage and subsequent high prices of hay will impact those who feed hay to their livestock. Already there have been reports across the country of long lines at sale yards where ranchers are selling their herds because they do not have feed available at affordable prices. Lastly, the hay shortage will impact the general population that enjoys a glass of milk or a hamburger. The scarcity and skyrocketing cost to feed livestock will ultimately result in a higher cost at the grocery store.

While some American consumers may be able to absorb these price increases, many will not. Those unable to afford these products will be pushed into purchasing food items that may not be as nutritionally dense as animal protein.  

FOOD INSECURITY

Food insecurity is not new. In 2013, roughly 14% of our nation’s families were facing it at some point. In 2019, the number of families experiencing food insecurity had dropped by 3%, down to roughly 11%. Unfortunately, in 2022, due to inflation and policy, food insecurity for families across the country has spiked. As of this spring, 64% of American families were struggling to afford the cost of living. Crop shortages causing food insecurity are not new either.

DROUGHT

While this may just be another hot summer for some, for farmers and ranchers who grow hay, it has been devastating. Many regions across the country have experienced severe drought this spring and summer. The drought has impacted crop yields because many people who farm rely on regular rainfall to water their crops. To make matters worse, a select few states rely on irrigation, but many of those areas have had their water use cut by governmental policy.

During a typical year, the United States on average (excluding Hawaii and Alaska), gets about 30.21 inches of moisture. This year (2022) we are approaching record lows after the long hot summer across the nation. This lack of precipitation has caused farmers and ranchers to grow less hay because there is simply not enough water. Additionally, hay crops are dying much earlier than they would during an average crop cycle. Ultimately, this leads to a lower yield for farmers and ranchers who have planted and harvested hay this season.

Hay production this year has decreased by 17.9% in Oklahoma and 22.5% in Texas. Overall hay production this year has decreased by 10.1% when looking at the past ten-year average (2011-2021).

HIGH COST OF INPUT

In terms of man-made factors affecting hay production in 2022, inflation caused by policy and the rising cost of fuel can be listed as the biggest. Not only does the high cost of petroleum products affect the cost to run equipment, but it also raises the prices of goods across the board, including fertilizers, herbicides, and pesticides. This year alone, the cost of fuel has risen nearly 60%. Despite news stories reporting that the cost of fuel has decreased in recent months, the price is still more than double what it was last year.

When prices for inputs rise sharply, like herbicides and fertilizer, many farmers and ranchers simply cannot afford to utilize them to maximize crop yield per acre. The high cost of fuel to run planting and harvesting equipment has also caused some farmers and ranchers to leave fields fallow.

According to a study done by John Baffes and Wee Chian Koh for the World Bank, fertilizer prices have gone up nearly 30% since the start of 2022, putting them at a record high. This rise in cost has made it nearly impossible for the average hay farmer to afford fertilizer in order to maximize crop production per acre and yield.

Pesticides that keep crops from being consumed by insects (like the locusts and grasshoppers ripping through nearly every field in the Eastern South Dakota currently), have also spiked upwards in 2022. It appears there is a battle on all fronts for farmers and ranchers as they try to scrape by without losing their livelihoods.

HOW HAY IMPACTS FOOD SECURITY

In 2020, the meat and dairy industries took large hits from Covid-19 shutdowns. Since then, food industries have worked hard to recover and start on an upward trend.

However, due to drought and inflation, this year the crop yield for hay is critically low. The hay shortage is impacting the dairy industry and the meat industry (specifically beef) which rely on hay as a food source for livestock.

Meanwhile, the need for hay grows as more food is needed to be produced. Agricultural experts across the country have expressed concern that farmers and ranchers will not have enough hay to sustain livestock this winter. The early sell-off of cattle by many farmers and ranchers and the coming winter will ultimately mean shortages in grocery stores as well as rising prices. Shortages of food products will directly impact foods that make it to dinner tables across America.

Consumers are already starting to see a rise in the cost of beef products. In 2020, a pound of ground beef cost $4.12 on average. In 2022 that number is roughly $4.78 and much higher in many areas. The price hikes have brought us past a $0.50 increase in under two years. At the current rate of increase, the average American family may not be able afford to buy steaks or even ground beef for dinner on a regular basis. Other staple products have also risen dramatically in price.

Continue Reading HERE...



Help Support The Dakota Leader... DONATE TODAY!

--Protect The Harvest- Republished With Permission

Post Date: 2022-09-14 08:11:28Last Update: 2022-09-13 19:12:06

    


Leaders of Industry Op-Ed- “Inflation Reduction Act Will Hinder EV Growth”
Dependance on lithium mining in America to qualify for subsidies, will further negatively impact the lithium supply chain for batteries and stagnate the mandated transition to EV’s.

After his mandate to transition to EV’s, President Joe Biden then signed The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) that requires EVs to contain a battery pack and other parts built in North America with minerals mined or recycled in America. With the chance of strip mining for lithium in America being slim to nil, no EV’s will qualify for the tax credits in the IRA.

Biden’s goal of 50 percent EV sales by 2030 will test lithium supply chains and the economic strength of the American society to meet those projections without any subsidies to procure those vehicles.

While the race is on to produce more lithium in the United States as the supply chain for the major component of EV batteries, lithium, is already being compromised internationally. The following international dark clouds on the lithium supply chain may be a prelude to an American rejection of strip mining in the most environmentally regulated and controlled communities in the world: Due to potential fires, the FAA prohibites in checked baggage, spare (uninstalled) lithium metal batteries and lithium-ion batteries, electronic cigarettes and vaping devices. They must be carried with the passenger in carry-on baggage. Smoke and fire incidents involving lithium batteries can be mitigated by the cabin crew and passengers inside the aircraft cabin.

A D V E R T I S E M E N T

A D V E R T I S E M E N T

Since you’ve probably read about EV fires, here’s a site that keeps tabs just on the TESLA EV fires https://www.tesla-fire.com/, Tesla Fires as of 8/19/2022 were 97 confirmed cases and Fatalities Involving a Tesla Car Fire Count were 38. Shockingly, while the Feds are banning lithium batteries in checked luggage on planes due to potential fires, Biden is pushing them for vehicles.



The actions of the Biden government and the
Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) divesting in fossil fuels movement are currently supportive of jumping onto the EV train, but Biden and the ESG’ers may be oblivious that EV’s have a very dark side of environmental atrocities, and the non-existing transparency of human rights abuses occurring in other countries, both of which are directly connected to the mining for the exotic minerals and metals that are required to manufacture wind turbines, solar panels, and EV batteries.

The Pulitzer Prize nominated book 
“Clean Energy Exploitations - Helping Citizens Understand the Environmental and Humanity Abuses That Support Clean Energy," does an excellent job of discussing the lack of transparency to the environmental degradation and humanity atrocities occurring in developing countries mining for those exotic minerals and metals to support the “green” movement. The subsidies to purchase EV’s are financial incentives to encourage further exploitations of yellow, brown, and black skin residents in developing countries. Are those subsidies ethical?

Amid tougher emissions regulations worldwide, established automakers are racing to add more EVs to their lineup. A Reuters analysis found that global automakers such as Audi, BMW, Hyundai, Fiat, Volkswagen, GM, Ford, Nissan, Toyota, Daimler, and Chrysler plan to spend a combined U.S. $300 billion on EVs over the next decade as car companies are betting big on EV’s. Most of the EV’s will be manufactured in foreign countries far removed from American ports.



China came from zero production in 1950, to 2019 where it now produces more cars than the USA, Japan, and India collectively. The 6-minute video of the automobile manufacturing “needle” shows how the foreign manufacturing dominance occurred over the that 69-year period.

Automobiles Manufactured Per Year




Bringing those foreign built cars to America may be an insurmountable insurance problem.
The Felicity Ace, a 650-foot-long cargo ship carrying hundreds of millions of dollars’ worth of luxury cars sunk in March 2022. The salvage crew working on the burning ship said electric-vehicle batteries were part of the reason it was still aflame after several days. The estimated market value of the Felicity Ace was $24.5 million, while the total value of the 3965 vehicles could be over $500 million.

With potential fires from EV batteries in vehicles, who’s going to take the insurance responsibility for their safe passage from the foreign manufacturers to American ports, the cargo ships, or the manufacturers?

How dirty is lithium strip mining? Since the mineral contains dangerous substances, the mining process also contaminates the local water basins. Lithium extraction exposes the local ecosystems to poisoning and other related health problems. How many Americans want strip mining for lithium in their backyard to view the
environmental degradation from leach fields which are part of the extraction efforts?

The number of electric cars on the world’s roads at the 
end of 2021 was about 16.5 million, or just slightly more than one percent of the 1.4 billion vehicles in the world. With lithium production being setback internationally, EV growth will be hindered as locals’ revolt over lithium mining impacts on water supplies and environmental degradation in their communities.



Independent Publications Like The Dakota Leader Depend on Community Support. Please Donate Today!

--By Ronald Stein Pulitzer Prize nominated author, and Policy advisor for The Heartland Institute on Energy

Post Date: 2022-08-29 08:55:41Last Update: 2022-08-27 10:41:14

    


The Persistence of Covid Cruelty on Campus
Re-Published with permission from Brownstone Institute

When I entered the field of nationalism studies 35 years ago, it was characterized by a clear tilt toward two important ideological postures.

The first, a product of the rise of Marxist historiography in Western universities in the first three to four decades following the Second World War, was the belief that insurgent nationalist movements are, much more often than not, set in motion by mobilizations of the common people.

The second, product of the early 20th century invention of the discipline of political science—a project essentially designed to provide a rational-sounding and elite-friendly apologetics for the brute exercise of domestic and imperial power— was that the best way to understand the rise of such movements was to focus primarily on, what else?, the lives and actions of those who had spent their lives immersed in the world of elections, political parties and other “official” means of marshaling social power.

As luck would have it, however, this paradigm was in the process of being turned on its head as I got into the game, thanks in large part to the publication in 1983 of a remarkable book by the Cornell historian and specialist in east Asian cultures, Benedict Anderson. In his Imagined Communities, Anderson traces the development of the modern idea of the nation from its inception in the early 16th century up until the latter half of the 1900s.

Reading it, two things become crystal clear. The first is that the idea of creating new national collectives always manifests itself first in the minds of an often quite small lettered elite that imagines what the new entity will be like and that, in the hope of rendering it real, sets out to create and distribute its guiding myths.

The second, which flows axiomatically from the first, is that politics, understood in the way we now typically conceive of it, is almost always a distant trailing edge of these robust and quite consciously undertaken programs of new cultural production.

In the early 1990s the brilliant Israel scholar Itamar Even-Zohar seconded Anderson’s emphasis on role of elites and what he calls their acts of “culture-planning” in the creation and maintenance of nations, and indeed, all other insurgent movements of social identity.

Using his mastery of 15 languages and the access it gives him to the archives of many distinct national and/or social movements through time he sought to identify the tropes, cultural models and institutional practices that are common to the construction of virtually all such social projects, techniques whose central aim is always that of generating what he calls a state of “proneness” among the general population.

“Culture provides cohesion to both a factual or a potential collective entity. This is achieved by creating a disposition of allegiance among those who adhere to the repertoire [of cultural goods]. At the same time, this acquired cohesion generates a validated disposition of distinction, i.e., a state of separateness from other entities. What is generally meant by `cohesion’ is a state where a widely spread sense of solidarity, or togetherness, exists among a group of people, which consequently does not require acts enforced by sheer physical power. The basic, key concept to such cohesion is readiness, or proneness. Readiness (proneness) is a mental disposition which propels people to act in many ways which otherwise may be contrary to their ‘natural inclinations’. For example, going to war ready to be killed in fighting against some other group would be the ultimate case, amply repeated throughout human history.”

CONTINUE READING HERE...

Thomas Harrington, Senior Scholar at the Brownstone Institute, is an essayist and Professor Emeritus of Hispanic Studies at Trinity College in Hartford (USA) where he taught for 24 years. He specializes in Iberian movements of national identity Contemporary Catalan culture. His writings are at Thomassharrington.com.



Help Support The Dakota Leader... DONATE TODAY!

--By Thomas Harrington August 23, 2022

Post Date: 2022-08-23 12:19:41Last Update: 2022-08-23 12:35:32

    


The CDC’s Ludicrous Makeover
#PublicHealth #Covid

Re-published from The Brownstone Institute.

CDC
announced that the institutes have done an external/self-study and proposed a makeover “to restore public trust.” Dr. Walensky said that she “plans to remake the culture to help the agency move faster when it responds to a public health crisis." She also wants to make it easier for other parts of the government to work with the CDC, and wants to "simplify and streamline the website to get rid of overlapping and contradictory public health guidance.”

The CDC’s announcement covers everything except the fundamental problem, to which the director and the external reviewer are blind: industry subservience and epidemiologic incompetence.

CDC has published numbers of fatally flawed study reports over the last two years in MMWR, its captive journal. No amounts of “moving faster” will fix this problem. It took the CDC two years to figure out that the vaccines are not an effective public health tool for reducing infection spread, something that I and numerous colleagues have been saying for more than a year.

The CDC has still not recognized that for Covid, masks are useless, distancing is useless, and that general population testing is virtually useless for managing the population pandemic.

That the CDC has reviewed itself and only found trivialities and not the systematic problems that caused it to produce repeatedly failing policies, shows that this review exercise was only window dressing. It was not a serious review.

The CDC needs a completely different independent external review to understand how it-as a public health agency with MD and PhD epidemiologists-could get so much science wrong for so long. The current makeover plans are ludicrous, will fool no one, and will not restore any of the large amount of public trust that has been lost by its poor performance over the last 2.5 years.


--Dr Harvey Risch. Dr Risch is a Professor Emeritus of Epidemiology at Yale School of Public Health.

Post Date: 2022-08-18 13:58:27Last Update: 2022-08-18 10:07:42

    


Essay From Pierre- “Is Medicaid Expansion Right For South Dakota?”
We Can Do Better!

Medicaid and Medicare were established in 1965 under President Lyndon B. Johnson’s massive government expansion called the “Great Society.” Medicare was intended to be health insurance for the elderly who were not adequately covered by employee-based programs, and Medicaid was to be health insurance for the poor. Medicare is an actual health insurance program for the elderly. Medicaid, however, is a social welfare program.

In 2010, Congress passed the Affordable Care Act (ACA) also known as “Obamacare.” That act required Medicaid to take on childless, able-bodied adults with income up to 138% of the Federal Poverty Level (FPL). According to the US Department of Health and Human Services website, the federal poverty level for a single adult is $12,880, which means those making under $17,774 per year, now qualify. In 2012, the Supreme Court found that mandatory Medicaid expansion was unconstitutional and would be left up to the states. Since then, only four states west of the Mississippi, out of 12 total, have resisted the siren song of federal money- South Dakota, Wyoming, Kansas, and Texas. Those four states have some of the lowest Medicaid enrollment numbers of all the states, and the 12 that have not expanded Medicaid have below average enrollment numbers.

The Medicaid.gov website says Medicaid covers “…eligible low-income adults, children, pregnant women, elderly adults and people with disabilities. Medicaid is administered by states, according to FEDERAL requirements. The program is funded jointly by states and the federal government.” Medicaid is the “SINGLE LARGEST source of health coverage in the United States.” [Emphasis added]

To receive federal Medicaid funds, certain groups and services MUST be covered in addition to OPTIONAL ones. South Dakota already goes beyond mandatory requirements by covering home and community-based services, organ transplant services, adult dental services, child dental services, Healthy Homes, transportation assurance, and more.

A D V E R T I S E M E N T

A D V E R T I S E M E N T



In my first year as a legislator assigned to the Appropriations Committee and Joint Committee on Appropriations, I came to picture Medicaid as a three-legged stool; Eligibles (those who qualify for Medicaid), Providers (those who give Medicaid services), and Benefits (what the state covers under Medicaid for eligible persons). That year we expanded two of the three legs by adding more providers and more benefits, which expanded the overall Medicaid program in our state.

Breaking traditional protocol, I spoke against the expansion of Medicaid in the general appropriation bill. More votes were cast against the ‘g-bill’ that year than probably ever in South Dakota's history. The bill still passed, and my speech didn’t win me any fans in the Daugaard administration, or in the South Dakota healthcare industry. Still, I will never forget the legislators and staff who thanked me afterwards for having the courage to speak the truth. Being a rookie, I didn't realize how rare that was, it was my first year after all. It’s simply not politically correct to criticize anyone for expanding government in our supposed “conservative” state.

So, what changes with Medicaid expansion? Single, childless, able-bodied adults who are not currently eligible will be added to the rolls. At present, a young adult receiving Medicaid must meet income guidelines and have dependent children, or be disabled and receiving Supplemental Security Income (SSI).

Medicaid is funded jointly by the state and federal government. The state’s share is determined by the Federal Medical Assistance Percentage (FMAP) rate, which changes every year according to that state’s per capita income compared with other states. The higher a state’s per capita income, the larger the state share of the payment, but the fed’s share can never fall below 50%. South Dakota’s current FMAP rate is about 57% federal (which does not include a 6.2% bump during the “public health emergency,” which was just extended another three months out to the middle of October), with the state picking up roughly 43% of Medicaid costs. In FY22, (the fiscal year that just ended) over $1.1B of our $5B state budget was spent on Medicaid. Almost 22 percent of our entire state budget was spent on this one welfare program - BEFORE expansion!

South Dakota had over 127,000 Medicaid enrollees by July 1, 2022, meaning that well over 14% of our population is already receiving Medicaid. If we add in the 18K on CHIP (Children’s Health Insurance Program), that goes up to over 16% of our population receiving taxpayer-funded medical services in South Dakota.

In contrast, 25-37% of the population is enrolled in Medicaid, in many of the states that have already expanded. I should note that 47% of South Dakota medical service enrollees received some sort of covered medical service in the month of June. The total cost of those services was a whopping $110 million or just over $1,600 per recipient, in June alone. Now, we're expected to believe that by expanding services to 33 percent more people (42,500), we will only see an increased annual cost of $308 million dollars, after we just spent one-third of that, last month, on those currently enrolled?

The fiscal note on Amendment D (Medicaid expansion) shows the federal government would pay their regular FMAP rate for current enrollees plus an additional 5% for two years after expansion. For the added enrollees, the federal government would pay 90% and the state would pay 10%. Care for the incarcerated breaks down the same way, 90% federal/10% state. Any savings would be minimal, and by the end of the second year any savings we would still be receiving would be outstripped by a 3 to 1 ratio, due to the additional expenditures we would have, and it would only get worse from there.

The federal government is broke and can’t meet Social Security obligations beyond 2034 without drastic changes to the program. Our country is more than $30 Trillion dollars in debt, which averages to $243,000 PER TAXPAYER. Why would we believe that Medicaid obligations will be met?

Furthermore,
Medicaid harms the poor, the Physicians and the Taxpayers according to the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons. According to a study published in the Annals of Surgery, Medicaid recipients had higher post-operative fatality rates compared to those on private insurance. And perhaps most damning, Medicaid is responsible for the worst health outcomes in Americans, with disparate and disproportionate impacts upon minority, and disadvantaged communities.

"Many politicians sell this as government compassion. However, it really means minorities disproportionately receive the worst healthcare, and have the worst health outcomes, in America," Study by Physicians For Reform.

Oregon has been considered the model for Medicaid expansion, after the legislature voted to expand it in 2008. However, Oregon is now leading the nation in overdose and deaths,
due to a lack of services. In 2015, the Oregon Health Plan (charged with overseeing Medicaid), decided to cut costs by removing opioid treatment from the list of covered services through contracted CCOs (Coordinated Care Organizations). Instead, the state moved Medicaid recipients to state-run methadone clinics, and daily dosing regiments. Stable patients went from 28 day prescriptions, to daily check-ins. With work obligations, and normal life, many relapsed. Just last year, the state decriminalized the use of all street drugs like heroine, methamphetamine, cocaine and more. In addition, the state reallocated 400 million dollars of marijuana taxes, from public education to fund treatment centers. At the last minute, Governor Kate Brown announced she would delay the funding of treatment centers. This directly resulted in the current surge of opioid related deaths, as facilities became over burdened and services became scarce.

There are better policy-based solutions that we should be considering. South Dakota currently has some of the lowest-priced private health insurance plans in the nation, the issue is out-of-pocket costs. If we instead, focused on solutions that actually help the people who need it, like moving to a premium-support or cash-assistance model, we could lead the nation in fiscal responsibility and better health outcomes for all.

A D V E R T I S E M E N T

A D V E R T I S E M E N T



By migrating the state's share of Medicaid expenses, we can start to think outside-the-box and re-imagine the entire concept of Medicaid as we know it—we can do better. Rather than placing more people into a broken system, we should be focused on creating ways to help people get the private insurance and better care we know is possible.

Currently, a patient who needs financial assistance must apply for insolvency through their county. The medical establishment then eats that cost, once an application for financial assistance is approved. However, the state could instead create a fund to reimburse health systems that waive patient balances. Thus we help people when they need it, rather than breed complacency through constant hand-outs.

For example, a business owner in my district hires ex-convicts and teaches them skills that would normally cost several thousand-dollars to learn at any technical school, saving them that cost via hands-on learning. Sadly, He told me that most of them do not stay past a few weeks, because "it’s easier for them to stay home and collect welfare." That’s just one anecdotal story, but an unfortunate reality. As our government seizes more collective wealth, to incentivize complacency and essentially pick winners and losers, the more harm it does to our state and nation.

Despite popular belief, socialism is not about workers getting together and starting their own companies. Socialism is when the government seizes the means of production, and in the case of Medicaid expansion, the means of production is our health. In light of an aging population, and chronically ill new generations, why would we pay more money for less services, and sub-standard care? If people truly want socialized medicine, they're free to create a cooperative in a laissez-faire capitalist constitutional republic. Conversely, once we give un-elected bureaucracies more power over our health choices, and means of producing health care, there's no going back. Socialism is coerced injustice by pseudo-intellectuals, thinly veiled as humanitarian policy.

Do we need a safety net? Yes, but, who is responsible for that safety net? Throughout history, family relied on family. When that wasn’t possible, the Church provided help. Today, the Department of Social Services has replaced family and faith communities, as a primary source of assistance. Government was always the last resort. After decades of expanding reliance upon the welfare state, government assistance has now become the first option, instead of the last. “Free government money” is never free…it’s always the product of someone’s labor. To return to the strong work ethic and independent spirit that made this nation great, we must find ways to decrease our reliance upon our failing federal-run systems, rather than expanding them. We can do better!


--Representative Taffy Howard served as an officer in the United States Air Force, and was elected to the South Dakota House of Representatives in November 2016. Howard serves as vice-chair of the Appropriations Committee

Post Date: 2022-08-15 08:10:07Last Update: 2022-08-15 10:18:33

    


Policy Maker’s Op-Ed “TAX BREAKS FOR SOUTH DAKOTANS”
An Opinion Editorial From Pierre

On July 18th, Governor Noem announced that South Dakota finished fiscal year 2022 with a surplus of $115.5 million, while claiming that “South Dakota operates conservatively.”

With $422.6 million of state reserves and the last four years of surplus being spent on pet projects, this is just simply over taxation of South Dakota citizens, it’s not being conservative or frugal.

Even with this excess, we must ask why many in the 2022 legislature refused to pass a food tax repeal, a sales tax reduction or even a gas tax holiday bill? By killing any proposed tax breaks like, Senate Bill 117 a bill to "revise the gross receipts tax on certain food," we missed the opportunity to save South Dakotans between $82 and $103 million dollars, when they needed it most.

HB 1327C is another prime example that would have reduced all sales tax by a half-cent, which is actually required by state law SDCL 10-64-9. Current law, as written in SDCL 10-64-9 states "the additional net revenue from such obligation shall be used to reduce the rate of certain taxes."[emphasis added]

Passing HB 1327C would have satisfied current state law, and saved the taxpayers $147 million dollars. Even if we had only reduced the sales tax by just a quarter-cent, we could have still saved taxpayers $74 million dollars, while still leaving a surplus of $41 million dollars at the end of fiscal year 2022.

In addition, a gas tax holiday was proposed for the three months of tourist season, that would have given a break on gas taxes of $54 million dollars, lowering the price at the pump for South Dakotans. Again, that bill never made it off the House floor.

Even worse,
Governor Noem stated on July 22, 2022,

“While this surplus may lead individuals to call for a reduction in our state’s tax structure. I offer a word of caution. We must be prepared to weather any economic storm that may come our way.”

Even if that were true, just last year, Governor Noem’s legislative allies killed
HB 1255. HB 1255 was brought forward, and authored by committee members on Appropriations as a ‘rainy day’ fund. Even though the state was being flooded with federal money at that time, this was an attempt at responsible, and long-term economic storm preparation for the state, that would have simultaneously provided South Dakotans the same luxury.

Instead of preparation, that proposed $200 million dollars in HB 1255 was spent as one-time monies instead of being saved. The reason given, according to the Assistant Majority Leader, “we can’t give future legislators more money than they need.” Which roughly translates to, "we can't give South Dakotans back, more money than they need," as evidenced by hoarding $422.6 million dollars of your money, rather than settling for the ample sum of $200 million.

A D V E R T I S E M E N T

A D V E R T I S E M E N T



Even if South Dakota's economy is better than the rest of the country, we still have the lowest wages nationally, while also dealing with inflation and supply-chain issues, like everyone else. That is what I would call an "economic storm."

The state needs to tighten its belt on spending and learn to live within its means. Especially when those who pay the bills are already strapped tight, with soaring housing prices and the Biden administration’s disastrous economic policies. South Dakotans know how to tighten their belt, and we have, but now it’s time that the bureaucrats in Pierre do the same.

It's time to stop over taxing the citizens of South Dakota! For this reason, I stand firmly with The South Dakota Freedom Caucus in urging our colleagues to provide fiscally-responsible tax relief to the people of South Dakota. Be it federal or state taxes, this money belongs to the people, and it's time to give it back!

Rep. Tina L. Mulally



Help Support The Dakota Leader... DONATE TODAY!

--Rep. Tina L. Mulally

Post Date: 2022-08-08 08:22:19Last Update: 2022-08-06 11:11:32

    


OP-ED “Schoenbeck is The Pot Calling The Kettle Black”
Sen. Lee Schoenbeck’s Colleagues Fire Back

Senator Lee Schoenbeck’s recent op-ed in the Rapid City Journal is a feeble attempt to try and smear some of the state’s top conservative republican legislators. Lawmakers such as, Representatives Phil Jensen, Tony Randolph and Taffy Howard, with proven track records of defending the ideals outlined by those who elected them.

What's more, Schoenbeck has decided to use the left-leaning Elevate Rapid City scorecard as the basis for his assertions. Ironically, using this scorecard is the equivalent to Congresswoman Liz Cheney telling Americans which conservative republicans to vote for, based upon the democratic party's platform.

Congresswoman Liz Cheney, also happens to be someone who Schoenbeck admires for her “courage, in a room of wimps,” which he tweeted on May 12, 2021.

McCarthy is an embarrassment for real Republicans. Thank you Liz Cheney for your courage, in a room of wimps

— Lee Schoenbeck (@LeeSchoenbeck)
May 12, 2021


His assessment of Elevate Rapid City’s scorecard, as being a “fair scorecard … [that is] only about making your lives and your family's lives better [with] no political agenda,” is nothing but disingenuous. Elevate Rapid City actively opposed legislation to stop forced sex changes on children (2020: HB 1057) , and they consistently take taxpayer dollars for projects that could be easily funded by private enterprise and a free market.

But it should come as no surprise coming from the self-proclaimed “conservative,” Senator Lee Schoenbeck, who referred to Trump “as a con man” in his tweet on Mar. 1, 2016, while chiding those that supported President Trump as “fake conservatives infiltrating our party.”

Schoenbeck accusing real conservatives of supporting big government is also extremely hypocritical. He has voted to increase our state’s budget by $1.226 billion dollars since 2018 (2018: HB 1320, 2019: SB 191, 2020: HB 1294, 2021: SB 195 & 2022: HB 1340).

He actively fought against repealing the half-cent internet sales tax this year (2022: HB 1327), saying it was like “throwing money away.” This is the same tax that he “broke kneecaps” to impose, during the 2016 legislative session. He has also voted an exorbitant number of times to increase other taxes and fees during his time in the legislature, which began in 2015.

Perhaps worse of all, Senator Schoenbeck voted to expand emergency powers during the pandemic (2020: HB 1296), supported medical arrests (2021: SB 3) and supported President Joe Biden’s Executive Orders without review (2021: HB 1194).

Without a doubt, Schoenbeck is the proverbial pot calling the kettle black.

Schoenbeck consistently receives low scores from conservative organizations. He has even received a lower score than some Democrats, like former Sen. Craig Kennedy from Yankton, who scored higher than Schoenbeck on the Family Heritage Action’s 2020 scorecard. Meanwhile, Schoenbeck has received failing grades from the American Conservative Union Foundation (57% Lifetime Avg), The National Rifle Association (67% 2022 NRA-PVF), and even Americans for Prosperity (“F” 2020 & 2019).

With a liberal record like this, Schoenbeck and his Senate puppets should stop deceiving voters and just switch parties.



His support of big government aside, his recent outbursts against his colleagues is par for the course for Schoenbeck, who’s known for unprofessional behavior and demeaning rhetoric. In 2016, after referring to Republican Majority Leader Brian Gosch as a “coward,” “pond scum” and a “chicken,” which resulted in him being banished from the Republican caucus by the Majority Leader, Schoenbeck threatened to resign from his legislative seat early.

When it comes to scorecards, SD Citizen’s for Liberty scorecard is one of the best for showing how your legislators are voting in alliance with the Constitution and the South Dakota Republican party platform. Because of their strong scores, we would strongly encourage support for Representatives Jensen, Randolph and Howard. They are a few of the best conservative legislators, as nationally recognized by organizations like the American Conservative Union and other national groups, who are still fighting for your individual liberty and freedom.

Senator-elect Tom Pischke

District 25



Representative Aaron Aylward

SD Freedom Caucus Chair

District 6



Help Support The Dakota Leader... DONATE TODAY!

--Senator Tom Pischke and Representative Aaron Aylward

Post Date: 2022-08-04 13:14:12Last Update: 2022-08-04 12:22:19

    


Leaders of Industry OP-ED “Before we rid the world of crude oil, is there a backup replacement?”
We know what the decarbonized world of the 1800’s was like, so how about proving the new parachute, i.e., the replacement for crude oil, works before we jump out of the plane?

Clean Energy is only Clean ELECTRICITY.

Those clean renewables, like wind turbines and solar panels, can only generate ELECTRICITY, and intermittent electricity at best from available breezes and sunshine. The indisputable science is that renewables CANNOT manufacture any of the oil derivatives that are the basis of the thousands of products that are the foundation of societies and economies around the world. In fact, these renewables cannot exist without crude oil as all the parts of wind turbines and solar panels are made with oil derivatives manufactured from crude oil.

Crude oil is useless unless it can be manufactured into something usable like the fuels for the heavy-weight and long-range transportation infrastructures of ships and jets and the derivatives that make the thousands of products that have made our lives more comfortable. But wind and solar cannot manufacture anything for society. Before we jump out of an airplane without a tested parachute, we need to be able to support the demands of all the infrastructures that exist today that did not exist a few hundred years ago.

The U.S. Supreme Court on June 30, 2022, dealt a major blow to the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) power to regulate carbon emissions. Those clean renewables, like wind turbines and solar panels, can only generate ELECTRICITY, and intermittent electricity at best from available breezes and sunshine. The indisputable science is that renewables CANNOT manufacture any of the oil derivatives that are the basis of the thousands of products that are the foundation of societies and economies around the world.

Without a backup plan to replace crude oil, ridding the world of crude oil will be depriving citizens of the more than
6,000 products that were non-existent before 1900, made from the oil derivatives manufactured from crude oil. Ridding the world of oil, without a replacement in mind is immoral and evil, as extreme shortages will result in billions of fatalities from diseases, malnutrition, and weather-related deaths.

The domino effects of tinkering with the supply chain of fossil fuels, is
supply shortages and soaring prices for not only electricity, but for the thousands of products that support the entire medical industry, all branches of the military, airports, electronics, communications, merchant ships, container ships, and cruise liners, as well as asphalt for roads, and fertilizers to help feed the world.



The major unintended consequence of divesting in crude oil that was responsible for the world populating from 1 to 8 billion in less than 200 years is that
efforts to cease the use of crude oil could be the greatest threat to civilization, not climate change.

Having confidence in humanity’s ability to adapt to climate changes, like they have done since the beginning of time, in my heart of hearts I dream of the day when the public recognizes climate change will not bring on an end of the world as we know it, or even a long-term net decline for human civilization.

However, efforts to cease the use of crude oil could be the greatest threat to civilization’s eight billion, and may result in billions, not millions, of fatalities from diseases, malnutrition, and weather-related deaths trying to live without the fossil fuels that have been benefiting society. Here is a reminder of what wind turbines and solar panels CANNOT manufacture, as these are all manufactured from crude oil. These manufactured items from oil did not exist before 1900. Most importantly, they are needed to support the growing demands of the world’s economy and for the health and well-being of the world’s eight billion residents.

Fuels for the; Life Without Oil is NOT AS SIMPLE AS YOU MAY THINK as renewable energy is only intermittent electricity from breezes and sunshine and NEITHER wind turbines, nor solar panels, can manufacture direct energy for society. Climate change may impact humanity but being mandated to live without the products manufactured from oil, will necessitate lifestyles being mandated back to the horse and buggy days of the 1800’s and could be the greatest threat to the planet's eight billion residents.

Everything that needs electricity, from lights, vehicles, iPhones, defibrillators, computers, telecommunications, etc., are all made with the oil derivatives manufactured from crude oil. There would be nothing to power in a world without fossil fuels!

A D V E R T I S E M E N T

A D V E R T I S E M E N T

Banks and investment giants that are driving today’s Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) divesting in fossil fuels are all the rage on Wall Street to divest in all three fossil fuels of coal, natural gas, and crude oil. It is appalling that both President Biden and the United Nations support allowing the investment community to collude to reshape economies and our energy infrastructure.

Before divesting in all three fossil fuels of coal, natural gas, and crude oil, where is the replacement or clone for crude oil, to keep today’s societies and economies running in the healthy and wealthy developed countries?


--By Ronald Stein Pulitzer Prize nominated author, and Policy advisor for The Heartland Institute on Energy

Post Date: 2022-08-04 11:11:54Last Update: 2022-08-04 11:30:58

    


OP-ED “Summer is Here, Time to Prepare a New City Budget”
With the Mayor Giving his Recommended City Budget to the City Council on July 21, Should the City Council Also Provide One?



July 21, 2021 - it is that time of year again, where we as a community sit down at the drawing table to discuss the state of the City of Sioux Falls, and its Finances.

Each year, between August 1st and September 30th, the Mayor and City Council spend countless hours discussing how much tax revenue will be collected by the City over the incoming months, while they begin the process of making plans of how to spend that future revenue being collected. But while the Mayor provides to the people and their representatives his or her "recommended plan", the City Council fails to provide to the mayor their own "recommended plan". Leading to some in the community to question whose budget is it. Is it the mayor's plan, or is it the people's plan?

While the City of Sioux Falls Charter as per Section 5.02 stipulate the Mayor's Office must provide to the City Council a Financial Plan (a budget) by August 1st of each year, and this typically takes place between July 20 and July 31st of each year, the charter has been silent on the fact the City Council must present its own budget in return. This leads to some confusion. The city council itself has to accept the mayors plan with no clear power to set a financial plan of its own in place. The charter simply says:

The mayor's message shall explain the budget both in fiscal terms and in terms of the work programs. It shall outline the proposed financial policies of the city for the ensuing fiscal year, describe the important features of the budget, indicate any major changes from the current year in financial policies, expenditures, and revenues together with the reasons for such changes, summarize the city's debt position and include such other material as the mayor deems desirable. - Section 5.03

A D V E R T I S E M E N T

A D V E R T I S E M E N T



Therefore, between August 1st and September 30th - the Mayor's Administration, the Finance Department, and all of the City Departments bring forth the City Council's reports of plans as supported by the City of Sioux Falls itself, based on the long-term vision of the current mayor at that point in time. While the City Council may offer suggestions, may at times make slight changes, or add things to the budget, the City charter makes it well known that the mayor's recommended budget is the predominant financial plan of city government.

South Dakota Codified Law simply says by it's first public meeting to be held September of each year, the Municipality must present to the public a list of projected revenues and expenses to be paid over the course of the next fiscal year, while it does not create a deadline other than a proposed list of taxes and expenses be adopted by ordinance, it does present a legal date to be December 31st of each year:

The governing body of each municipality shall, no later than its first regular meeting in September of each year or within ten days thereafter, introduce the annual appropriation ordinance for the ensuing fiscal year, in which it shall appropriate the sums of money necessary to meet all lawful expenses and liabilities of the municipality. The ordinance shall specify the function and subfunction as prescribed by the Department of Legislative Audit for which the appropriations are made and the amount appropriated for each function and subfunction, which amount shall be appropriated from the proper fund. It is not necessary to appropriate revenue to be expended from an enterprise or trust and agency fund if the fund is not supported or subsidized by revenue derived from the annual appropriated tax levy. However, an annual budget for these funds shall be developed and published no later than December thirty-first of each year.

A D V E R T I S E M E N T

A D V E R T I S E M E N T



The City Charter, by means of Section 5.05 (c), goes beyond the Statutory requirement by demanding that the Mayor and City Council adopt a Fiscal Budget by September 30th of the current year so the residents of the municipality may review such a budget and raise questions.

As an advocate for better government, I recommended a proposal to the City's Charter Revision Committee in 2021 to revise, amend, and change Section 5.05 to allow the City Council to have more power over taxes, fees, the expenses each year by allowing it to establish its own recommended budget. I proposed that while the Mayor provides to the council his recommended plan by August 1st, the City Council should also provide to the people directly it's own recommended budget as well, and during the month of August, the two sides should then discuss both proposals, thus allowing the people to decide which one should be the preferred choice, let alone, making compromises between the two recommendations, by no later than September 10th, which provides necessary time for the Mayor and City Council to make changes leading up to September 30th, of each year.

Under my proposal, there would be a clear separation of power between the Mayor's Office and the City Council, while keeping in mind that the city council receives updated financial updates each month or even daily, and it has its own Internal Finance Auditor, Fiscal Committee, and means to review and track financial data. The City publishes its financial report as early as March of each year.

I would like to see Section 5 of the City Charter revised to read as such, giving the City Council more power over the budgetary process:

Charter, Section 5.05 - Section 5.05 City Council Action on Budget (changes in bold, underline)

(c) Adoption. The city council shall adopt the annual appropriation ordinance for appropriated funds for the ensuing fiscal year on or before the 30th day of September of the fiscal year currently ending. The annual appropriation ordinance shall make appropriations by fund and department or organizational unit. It is not necessary to appropriate funds to be expended from a proprietary or trust fund if the fund is not supported or subsidized by revenue derived from the annual appropriated tax levy. However, an annual budget for these funds shall be adopted by resolution on or before the 30th day 10th day of September of the fiscal year currently ending and published at the same time as publication of the annual appropriation ordinance. If the city council fails to adopt the budget by this date, the budget proposed by the mayor shall go into effect.

Within ten (10) days, the city council shall return to the Mayor a detailed list of ten items that should be added or removed from the proposed budget, and the Mayor shall submit to the city council a list of ten items that should be added or removed from the proposed budget. Ten days after that deadline, the Mayor plus two City Council Members shall call forth a Special Council Meeting to discuss the changes to be made to the budget in order to pass the annual appropriation budget. If the two sides cannot agree to an appropriation budget by joint resolution, the last agreed prior budget shall remain in full effect for next twelve months.

A D V E R T I S E M E N T

A D V E R T I S E M E N T



⦁ IF the two sides cannot agree to a budget, then no new budget should be adopted.

⦁ IF there is no new budget, then the budget last voted on shall remain in effect and the city shall restrict itself to spending tax dollars based on a previously adopted budget.

By making this small change, you are allowing the Mayor to propose his recommended budget between July 20th and August 1st, while at the same time allowing the City Council to present to the public its own recommended proposed budget. During the month of August, they may discuss both proposals, hash out any differences and make changes to either one. By September 10th, they must agree to one or the other, or over the next twenty days, by joint resolution, adopt an agreeable budget that is acceptable to both the mayor and the city council.

If neither side should agree, then the PEOPLE have power as residents of the city to hold the city government to the last adopted budget from a previous year. They can enforce their right to ensure that city government cannot simply run over the people's wishes beyond their voluntary consent.

All Residents of the City of Sioux Falls may upon request from the City Finance Department copies of the last updated Annual Financial Report. This provides to the residents all revenue sources, past expenses of the city, statements of all accounts, funds, and programs of the city. It provides key data, statistics, and more, which becomes a useful financial tool of residents in establishing a plan to be adopted over the next twelve months. Three times each month the city council holds key informational meetings to discuss projected revenues, projects, and other data that warrant public discussion over the course of the next year.

As we, as the residents of the City of Sioux Falls, begin budget talks to determine how to spend our public taxes and revenues for the period between January 1st of 2022, to the end of December 31 of the year 2022, lets begin to enforce the public's right to to be part of the process, as well as pay attention to each and every detail that the residents may or may not want, as participants in the commercial activity of the city each year.

A D V E R T I S E M E N T

A D V E R T I S E M E N T



Balancing your Checkbook is an important concept in our daily lives, and that concept does not simply stop at your front door. It involves all of us as residents who are required to pay taxes to the city itself.

Be part of the governing process, help make the City of Sioux Falls a much better place to live, and be part of the "budgetary process" each month. Help to shape the City long into the future by building better roads, infrastructure, citywide programs and services, and better means for the residents to go about their daily lives within the city itself.

Beginning on July 21st with the Mayor's Budget Address, you will have the ability to participate in public discussion to establish the next year's city budget, as well as the Five Year Capital Plan, which establishes a plan for building new roads, fixing existing roads, and repairing and building infrastructure, new bike trails, bridges, a new electric grid, and our water and sewer system. Be part of the solution, not the problem.

"To implement a budget is to apply one's ideas about life and spending to the real world." ― Zachariah Renfro


--Mike Ziiterich

Post Date: 2022-07-25 10:14:03Last Update: 2022-07-25 10:42:36

    


OP-ED- Poorer Countries Have Lower Costs for Gasoline
The wealthy countries that have chosen to go “green” have the highest cost of gasoline and electricity.

The political class's obsession within wealthy countries to lower emissions by subsidizing expensive and utterly unreliable breezes and sunshine to generate electricity, and divesting in fossil fuels, have already put the cost of electrical power and fuel out of the reach of the poorest in the developed first world countries.

The healthy and wealthy countries of the United States of America, Germany, the UK, and Australia representing 6 percent of the world’s population (505 million vs 7.8 billion) could literally shut down, and cease to exist, and the opposite of what you have been told and believe will take place. Emissions will be exploding from those poorer developing countries.

Simply put, in these healthy and wealthy countries, every person, animal, or anything that causes emissions to harmfully rise could vanish off the face of the earth; or even die off, and global emissions will still explode in the coming years and decades ahead over the population and economic growth of China, India, Indonesia, Japan, Vietnam, and Africa.

A D V E R T I S E M E N T

A D V E R T I S E M E N T

Richer countries now have higher gasoline prices, while poorer countries and countries that produce and export oil have lower cost for fuels. A review of global petroleum gasoline prices per gallon in U.S. dollars shows the international intelligence and trends of gasoline prices of the wealthy countries that have opted to go “green” at any cost, compared with poorer countries and countries that produce and export oil.



While gasoline nationwide is at or near all-time highs, California gasoline prices tend to be more than a dollar higher than the USA national average due to excessive State taxes and costly environmental compliance programs, which are dumped onto the posted pricing at the pumps.

When we look outside the few wealthy countries, we see that at least
80 percent of humanity, or more than six billion in this world are living on less than $10 a day, and billions living with little to no access to electricity, politicians are pursuing the most expensive ways to generate intermittent electricity. Energy poverty is among the most crippling but least talked- about crises of the 21 st century. We should not take energy for granted. Expensive electricity and fuels are being borne by those that can least afford living in “energy poverty.”

Before Biden became President, for the first time since Harry Truman was president 70 years ago, we had more crude oil exports than imports. Through the fracking boom in the years before Biden, the U.S. attained crude oil independence status meaning we were no longer held hostage to unstable Petro-powers and the vagaries of foreign energy supplies. Under President Trump, America had an aggressive pro-domestic energy policy, which allowed America to become not only energy independent, which politicians have talked about for decades, but energy dominant.

Rather than expand oil exploration in America to restore America’s oil independence, President Biden is focused on ridding America of fossil fuels, and is off to visit OPEC nations seeking more oil exports to America. The USA was an oil exporter before Biden took office, but under Biden’s direction, this wealthy country now IMPORTS crude oil from unfriendly foreign countries to meet the demands of the American economy.

California, a state that was virtually independent of imported crude oil from foreign countries in 1995, today is the only state in contiguous America that imports oil, now at more than 60 percent of the needs of the fifth largest economy in the world. At today’s price of crude oil well above $100 per barrel the imported crude oil costs California more than $150 million dollars a day, yes, every day, being paid to oil-rich foreign countries, depriving Californians of jobs and business opportunities, and drivers to pay premium prices for fuel.

Biden appears to be self-motivated to clone the direction that California has taken over the last few decades. Rather than significantly increase oil production in America, Biden is following California Governor Newsom’s efforts toward further reductions of in-state oil production and placing greater than the current more than 60 percent dependency on oil rich foreign sources, that also have significantly less environmental control than California. Newsom promotes more costs for Californians and more generated emissions for the world.

A D V E R T I S E M E N T

A D V E R T I S E M E N T

The poorer countries that cannot subsidize themselves out of a paper bag, and the countries that produce and export oil, have lower costs for gasoline and may also be less incentivized to seek EV’s for their cost-effective transportation needs.

Shockingly, just to reduce emissions to supposedly stop climate change, President Biden is following the lead of Germany, UK, Australia, and California that now have among the highest costs for electricity and gasoline along inflation being borne by all.


--By Ronald Stein Pulitzer Prize nominated author, and Policy advisor for The Heartland Institute on Energy

Post Date: 2022-07-21 11:47:42Last Update: 2022-07-21 12:12:47

    


Leaders of Industry OP-ED-“ America’s dependency on imports may be stagnating its economy”
America has chosen to meet society’s demands for products by continually increasing supplies from foreign sources, but those choices are backfiring on the American economy.

Shortages of the following may be leading to the new norm of shortages and inflation: NEON

Neon is an important component in the lasers that etch semiconductors. Like krypton and xenon, it is a by-product of steel manufacturing. Steel producers separate air to control levels of oxygen and nitrogen delivered to the blast furnace. This involves the fractional distillation of liquid air.

Neon is important to the manufacture of semiconductor chips but is not present in the chips. It doesn’t directly touch the silicon during manufacturing. Neon helps make the deep ultraviolet (DUV) light used in the photolithographic process that patterns semiconductors. Neon plays a vital role in excimer lasers.

A D V E R T I S E M E N T

A D V E R T I S E M E N T

Ukraine produces around 70 percent of global neon gas exports, and a purified version of that gas is so crucial to the semiconductor industry that the Russia-Ukraine war threatens to disrupt supplies and make the ongoing microchip shortage even worse.

With a lack of excitement in America to get back into steel manufacturing, chip shortages may be the new norm with limited neon from a reduction of steel manufacturing in Ukraine.

UREA

If you are not a trucker, RV owner, or farmer, you may not even know what DEF fluid is. It is
Diesel Exhaust Fluid. Every diesel vehicle made since 2010 is required by the EPA to use it. It is a product made of 67 percent Urea fertilizer and 33 percent distilled water.

A worldwide shortage of the primary ingredient of urea in DEF
(Diesel Exhaust Fluid), is looming. And while this may not sound important, it could have a significant impact on America’s trucking, RV industry, and agriculture.

Diesel Exhaust Fluid (DEF) is an emissions control liquid required by modern diesel engines. It is injected into the exhaust stream. DEF is never added to diesel fuel. It is a non-hazardous solution of 32.5 percent urea in 67.5 percent de-ionized water. DEF is clear and colorless and looks exactly like water. It has a slight smell of ammonia, like some home cleaning agents. DEF is used by
Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) technology to remove harmful NOx emissions from diesel engines.

Modern diesels require the injection of DEF — diesel exhaust fluid — into the exhaust stream to meet current exhaust emissions standards. Unfortunately, the main component of DEF is urea (along with de-ionized water), a byproduct of industrial ammonia production. And the largest exporter of urea is Russia, currently engaged in a war with Ukraine and, consequently, facing worldwide sanctions.

To make matters worse, urea also is a key ingredient in fertilizer, which has skyrocketed in cost due to the pandemic and shipping slowdowns. In fact, China — the previous No. 4 urea exporter — has at least temporarily stopped exporting the chemical to meet agricultural demands in its own country.

Shortages of trucking and new crops may be the new norm as Russia and China are two of the largest exporters of Urea by a wide margin. Both Russia and China have decided to no longer export Urea.

REFINERIES

In 2019, of the almost
700 oil refineries in the world, there were 135 refineries in the U.S. but five U.S. facilities were shuttered during the last two years.

In the last few years, two of those were in California (Phillips66 at Rodeo and Marathon at Martinez) that once manufactured many products, are now only focusing on renewable diesel. If the courts uphold the recent Bay Area Air Quality Management (BAAQMD) rule for a further reduction in particulate emissions, both the Chevron Refinery at Richmond and the PBF Refinery at Martinez have stated that they will shut down before spending one billion dollars to retrofit their refineries to comply with further particulate emission reductions.

With the potential loss of two more refineries, Northern California’s gasoline and jet fuel to supply military bases, major airports in San Francisco, Oakland, San Jose, and Sacramento will be imported from China, along with many other products that shuttered California refineries are no longer manufacturing.

Each refinery location is a business that needs to make business decisions. Consequently,
one in five oil refineries are expected to cease operations over the next five years. One in five is 20 percent, or more than 20 refineries expected to be shuttered just in the U.S. resulting in a decline in the products manufactured to meet the ever-increasing demands from society.

There are over 100 new refineries under construction, with most of them in Asia with 88, Europe with 12 and North America with 10. Asia is the region with the greatest number of future petroleum refineries. As of 2021, there were 88 new facilities in planning or under construction in Asia.

With a lack of excitement in America to construct new refineries to replace the aging ones being shuttered,
China is on track to succeed the United States as the country with the greatest oil refinery throughput.

Since crude oil is useless unless it can be manufactured into something usable, shortages of refineries to manufacture crude oil into fuels and products may be the new norm.

OIL

Presiding over this growing collection of catastrophes and climate hysteria in America is 79- year-old president, Joseph R. Biden, Jr. A year before being inaugurated President in 2021, Biden professed that
“we are going to get rid of fossil fuels." Before the recent inauguration, America achieved for the first time since Harry Truman was president about 70 years ago, to finally become crude oil independent and no longer held hostage to unstable Petro-powers and the vagaries of foreign crude oil supplies. 79-year old John Kerry, the U.S. Special Presidential Envoy for Climate recently said “we absolutely don’t” need to drill for more fossil fuels.

A D V E R T I S E M E N T

A D V E R T I S E M E N T

America, under current leadership, is attempting to clone California and be almost totally dependent of foreign suppliers for its crude oil demands but restricting the supply of crude oil to be manufactured to meet the increasing demands of society is a guarantee to be the new norm for shortages and inflation.

America has chosen to meet its society’s demands for products by continually increasing its dependency on foreign sources, with no contingency plans for supply replacements for: neon for chips, urea for DEF fluid, products manufactured at refineries, and crude oil, but those choices are backfiring on the American economy.



Help Support The Dakota Leader... DONATE TODAY!

--By Ronald Stein- Contributing Writer to The Dakota Leader, Pulitzer Prize nominated author, and Policy advisor for The Heartland Institute on Energy

Post Date: 2022-07-12 14:37:09Last Update: 2022-07-12 11:18:31

    


OP-ED “Government is the Benefactor From the Sale of Fuel”
Not the Oil Companies!

Drivers should be aware of the reality that every time they add 16 gallons of fuel to their vehicle, they are contributing $20 per tank to government programs.

California Governor Newsom should look in a mirror and stop biting the hand that feeds the State. As consumers are now contributing more than $75 million dollars per day, (more than $27 BILLION dollars a year) in taxes at the pump, and for the fuel consumption of the state's ‘mobile fleet.’ The estimated impact of California taxes, fees, and costs for climate programs are a whopping $1.30 a gallon:



California drivers, currently paying $6.50 a gallon, are contributing 20 percent of each gallon to the government. If, and when, the cost of crude oil ever comes down, gasoline may get back to $4.00 a gallon. At that time, California's government would receive an even larger share, at a whopping 30+ percent per gallon.

A D V E R T I S E M E N T

A D V E R T I S E M E N T

Even more pain at the pump just occurred for Californians under Senate Bill 1, enacted in 2017. The State Excise Tax amount is raised every year, in part to keep pace with inflation. The programmed annual gas tax hike occurred on 1 July 2022, with an increase of 5.6 percent, which takes it to 53.9 cents per gallon, a jump of 2.8 cents.

According to the California Energy Commission, there were 29 million registered vehicles in California in 2015. The fuel consumption, on a daily-basis, for California’s mobile fleet was 48 million gallons per DAY of gasoline and 10 million gallons per DAY of diesel. A total of 58 million gallons of fuel daily, making the state one of the largest users and procurers of fossil fuels.

With California collecting $1.30 per gallon for taxes, fees, and costs for the states’ climate programs, those 58 million gallons of fuel being consumed daily is more than $75 million dollars a day or more than $27 BILLION dollars a year for government spending pleasures.

So, who is the real profiteer from fuel sales? Yes, it’s the government.

Governor Newsom is doing everything possible to rid California of oil, from his continuous efforts to reduce in-state oil exploration, and his mandate to not purchase internal combustion engine vehicles starting in 2035. Since he won’t be around in 2035, he remains silent about what new taxes would be needed to replace the billions of dollars that will be diminishing from the coffers, as fuel consumption decreases with his mandate to buy EV’s.

California Governor Newsom recently asked the California Energy Commission to investigate fuel costs. Following Newsom’s request for an investigation by the state attorney general to investigate fuel costs, California Democrats to Investigate Cause of High Gas Prices.

As a result of the lack of transparency, as to why Californians are paying more than a dollar a gallon for fuel than the rest of the country, I met with Senator John Moorlach. A few years ago (in 2018), Moorlach sponsored Senate Bill 1074, titled the “Disclosure of government- imposed costs,” bill. The bill would have required gas stations to post (near each gas and diesel pump) a list of all those cost factors like taxes, as well as the costs associated with the state’s numerous environmental regulations being imposed on the manufacturers.

Back in 2018, both the Senator and I testified in support of the Bill for transparency of government-imposed costs, at a hearing before the State Senate Finance Committee. The Democrat controlled committee was adamant they did not want the public to see all the costs included in the posted pump price, and killed the Bill from future consideration that would have made gas pricing transparent to the buyer. Today, we are hearing the same concerns that Senate Bill 1074 would have remedied. Today, the dance continues.

A D V E R T I S E M E N T

A D V E R T I S E M E N T

On a national basis, and from a historical perspective, Investor’s Business Daily article (2008) as noted in Mark Levin's book "Liberty and Tyranny," shows;

"From 1977 to 2004, according to Tax Foundation data, US oil companies cleared $630 billion after taxes while paying $518 billion in federal and state corporate taxes at an average rate of 45%. Over the same period, an additional $1.34 TRILLION in excise fuel taxes was collected from consumers by the oil companies and turned over to various governments."

It's embarrassing that the same California Democrats, who were adamantly against transparency, are
now seeking profit transparency from California oil refineries, as to why California's gas prices are consistently the highest in the country. It’s time to turn the mirror around at the Governor and Sacramento.

In the last few years, California has shuttered two refineries, Phillips66 at Rodeo and Marathon at Martinez. Both refineries once manufactured many products, but are now only focusing on renewable diesel.

If the courts uphold the recent, Bay Area Air Quality Management (BAAQMD) rule, for a further reduction in particulate emissions, both the Chevron Refinery at Richmond and the PBF Refinery at Martinez have stated that they will shut down before spending one-billion dollars to retrofit their refineries or comply with further particulate emissions.

With the potential loss of two more refineries, Northern California’s gasoline and jet fuel supply to military bases, and major airports in San Francisco, Oakland, San Jose, and Sacramento, will be imported from China. China would also be given the contracts to make thousands of products that California refineries are no longer capable of manufacturing, as China does not have the same EPA standards or regulations.

We need transparency and accounting of all government costs dumped onto the protested price at the pump, not an investigation of the diminishing number of suppliers. Governor, California taxpayers deserve an explanation.

Ronald Stein, P.E.​ Ambassador for Energy and Infrastructure

Ronald.Stein@PTSadvance.com

http://www.energyliteracy.net/


--By Ronald Stein Pulitzer Prize nominated author, and Policy advisor for The Heartland Institute on Energy

Post Date: 2022-07-06 10:00:30Last Update: 2022-07-06 10:54:23

    


Leader’s of Industry- “Dark Clouds on the horizon for Electric Vehicles”
OP-ED - The lithium supply chain for electric vehicle batteries may be in question as well as insurability of cargo ships to bring EV’s to America

There are a couple of dark clouds hanging over the optimistic growth of electric vehicles (EV’s) that may decimate the supply chain of lithium to make the EV batteries, and how to safely transport EV’s across wide oceans.
  1. The European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) is expected to classify lithium carbonate, chloride, and hydroxide as dangerous for human health. The decision is expected to be reached by early next year.
  2. The recent (March 2022) sinking of a cargo ship with 4,000 vehicles, from a fire where electric-vehicle batteries were part of the reason, may be imposing an insurmountable insurance problem to bring those foreign made vehicles to America.
The first dark cloud is the supply chain for lithium to build EV batteries: Lithium’s pivotal role in electric vehicles makes it an important commodity in meeting global targets to cut carbon emissions, and it was added to the EU’s list of critical raw materials in 2020. However, the European Commission is currently assessing a proposal by the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) to classify lithium carbonate, chloride, and hydroxide as dangerous for human health.

The EU proposal doesn’t ban lithium imports, from developing countries where the same lithium carbonate, chloride and hydroxide are currently NOT categorized as dangerous for human health. But if legislated will add to costs for processors from more stringent rules controlling processing, packaging, and storage. The decision is expected to be reached by early next year.

Adding lithium salts to the list of materials hazardous for health may prompt the revision of a range of projects in the industry. Stricter rules mean higher costs, so any lithium ore processing plant project would need to be given a second look regarding its environmental impact and feasibility.

A D V E R T I S E M E N T

A D V E R T I S E M E N T

If lithium carbonate, lithium chloride and lithium hydroxide are classified as dangerous, it would complicate the import procedure, production, and handling of the materials. The top lithium producer in Germany, Albemarle Corp (ALB.N), may have to shut its Langelsheim plant in Germany if the metal used in electric vehicle batteries is declared a hazardous material by the European Union..

Like America’s Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the European Union has been making its environmental and climate rules stricter for decades. The administration in Brussels wants to make the entire continent carbon neutral by mid-century. At the same time, it is striving to achieve the highest level of protection from pollution in the world.

Initiatives to open mines and ore processing plants such as the ones in Serbia and Portugal have caused a public uproar as environmentalists and the local population are fearful about the impact on nature and people’s livelihoods. In other projects, engineers are trying to make the extraction of lithium from geothermal waters cost effective and harmless, without any mining. Currently, Portugal has called off a lithium project amid EU’s scramble for battery materials.

The second dark cloud is the insurability of future cargo ships to bring EV’s to America:

Amid tougher emissions regulations worldwide, established automakers are racing to add more EVs to their lineup. A Reuters analysis found that global automakers such as Audi, BMW, Hyundai, Fiat, Volkswagen, GM, Ford, Nissan, Toyota, Daimler, and Chrysler plan to spend a combined U.S. $300 billion on EVs over the next decade as car companies are betting big on EV’s. Most of the EV’s will be manufactured in foreign countries far removed from American ports.

China came from zero production in 1950, to 2019 where it now produces more cars than the USA, Japan, and India collectively. The
6-minute video of the automobile manufacturing “needle” shows how the foreign manufacturing dominance occurred over the that 69-year period.

Automobiles manufactured per year.


Bringing those foreign built cars to America may be an insurmountable insurance problem.
The Felicity Ace, a 650-foot-long cargo ship carrying hundreds of millions of dollars’ worth of luxury cars sunk in March 2022. The salvage crew working on the burning ship said electric- vehicle batteries were part of the reason it was still aflame after several days. The estimated market value of the Felicity Ace was $24.5 million, while the total value of the 3965 vehicles could be over $500 million.

With potential fires from EV batteries, who’s going to take the insurance responsibility for their safe passage from the foreign manufacturers to American ports, the cargo ships, or the manufacturers?

On the positive side, there are sodium-ion batteries that are the main pretender to the throne for EV’s.

Chinese giant CATL’s first generation of sodium-ion batteries are entering the market in 2023. If the company makes up for the lag in energy density, the new technology may become more competitive than lithium-based solutions.

The sodium-ion technology has better integration efficiency, performance at low temperatures and charging speed. Experts noted that sodium-ion batteries can be charged only 1,500 times compared to between two and four times more in the case of lithium variants. Thus, longevity of the sodium-ion batteries still needs development work.

Lithium-ion batteries are dominating the global energy storage market including electric vehicles. However, the sector’s rapid expansion is fueling price growth and drastic shortages are possible as soon as next year. Also, quality lithium ore is scarce and producers across the world are under fire for extensive water consumption in the process and other environmental impacts. Currently, sodium-ion batteries are the main pretender to the throne.

Until something like an alternative sodium-ion battery comes along to replace the lithium-ion batteries, to meet the projected growth of the EV population, the industry will be monitoring the dark clouds hanging over the industry for a reliable lithium supply chain for electric vehicles, as well as methods to transport those EV’s safely and cost-effectively to America.



Help Support The Dakota Leader... DONATE TODAY!

--By Ronald Stein- Contributing Writer to The Dakota Leader, Pulitzer Prize nominated author, and Policy advisor for The Heartland Institute on Energy

Post Date: 2022-06-30 15:36:28Last Update: 2022-06-30 16:00:57

    


Leader’s of Industry- “ Artificial Intelligence in Sales”
An OP-ED on Artificial Intelligence in Sales

Make it easy. Make it work. And make it right. These critical imperatives could easily be the customer service mantra of many business professionals – including sales reps and sales leaders. They can also sum up the goals, benefits, and evolving impact of artificial intelligence (AI) in sales. But as AI continues to spread its influence on the buyer's journey, what does the role of AI in sales look like – and what does the future of AI hold for sales processes and for sales organizations as a whole? Consider the following:

What is Artificial Intelligence?

Simply put, Artificial Intelligence (AI) is the simulation of human-like intelligence, including patterns of thought and predictable action, via software, by machines – most commonly computers and/or connected computer systems. With AI, these machines utilize large data sets and also may continuously "learn" from direct interaction with human users or operators, to predictively simplify, enhance, automate, and/or accelerate the interactive experience. Advanced search engines, recommendation systems, predictive text, voice recognition and response tools, self-driving cars, and other similar technologies use some level of artificial intelligence.

Artificial Intelligence in the Sales Process

Artificial intelligence is already making it possible for sales organizations to develop and utilize adaptive sales processes to simplify and enhance the buying experience. Regarding how AI is changing sales, the Harvard Business Review reports that "companies that have pioneered the use of AI in sales rave about the impact, which includes" a 50 % "increase in leads and appointments..." as well as "cost reductions of 40%–60%, and call time reductions of 60%–70%."

A D V E R T I S E M E N T

A D V E R T I S E M E N T

Specifically, sales automation and AI productivity using the machine learning capabilities and functionality of AI can benefit sales in these areas (and many more):

Integrating with various media and focused platforms to optimize buyer awareness of products, services, and alternatives The Future of Sales

So, what will be the big-picture impact of artificial intelligence and automation on the sales industry? AI in sales is here to stay and will continue to expand as an influential component of the sales process. Why? Because AI can transform sales team responsibilities and make the sales process more effective and efficient. Does that mean that sales reps will become obsolete? Not at all. Despite the growing impact of AI on sales, significant sales job losses are unlikely. And although buyers will likely appreciate a more efficient and relevant sales process, they still tend to prefer engaging with a human being, especially in long-term B2B relationships. In this way, AI automation can actually enhance the role of the salesperson and the connection to the customer. How? By making it possible for sales professionals to spend more time doing what they do best: engaging with buyers as real people making real connections and providing real solutions. And there's nothing artificial about that!

About John Lee- I implement sales infrastructure, process and accountability to drive aggressive growth for owners ready to change. I help EOS Implementer's fill the Sales Leader ROCK. Sales Consultant & Trainer, to learn more contact John HERE or email him today johnjleejr@comcast.net



Help Support The Dakota Leader... DONATE TODAY!

--John Lee CSL- Contributing Writer

Post Date: 2022-06-30 15:11:09Last Update: 2022-06-30 15:36:28

    


Shortages and inflation to be the new norm as refinery closures outpace new construction
Refinery closures are outpacing new construction over the next five years and will significantly reduce the supply of items manufactured at refineries to meet increasing worldwide demands and place tremendous pressures on continuous shortages and inflation.

Published June 22, 2022, at Heartland Institute https://www.heartland.org/news- opinion/news/shortages-and-inflation-to-be-the-new-norm-as-refinery-closures-outpace- new-construction

As the world has become impassioned with increasing its electricity generation from wind turbines and solar panels from breezes and sunshine, the world is silently slipping into a future of shortages and inflation as society’s demands for all the products and fuels manufactured from crude oil is exceeding the supply available from the dwindling number of refineries.

There were almost 700 oil refineries in the world as of January 2020, but as a result on continuous over regulations, permitting delays, aging equipment, and the worldwide support of the Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) to divest in fossil fuels, the right operating model and level of integration will be crucial for survival and sustained profitability of refineries.

In 2019 there were 135 refineries in the U.S
. but five facilities were shuttered during the last two years.

Each refinery location is a business that needs to make business decisions. Consequently,
one in five oil refineries are expected to cease operations over the next five years. One in five is 20 percent, or almost 140 refineries expected to be shuttered worldwide, resulting in a 20 percent decline in the products manufactured to meet the ever-increasing demands form society.

A D V E R T I S E M E N T

A D V E R T I S E M E N T

There are over 100 new refineries under construction, with most of them in Asia with 88, Europe with 12 and North America with 10. Asia is the region with the greatest number of future petroleum refineries. As of 2021, there were 88 new facilities in planning or under construction in Asia. By comparison, Europe is set to see an addition of 12 petroleum refinery, and North America is set to see an addition of 10. The amount of oil fed through refineries in Asia has significantly increased in the past three decades as demand for petroleum products surged in developing countries such as China and India. China is on track to succeed the United States as the country with the greatest oil refinery throughput.

While worldwide demand for the products made with oil derivatives and fuels manufactured at refineries continue to increase, the upcoming closures of manufacturers over the next five years will significantly reduce the supply of those items and place tremendous pressures on continuous shortages and inflation.

Renewables can only generate electricity, and intermittent electricity at best. The undisputable science is that renewables CANNOT manufacture any of the oil derivatives that are the basis of the thousands of products that are the foundation of societies and economies around the world. In fact, renewables cannot exist without crude oil as all the parts of wind turbines and solar panels are made with oil derivatives manufactured from crude oil.

Here is a reminder of what is manufactured from oil that did not exist before 1900 that are needed to support the growing demands of the world’s economy and for the health and well- being of the world’s eight billion residents. Fuels for the- Crude oil is useless unless it can be manufactured into something usable.

The Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) strategy to divest in all fossil fuels is working but will result in shortages and inflation as the new norm as society’s demands for the products from crude oil are exceeding the supply from the diminishing number of manufacturers.

With worldwide refinery closures outpacing new construction, shortages and inflation are likely to be the new norm that inflict regressive expenses upon those that can least afford it.



Help Support The Dakota Leader... DONATE TODAY!

--By Ronald Stein- Contributing Writer to The Dakota Leader, Pulitzer Prize nominated author, and Policy advisor for The Heartland Institute on Energy

Post Date: 2022-06-22 13:18:01Last Update: 2022-06-22 14:13:51

    


DOMICILE vs Residency
The Place Where Your Sovereignty Begins

Ever wonder where your loyalty, allegiance, to whom you owe taxes originates?

It all begins at the point where your sovereignty does: Your Domicile.

Domicile: the country that a person treats as their permanent home, or lives in and has a substantial connection to and treats as a permanent home.

You may only have one domicile at a time, and it is the place you submit yourself to, the place you owe your allegiance to in terms of taxes owed, the public laws. It is the center of all your daily activity.

What separates Domicle from "Residency"? Let's look into the meaning of the word "residence": living in a place for some length of time, serving in a regular or full-time capacity.

You may have multiple residencies, in contrast to having only one domicile. While your domicile is the official sovereign place of origin and the place all roads lead back to, your residency may change from time to time depending on where you happen to be at any given time. Your residency may be one place, or it may transition from city to city, state to state, country to country. What does not change is the domicile: the place you owe a tax to, register to vote in, and register all your documents, your vehicle, etc.

A D V E R T I S E M E N T

A D V E R T I S E M E N T



The South Dakota State Constitution defines "Sovereignty" as such:

"The sovereignty and jurisdiction of this state extend to all territory within its established boundaries except as to such places wherein jurisdiction is expressly ceded to the United States by the State Constitution, or wherein jurisdiction has been heretofore or may be hereafter ceded to the United States, with the consent of the people of this state, expressed by their Legislature and the consent of the United States." - Article 1 Section 1

Everything within the borders of South Dakota-- lands, real or tangible properties, your vehicle, your person, your children, all your daily commercial activity-- falls under the jurisdiction of the "State" upon submitting to the state "your birthright nationalism".

Your domicile is well grounded within the "place of your birth", where the hospital provides you a Birth Document, typically referred to as the "Certificate of Live Birth". This is the document your doctor provides for your parents the day you are born. It provides the names of your parents (mom and dad), the Hospital, the Time, Place, and Manner of Your Birth, your name, hand prints, foot prints, etc. The hospital is licensed to partake in commercial trade within the "State" you live in and submits that document to the Secretary of State to record your birth. It is kept in your State's vital records as your official "Place of Origin", the place of which you claim your "birthright" - your domicile.

According to the public laws of South Dakota, you are to submit your official person to the State by your 18th Birthday, when you become a American Citizen of the State itself. The state then provides you "Birth Certificate" a legal document of which presents lawful evidence of your "citizenship" status as an American Citizen of the State of South Dakota.

The status of being a citizen becomes your membership in a community where you place your domicile, and determines the quality of an individual's response to membership in a community to which that citizen owes his allegiance to.

A D V E R T I S E M E N T

A D V E R T I S E M E N T



Since you may only have one "Domicile",that means you are an American Citizen of South Dakota less you legally, lawfully and willfully transfer it from one state to another.

You do not owe any "Direct Tax" such as Sales Tax or Property Tax to any Foreign State, and you may travel across all the other Fifty States, Territories, Countries as a "Domestic Foreigner" of which you have the Right to Travel.

RV'rs do this all the time. They choose to NOT have one particular residence, but they may choose to transfer their "Domicile" from one state to the next. Many do so for tax purposes, for voting privileges, etc, even though they change their place of residence as often as necessary as they travel the other fifty states.

Your Domicile is the place where you register your vehicle, pay your annual property and sales taxes, and vote for your Governor, State Legislators, Mayors, City Councils, Local Judges, the President of the United States, and your choice of U.S Representative and two U.S Senators.

To claim your Domicile in South Dakota, you must spend no less than twenty-four hours in the State, either the "day of your birth" or the at least one full day residing in a Hotel or Campground, so long as you can claim an 'address" for no less than twenty-four hours.

It is the "place" where you register to vote. The Secretary of State records your name, address, and political affiliation in the State's database of "registered" voters, which is public information to any political party that wishes to obtain it unless you restrict the information voluntarily. The State must obtain a "Master File of all Registered Voters and keep that official file private.

A D V E R T I S E M E N T

A D V E R T I S E M E N T



The Secretary of State is tasked with a huge burden of responsibility: it must safeguard all public records of the State, including your official documents, papers, certificates, license:

The secretary of state is charged with the custody of :

(1) All acts and resolutions passed by the Legislature;

(2) The journals of the Legislature;

(3) The great seal of the state;

(4) All books, records, deeds, parchments, maps, and papers required to be kept on deposit in his office pursuant to law;

(5) The enrolled copy of the Constitution.

The Secretary of State must keep, maintain, and protect your official documents, thus ensuring your protected sovereignty as an American Citizen of the State of South Dakota.

No other "State", nor the Territory of the District of Columbia, nor the Federal Government may force you to give up that domicile at any time. No foreign state, nor D.C, may force you to pay a direct tax on your person, your labor, or your property without your consent. The "STATE" is sworn by oath, to protect you from any individual, company, or foreign government outside the State itself.

While you may have the right to "travel" outside the State as a domestic foreigner and may be subject to pay any such indirect tax or duty while in another state or you may be held accountable for speeding violations or other such indirect taxes in other states, NO foreign state may force you to pay a Direct Property Tax (sales or land tax). All 'direct taxes owed, are to be paid to the State of South Dakota.

As for "Voting Rights', you may only register in one state at a time, and that is grounded in your domicile. Never may you vote in multiple states. In order to vote in another state, you must officially surrender your domicile of your previous state, thus transferring it. At that point, the Secretary of State in your former state must then clear your name from the official registry and remove your right to vote in that 'state'.

Domicile shall not be taken lightly. It is the bread and butter to all your 'sovereign rights' as an American, and that alone must be cherished, protected, and cared for.

The Department of Treasury may record and file your official tax license and driver license in order to keep track of all taxes owed; the Department of the Auditor may audit and take inventory of all your property, and the Department of Corrections may manage and file all your penalties, fines, and sanctions. The Attorney General is sworn to protect your person, liberty, property, and activity throughout the state, and all your travels.

A D V E R T I S E M E N T

A D V E R T I S E M E N T



The very heart of being a sovereign nation is providing security of one's borders, of one's internal situation, and security against anyone attacking one's nation. That is the very heart of what I believe is sovereignty. - John Warner

As you go to the polls this June, and later on this November, remember, you are voting as a Citizen of South Dakota, claiming your allegiance to the State where you claim your domicile. While you may be a citizen of the State of South Dakota, you are residing within the County, the City or Township where you partake in all your private and public activities and have agreed to pay a tax, drive on public roads, and to use and benefit from all the State and Local Services, Programs, and Benefit Programs across the State itself.

DOMICILES - EXPLAINED

To change your "Domicile", there are specific criteria:

1) Florida, South Dakota, and Texas are the lone Domicile States in the Nation;

2) To Claim A Domicile, You must fully surrender the Domicile in a previous State;

3) South Dakota law states you must reside for no less than 24 Hours in South Dakota - Must submit a Hotel or Campground Receipt.

4) South Dakota law mandates the person(s) must also obtain a S.D Driver License within the first 30 days (or sooner);

5) South Dakota law also mandates a person must obtain Health Insurance within the State;

6) You must also present evidence of establishing a Bank Account in South Dakota, showing that the State is your main place of "income".

7) Lastly, you establish your "Voting" Privilege in the State, which is confirmed when everything else is established. (note: this may be why its so hard for Indigenous people to obtain legal voting privileges - they must change their domicile).

--- So yes, 24 hours is the minimum requirement, but you must faithfully surrender your previous domicile, and you must go through the process of switching all your 'accounts' to South Dakota. If you can do all that in 24 hours, you can legally vote in South Dakota.

The South Dakota Secretary of State is tasked with the responsibility of securing all your official legal documents. From Birth, to Commercial Identity, to Residential Identity, to securing your Domicile. DOMICILE is NOT the same as "residency".

The 14th Amendment has made this confusing, as it forces the "STATES" to respect all U.S Citizens the same as if they are a Citizen of that State. This is one reason why it should be repealed. The other is that it binds all U.S CITIZENS to Federal Debts, rather than the State" itself. This directly binds Americans to the District of Columbia, and all federal laws going forward from 1868 have had to coexist with the amendment.

In order to safeguard our elections in South Dakota, we DO NOT allow anyone to vote who was NOT registered outside of 15 days prior an election. They cannot simply change their Domicile prior to an election.

The South Dakota Secretary of State is restricting voting rights to those who reside in South Dakota for longer than fifteen days. As I noted above in #7 - Indigenous People are considered "sovereign" and although they may be U.S Citizens based on Federal Law, they also must place their DOMICILE inside South Dakota for the full right to vote. When people claim to have issues with the S.D DMV, their issue is really with the Secretary of State who is tasked to confirm and issue Voting Rights.


--Mike Zitterich

Post Date: 2022-06-15 13:00:00Last Update: 2022-06-14 22:05:14

    


OP-ED “The Looming Energy Catastrophe”
A must see energy literacy briefing video for every driver being ripped off at the gas pumps.



A D V E R T I S E M E N T

A D V E R T I S E M E N T



Please enjoy and share this educational energy literacy briefing, a 5-minute video by Costa Mesa Brief at a California Chevron gas station. The video talks about the outrageous gas prices and tells us what is behind the increases, where it is heading and what, if anything, we can do about it. I think you will find his no-nonsense approach and perspective unique, sobering and very informative.



The video explains the impact on fuel prices from California government-imposed reductions in the supply chain of crude oil has increased imported crude oil from foreign countries from 5 percent in 1992 to more than 60 percent today of total consumption, and Biden’s pledge that “we are going to get rid of fossil fuels” is impacting fuel prices.

At today’s price of crude oil well above $100 per barrel the imported crude oil costs California more than $150 million dollars a day, yes, every day, being paid to oil-rich foreign countries, depriving Californians of jobs and business opportunities, and drivers to pay premium prices for fuel.



Californians are consuming more than 50 million gallons of fuel daily for its 35 million vehicles which is slightly more than one gallon per day per vehicle.



Californians continue to pay more than
$1.00 more per gallon of fuel than the rest of the country primarily for the State, Federal and Local taxes, and the Government environmental compliance programs such as the Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS), Cap and Trade, Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS), and the Underground Storage Tax. Those costs ‘dumped” onto the posted price at the pump are not transparent to the public.



As renewable energy is only intermittent electricity from breezes and sunshine as NEITHER wind turbines nor solar panels can manufacture anything for society. Climate change may impact humanity but being mandated to live without the more than
6,000 products and the various fuels manufactured from oil will necessitate lifestyles being mandated back to the horse and buggy days of the 1800’s. Life without oil could be the greatest threat to civilization’s eight billion residents, resulting in billions of fatalities from diseases, malnutrition, and weather-related deaths.

Also manufactured from the supply of crude oil, to meet the demands of the economy, are the fuels to move the heavy-weight and long-range needs of more than 50,000 jets for the military, commercial, private, and the President’s Air Force One, and the more than 50,000 merchant ships that move products throughout the world.



When the public continues to demand increasing needs for the transportation fuels and the products made from crude oil, limiting the supply of oil by governments and the Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) movement to manufacture those items is a guarantee for today’s shortages and inflation.

 Ronald Stein Pulitzer Prize nominated author and
Policy advisor for The Heartland Institute on Energy http://www.energyliteracy.net/ 





Help Support The Dakota Leader... DONATE TODAY!

--By Ronald Stein Ambassador for Energy and Infrastructure, Irvine, California

Post Date: 2022-06-01 14:09:07Last Update: 2022-06-01 14:12:00

    


Stockholm+50 attendees need to address the impact on the world without fossil fuels
OP-ED by Ronald Stein, Policy Advisor for Heartland Institute and Ambassador for Energy and Infrastructure U.C Irvine

Efforts to cease the use of crude oil could be the greatest threat to civilization’s eight billion people, since everything that needs electricity is made from the oil derivatives manufactured from crude oil, there will be nothing new to power without crude oil!

Summary--Ridding the world of fossil fuels will lead us back to the decarbonized world of the 1800’s without the electrical power needs of iPhones, defibrillators, or televisions, as they are all made from products manufactured from crude oil.

The Stockholm+50 in Stockholm, Sweden, will commemorate the 1972 United Nations Conference on the Human Environment and celebrate 50 years of failed global environmental action. The meetings on June 2nd and 3rd will follow months of consultations and discussions with individuals, communities, organizations, and governments around the world.

The rise of the 'Green World Order' that will be addressed at the Stockholm+50 needs to address the impact on the world’s 8 billion residents in a future world without fossil fuels, as efforts to cease the use of crude oil could be the greatest threat to civilization’s eight billion, and may result in billions, not millions, of fatalities from diseases, malnutrition, and weather-related deaths while trying to survive without the fossil fuels that are benefiting society.

Yes, the climate is changing, as it has been for four billion years, and will continue to change. Yes, there will be fatalities from the coming climate changes. Climate change is expected to cause approximately 250,000 additional deaths per year, between 2030 and 2050 due to malnutrition, malaria, diarrhea, and heat stress. However, the idea that global warming poses an immediate existential risk for the world, is irresponsible. The risk of climate change is small, in comparison to a world without fossil fuels, as current governments and corporate leaderships are attempting to revert to the decarbonized status of the early 1800’s and before.

As many world leaders gather in Stockholm, the world faces a planetary crisis of pollution and waste, biodiversity loss, and climate changes, as well as other planetary ills that are affecting current and future prosperity and well-being. An unhealthy planet threatens human health, prosperity, equality, and peace, but the world also faces the threat of ridding itself from the same fossil fuels that allowed the world to populate from 1 to 8 billion in less than two hundred years.

Life Without Oil is NOT AS SIMPLE AS YOU MAY THINK as renewable energy is only intermittent electricity from breezes and sunshine and NEITHER wind turbines, nor solar panels, can manufacture direct energy for society. Climate change may impact humanity but being mandated to live without the products manufactured from oil, will necessitate lifestyles being mandated back to the horse and buggy days of the 1800’s and could be the greatest threat to the planet's eight billion residents.

World leaders make no mention that the entire pharmaceutical industry, chemical industry, material sciences, energy, transportation, heating, etc. are dependent on the same fossil fuels that they want to rid the world of. Attempting to attain a decarbonized world like the one that existed in the 1800’s and before, could result in Billions of fatalities.

We cannot continue poisoning the planet in the name of progress, just to satisfy our endless electricity demands, fueling the rise of 5G, automated machines, vast data-centers, and digitization.

The current fossil fuel infrastructure is less invasive than mining for the exotic minerals and metals required to create the batteries needed to store "green energy". In developing countries, these mining operations exploit child labor, and are responsible for the most egregious human rights' violations of vulnerable minority populations. These operations are also directly destroying the planet through environmental degradation. The 2022 Pulitzer Prize nominated book
“Clean Energy Exploitations - Helping Citizens Understand the Environmental and Humanity Abuses That Support Clean Energy, does an excellent job of discussing the lack of transparency to the world of the green movement’s impact upon humanity.

A D V E R T I S E M E N T

A D V E R T I S E M E N T

Of the three energy sources many refer to as "fossil fuels," (coal, natural gas, and crude oil) crude oil is the only source primarily used to manufacture products for society, that are the basis for entire economies.

Crude oil is virtually useless, unless it’s manufactured (refined) into oil derivatives. These oil derivatives are the base chemical structure of more than 6,000 products found in our daily lives. Many of these products did not exist before the 1900’s, nor did the fuels to move the heavy-weight and long-range needs of more than 50,000 jets, more than 50,000 merchant ships, the entire military and space programs.

The liquid fuels and products produced from the hydrocarbon processing sector has aided the advancement of rocket technology, leading humans to break the boundaries of space by placing satellites into geosynchronous orbit. These technologies have significantly evolved the way that humanity communicates, navigates, and explores our home planet to the distant cosmos.

Wind turbines and solar panels may be able to generate intermittent electricity, but they cannot manufacture anything. By-the-way, all the products needed to make the parts for vehicles, wind turbines, solar panels, planes, ships, medical supplies, tires, asphalt, and fertilizer are made with the oil derivatives manufactured from crude.

The need for electricity will decrease over time without crude oil, with no new items to power. Everything that needs electricity, from lights, vehicles, iPhones, defibrillators, computers, telecommunications, etc., are all made from the oil derivatives manufactured with crude oil. Meaning if fossil fuels are completely removed, as proposed, we would no longer have products that even require electricity. And, the deterioration of current items made with oil derivatives will slowly become obsolete over the next few decades, as replacement parts run out.

A D V E R T I S E M E N T

A D V E R T I S E M E N T

World leaders need to identify an alternative path that focuses on the reduction of certain demands, or identifies the replacement of, or clone for, crude oil. If world leaders have learned anything from the opioid crisis, it is impossible to remove supply overnight without having an alternative in place first.

Concurrently, the world needs to stop building pointless infrastructure and goods for the sake of producing them. It's time to refocus on meaningful and appropriate products and technologies that support society and economies. Imagine if each human planted one tree, picked up one piece of trash or simply pulled the plug on one human degrading electrical device.

With today’s technology to work and educate remotely, via virtual connectivity, we should reallocate resources to get people out of the cities and back into rural areas. It's time to focus on adaptation, conservation, and resource efficiency. Systems need to be re-balanced, natural and symbiotic, rather than parasitic, and we need to subordinate technology rather than allow it to rule us. Oil is a magic substance when used correctly and burned cleanly, but it can be the death of us all if used poorly.

The world needs to REDUCE not ELIMINATE crude oil and reduce its footprint as much as practical and possible, as that may truly be the only plan that will work to save most of the world’s eight billion residents.

Ronald Stein http://www.energyliteracy.net/


--By Ronald Stein Ambassador for Energy and Infrastructure, Irvine, California

Post Date: 2022-05-24 14:47:10Last Update: 2022-05-26 11:28:45

    


A Movie Review of ‘2000 Mules’, by Patrick W. Schubert Sr.
Left Wing-Right Wing...Same Bird

I was born and raised in NJ, so Liberal tricks, frauds and scams rarely surprise me... I've watched videos of Union Bosses brag about voting machines in their halls and members being paid (minimum wage) to "plug the machines". I've been in the candidate process here and in NJ to share important info and get a hands on experience. It has not disappointed.

I have always contended that many blue states have been working to master the "art" of voter fraud. 2000 Mules has confirmed they have built a massive illegal [RICO] enterprise way beyond the scope of what I imagined. I felt as if 2000 in Florida was a test ground for creative ways to steal votes. In time those practices were perfected by the creation of Dominion and Smartmatic electronic voting systems. Nobody has to litigate a vote if its just changed...

The numbers of PROVEN vote irregularities in Arizona alone is catastrophic to a free and fair election system. A multi level assault on our right to vote and have the system properly determine the CORRECT outcome is now a myth we can tell our grandkids about. We've gone from Dewey Defeats Truman to an election system dictators like Saddam Hussein, President Xi, Mao and others have used thru time to oppress their citizens.

A D V E R T I S E M E N T

A D V E R T I S E M E N T

The idea and practice of voter fraud has always existed. IT IS NOT THE MYTH THE LEFT, OR RIGHT, CLAIMS IT TO BE...

From 1787-1791 the side of the process that eventually 'evolved' into today's modern DNC refused to ratify the Constitution over the issue of slavery. It was critical that all states were signed onto the Constitution to make a complete and united nation. The settlement was the 3/5ths clause. This was legalized voter fraud. The 3/5ths clause gave a slave master 3 extra votes for every 5 slaves they owned. Do you think the slaves got to vote those 3 votes? Many large enterprises in slave states may have had thousands of slaves that gain them hundreds and possibly thousands of votes. The 13th Amendment ended Slavery and made the voter fraud of the 3/5ths clause a violation of the law of the land. I did the math, roughly 42 MILLION votes were stolen from people who should have been Americans during the lifetime of the 3/5ths clause.

After the ratification of the Constitution, the politicians that eventually became the RNC across this brand new nation were being elected to offices at all levels. From northern free states to southern slave states, they were taking the lead and pushing for the abolition of slavery. The future Democrats decided slavery was important enough to start a war over.

From the Constitution, to Civil War, to Reconstruction- the Democratic party has oppressed people and infringed on We The Peoples Rights', related to voting. During reconstruction many Republicans would win local and state offices, then have their offices assaulted and be forced to resign their offices to the Democrats under threat of violence or death. Once they got the offices they would reinstate the now illegal practices related to enslaving other humans.

This is the point where some claim that the parties switched, and the republican party became the oppressors. This is a fallacy, based upon revisionist history, like Critical Race Theory today. During the post reconstruction period, the democratic party used groups like the KKK and labor unions to keep people of color from voting and working to support their families.

Today, the same issues are occurring. Rather than the KKK, we see ANTIFA engaging in the same terror and voter suppression tactics employed in the Jim Crow South. Millions of dollars are used to influence minority votes with carefully crafted messages, used to socially engineer consent, and bypass scrutiny. Ghettos, like Priutt-Igoe have been created with million and millions of dollars as test studies, to see just how much a population can endure, while still believing in the system that enslaves them. Rather than address it, or try to solve the issues, republicans of today, go along as the data benefits them too.

2000 Mules exposed that during the 2020 election the NRSC paid people to watch drop boxes. They reported issues with pictures and video. Please tell me how the #2 member of the Senate could not have known about the reported fraud but stood staunchly against any investigation. The movie used absolutely provable methods to identify a portion of the fraud that was perpetrated in the days leading up-to, and after, the 2020 election. It was a multi-state, criminal enterprise that should really only be classified as an act of treason. I believe that our duly elected President, along with other down ballot candidates, were denied their offices via this coup. The result of this coup, denied the people of their right to a well functioning government, meant to protect, preserve & defend our union.

The movie was a simple sampling of one aspect of the attack. From machine vote swapping to fraudulent ballots, poll worker malfeasance, to illegal proxy voting, IRS approved charities creating ballots or assisting fraud and illegally spending money to influence elections, to the left with millions from Big Tech and PACs with anonymous donors from undisclosed nations, there is a lot that needs to be corrected if we ever want another free & fair election. The longer this situation persists, the harder it will be to correct.

End voting by mail. Voter ID should be mandatory in all 50 states. Make ballot harvesting a Class 1 felony with stiff penalties. These processes will only suppress illegal voting.

Yes, 2000 Mules was an eye opening experience but as the cool kids say "Its just chump change..." Both parties have dominated the playing field and turned the process into an influence auction. We must put the citizen back into politics.


--Patrick W. Schubert Sr.

Post Date: 2022-05-20 13:23:06Last Update: 2022-05-20 15:53:54

    


OP-ED “A History Lesson on American Independence”
By Mike Zitterich

When the United States became a free and sovereign people, acting as 13 Individual States, it had agreed to several terms as mentioned within the 1783 Peace Treaty of Paris.

The Declaration of Independence which the Americans had adopted in 1776, during the Revolutionary War which lasted from 1775 to 1783 when the treaty was adopted, was essentially an "Amnesty Plan" to free and provide sovereignty to an entire people residing in the Thirteen American Colonies.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness....That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor." - Declaration of Independence



The document basically 'freed' all individuals being ruled by Great Britain's crown, allowing them to create their own form of government. Upon that date, we have hereby accept that all Americans are to be free and sovereign, and that meant anyone born on American soil within the colonies themselves.

A D V E R T I S E M E N T

A D V E R T I S E M E N T

Upon ending the war, we had agreed to the 1783 Peace Treaty of Paris, which essentially ended the war, and whereas Great Britain and the King hereby acknowledge the fact that the American People are now sovereign, and are now lawfully allowed to become 13 Sovereign and Independent States or countries. Yes, we were individual counties agreeing to come to each other's defense in times of war.

But part of the Treaty of 1783 also protected British citizens in becoming American citizens of the states themselves-

"That there shall be no future Confiscations made nor any Prosecutions commenced against any Person or Persons for, or by Reason of the Part, which he or they may have taken in the present War, and that no Person shall on that Account suffer any future Loss or Damage, either in his Person, Liberty, or Property; and that those who may be in Confinement on such Charges at the Time of the Ratification of the Treaty in America shall be immediately set at Liberty, and the Prosecutions so commenced be discontinued." -Article 6 of the 1783 Treaty

All was right and good for more than thirty years, but as the States came together to form the United States Government in order to form a more perfect union in 1789, the states then adopts a new document called the U.S Constitution, which gave authority to a centralized government which now has the right to manage Foreign Commerce, Monetary, Immigration, and Defense. and thanks to this newfound power, the Congress acting alone has the ability to grant the free right to "American Citizenship" by providing Naturalization Documents to all Immigrants or individuals who are wishing to reside, work, and travel inside the 13 States.

In order to repair this issue, the State Legislatures then proceed to adopt an amendment to the U.S Constitution, within that amendment are the words that read as follows:

"If any citizen of the United States shall accept, claim, receive, or retain any title of nobility or honour, or shall without the consent of Congress, accept and retain any present, pension, office, or emolument of any kind whatever, from any emperor, king, prince, or foreign power, such person shall cease to be a citizen of the United States, and shall be incapable of holding any office of trust or profit under them, or either of them." - 13th Amendment 1810



What the amendment did was block all Individuals residing in America from ever becoming a citizen of one of the Sovereign States, and by not not becoming a citizen, that person could no longer hold public office of trust or government office such as President, Governor, State Legislator, Mayor, City Council Member, Local Judges, Congressman, U.S Senator, nor become a Supreme Court Justice. It meant that no "person" claiming a Loyalty, a gift, present, or some form of emolement by a King or Foreign Government, could ever become a citizen of any of the American State's.

Eleven of the States had adopted the amendment by 1811, and by 1812 the Virginia legislature had agreed by public vote of that body to also adopt the amendment, which would have gone immediately into effect, by doing so, we as a country would have violated a major agreement as part of the 1783 peace treaty, to serve, protect all rights and privileges of british citizens whom were born, residing in America at the time.

During the summer of 1812 - the British government drove its army down to the District of Columbia and stormed the Capitol Building, the White House setting them on fire, ransacking all of our documents. This triggers the War of 1812 which lasted for three years prior establishing a new compact with Great Britain. Which became known as the Treaty of Ghent which resolved the conflict, but reaffirmed many of the agreements made in 1783, and if you read the resolution today, the 1783 treaty is clearly a major part of the 1815 resolution.

"All Prisoners of war taken on either side as well by land as by sea shall be restored as soon as practicable after the Ratifications of this Treaty as hereinafter mentioned on their paying the debts which they may have contracted during their captivity. The two Contracting Parties respectively engage to discharge in specie the advances which may have been made by the other for the sustenance and maintenance of such prisoners." - ARTICLE THE THIRD (Treaty of Ghent) 1815

When we agreed to this second treaty, it basically affirms the fact that All Citizens of both Nations shall enjoy the same equal rights and privileges as citizens in both countries as they reside and act as legal persons in the United States. It became the leading principle that later became known as the Monroe Doctrine, whereas both countries agreed to become trade partners, work together, but respect each other's territories.

So in the end, a former citizen of Great Britain has the free right under our Constitution to become an American Citizen. All citizens have equal rights and privileges provided to natural born Americans, so long as the Federal Government provide to them the naturalization documents of which allow them to apply and submit to each "State" the right to become an American Citizen. This, of course, allows them to hold any public office or trust within the United States today.

Per the 14th Amendment, adopted years later, in 1868 - the Federal Government has the full right to not only naturalize all Immigrants coming to America, they have the right to officially, and lawfully hand out U.S Citizenship of the United States itself. So where the individual States do not hand out citizenship of the State itself, the United States Government will provide to them U.S Citizenship of the "Territory" of which it bound each of the Fifty States, in order to protect "citizens" as if they are "citizens" of the State itself. Thus, every American Citizen is endowed with equal Civil Rights, Immunities, Privileges, and Liberties outlined as a God-given, inalienable, or un-alienable guarantee, which is protected under the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S Constitution.

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, whereas No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability, whereas The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void, whereas The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article." - 14th Amendment

A D V E R T I S E M E N T

A D V E R T I S E M E N T

With that, the final 'agreement' with Great Britain was made complete - The Federal Government has made it so, that ALL PERSONS born or naturalized on American Soil can now become legal Citizens of this Country, and have the full right and privilege of all civil rights, liberties, citizenship, and the right to run for public office so long as they conform to all the laws of the United States as U.S Citizens of the Territory.

The Declaration of Independence, the Treaty of Paris of 1783, the the Constitution, the Treaty of Ghent (1815), and the 14th Amendment forever changed the fact, that the People of Great Britain and the United States have the free right to become U.S Citizens freely at anytime they wish to apply for such naturalization as "Free Americans" so long as they are born on American soil.

While the original 13th Amendment was hereby destroyed, the 14th Amendment replaced that amendment thru an act of war, by the International Bankers who wished to hold the Americans to a foreign debt that was owed prior to the revolutionary war.


--Mike Zitterich- Historian and Policy Columnist for The Dakota Leader

Post Date: 2022-05-19 14:17:29Last Update: 2022-05-19 14:43:48

    


The ESG Community Lacks an Understanding of What Crude Oil is Used For
OP-ED by Ronald Stein

The Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) investment community is divesting in crude oil that provides products and fuels for consumers that did not exist in the decarbonized world of the 1900s and before.

Today, there is a lost reality that the primary usage of crude oil is NOT for the generation of electricity, but to manufacture derivatives and fuels which are the ingredients of everything needed by economies and lifestyles to exist and prosper. Energy realism requires that the legislators, policymakers, media and the investment community begin to understand the staggering scale of the decarbonization movement.

Of the three fossil fuels, the Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) community is unaware that crude oil is not used for electricity. In fact, crude oil is virtually useless, unless it is manufactured (by refineries) into oil derivatives that are the basis of more than 6,000 products in our daily lives that did not exist before the 1900s, and the fuels to move the heavy-weight and long-range needs of aircraft, cruise and merchant ships, and the military and space program.

Products from crude oil are the foundation of modern society and few consumers are willing to give up those benefits. Access to inexpensive, abundant and dependable crude oil has been the cornerstone of the Industrial Revolution and humanity’s achievements. WolfePak

A D V E R T I S E M E N T

A D V E R T I S E M E N T

Pervasive ignorance about crude oil usage and divesting in the oil and gas industry could do irreparable harm to the industry, as well as inflict supply shortages and soaring prices upon consumers for the lesser number of products manufactured from crude oil, to meet the growing demands from society.

The renewables of solar and wind for the generation of electricity are unreliable because they are reliant on intermittent breezes and sunshine to work. To achieve continuous uninterruptible electricity, wind and solar need back-up provided by coal, natural gas or nuclear. Further, renewables CANNOT manufacture any of the products derived from crude oil, they can only generate intermittent electricity. In fact, renewables cannot exist without crude oil as all the parts of wind turbines and solar panels are made with oil derivatives manufactured from crude oil.

Banks and investment giants that are driving today’s
Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) divesting in fossil fuels are all the rage on Wall Street these days, to divest in all three fossil fuels of coal, natural gas, and crude oil, just to reduce emissions. It is appalling that both President Biden and the United Nations support allowing the investment community to collude to reshape economies and our energy infrastructure.

Before divesting in all three fossil fuels of coal, natural gas, and crude oil, where is the replacement or clone for crude oil, to keep today’s societies and economies running?

Looking back a little more than 100 years, it’s easy to see how civilization has benefited from more than 250 leading-edge, hydrocarbon processing licensed refining technologies used by the more than
700 refineries worldwide that service the demands of the eight billion people living on earth with more than 6,000 products made from the oil derivatives manufactured out of raw crude oil at refineries. None of these products were available to society before 1900.

Getting off crude oil would reverse much of the progress made over the last few centuries. The inventions of the automobile, airplane and the use of petroleum in the early 1900s led us into the Industrial Revolution and victories in World Wars I and II.

The products from fossil fuels have reduced infant mortality, extended longevity from 40+ to more than 80+, allowed us to move to anywhere in the world via planes, trains, ships and vehicles, and virtually
eliminated weather related fatalities.

A D V E R T I S E M E N T

A D V E R T I S E M E N T

As ESG progresses, banks and investment giants have short memories of petrochemical products and human ingenuity being the reasons for the world’s population increasing from one to eight billion in less than 200 years. Efforts to cease the use of crude oil could be the greatest threat to civilization, not climate change, and lead the world to an era of guaranteed extreme shortages of fossil fuel products, like we had in the decarbonized world in the 1800s, which may result in billions of fatalities from diseases, malnutrition and weather-related deaths trying to live without the more than 6,000 products currently benefiting society.

Efforts toward abandoning fossil fuels will further deprive and/or delay providing nine percent of humanity, or more than
689 million people, in this world that are living below the international poverty line of $1.90 a day, from enjoying the same products that benefit the wealthy and healthy countries. Depriving citizens of the more than 6,000 products that were non-existent before 1900, made from the oil derivatives manufactured from crude oil, appears to be immoral and evil as extreme shortages will result in billions of fatalities from diseases, malnutrition and weather-related deaths.

Bank boardroom decisions that are allowing the investment community to collude to reshape economies and lifestyles, so that they are in line with the preferences of banks and other financial institutions, is an extremely dangerous precedent. Consumers never voted to give banks this sort of control over our world.

The audacity is overwhelming that those ESG banks and investment giants, in the healthier and wealthier countries, insist that we should limit poor countries’ future access to the products from fossil fuels. Inexpensive, reliable, accessible power, and products from fossil fuels are lifesaving, and one of the best ways out of poverty.

Unintended consequences of the ESG rage ridding the world of crude oil usage would be the restricted supply and resultant inflationary pressures on the limited supply of products and fuels manufactured from crude to meet growing demands that support: The domino effects of tinkering with the supply chain of fossil fuels are
supply shortages and soaring prices for the consumers, for not only electricity, but for the thousands of products that support the entire medical industry, all branches of the military, airports, electronics, communications, merchant ships, container ships and cruise liners, as well as asphalt for roads, and fertilizers to help feed the world.

It is time for the people to demand anti-ESG bills from their legislatures and put a stop to the banks that are colluding to reshape economies and lifestyles, and inflicting shortages and inflation on consumers.

Help Support Community Journalism... DONATE TODAY!

--Ronald Stein Pulitzer Prize nominated author, Policy advisor for The Heartland Institute on Energy, and National TV Commentator- Energy & Infrastructure with Rick Amato. http://www.energyliteracy.net/

Post Date: 2022-05-17 13:48:13Last Update: 2022-05-17 14:28:49

    


OP-ED “My Thoughts, Opinion, and Wishes for the South Dakota Legislature, the Republican Party Ideals”
By Mike Zitterich

As we begin to go to the polls regarding the 2022 State and Midterm Elections - whether that be the South Dakota Primary Nominating Elections, or the State's General Elections later this fall, one must stop and think about what and how you wish to shape the State of South Dakota over the next few years. I may be a Republican Party Member, but I am also an American first and foremost, and a proud American Citizen of the State of South Dakota, which is promised by Article IV, Section 4 of the U.S Constitution to be a free and independent "republic" - free state (or people) as sovereign people.

Republic - a state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives, and which has an elected or nominated president rather than a monarch. In a republic, the people rule as one collective group of people, who adopt laws through their representatives in an elected legislature, or directly by popular opinion of the voters, whereas the whole people collectively must consent to be governed as such. No one person is above another, we are all equals beneath God.

As a lifelong Republican party member, and a very proud South Dakotan, I believe 'we' need candidates willing to stand up to traditional politics, in order to help enforce the constitution. I have always supported candidates who believe in Low Taxes, Limited Government, Balanced Budgets, those individuals who support controlling (managing) or maintaining a very limited welfare programs to help those who need help occasionally, and those candidates who support less dependency on the Federal Government. As a proud "Anti-Federalist" – I pride myself as someone like Patrick Henry or Thomas Jefferson or George Mason. One who believes in the State's ability to be free, independent, and less dependent on the Federal Government. I support the candidates and current legislators who have adopted policy goals to restrict the Federal Govt in our daily lives, in our commercial activities inside South Dakota, and a legislature which holds our U.S Senators, U.S Representative, and the President accountable for their actions.

Anti-Federalist - opposed the ratification of the 1787 U.S. Constitution because they feared that the new national government would be too powerful and thus threaten individual liberties, given the absence of a bill of rights, whereas their opposition was an important factor leading to the adoption of the First Amendment and the other nine amendments that constitute the Bill of Rights. The Anti-Federalists included small farmers and landowners, shopkeepers, and laborers. When it came to national politics, they favored strong state governments, a weak central government, the direct election of government officials, short term limits for officeholders, accountability by officeholders to popular majorities, and the strengthening of individual liberties.

I want the Legislature to take up the task of strengthening the Electoral College by leading the effort to get back to 1 Delegate Vote Per 1 District rather than "winner take all" of the state's delegates. I want the legislature to take up the matter of leading an effort to repeal the 12th Amendment thus meaning the runner up in the Presidential race becomes the Vice President; I want the legislature to take up the effort to lead the charge to repeal Amendments 17, 16, and 14, while repeaking the current 13th Amendment and rewriting it while adopting a new amendment that clearly bans "slavery" which the current one does not do. I want a Legislature which follows the constitution, enforcing Article 1 upon the Federal Govt. In general terms - I want a legislature stays true to the oath it agreed to in ensuring the people that the "State" shall always play its role in maintaining, managing, and promising to keep the central government a very limited one, by re-instituting the very 'rules' the founders placed upon the federal government.

A D V E R T I S E M E N T

A D V E R T I S E M E N T

Both Political Parties have become "left wing factions' today, and if we are to help Take Back and Restore the Republic – we must revamp and remodel the Republican Party in a like-minded fashion of which Thomas Jefferson, George Mason, and Patrick Henry would be proud of. We need a political party which is not afraid to stand up against tyranny, one of which supports the free market enterprise system, not an economy beholden to fascism, or worse, socialism type policies.

The legislature should be our last line of defense between the Federal Govt and the People, protecting our Natural Right to Life, Liberty, Property, and the Pursuit to Happiness. It needs to promote public policies which can help separate the "State" by 1/3 'rd from the Federal Government, it must strengthen and enlarge the South Dakota Militia accordingly as defined by Article 15 of the South Dakota Constitution, and protected by the 2nd Amendment. The legislature should create public policy where South Dakotans acting as "Free' American Citizens have all the tools necessary to prosper. The legislature's main job is to control "Congress" and hold them accountable to that body's corrupt policies.

If today's Congress is beholden to the International Bankers, the Foreign Investors who supply the capital, and the global lawyers who protect the interests of that aristocracy, the State Legislature must remain beholden to the very people making up the 'free republic' called the State of South Dakota.

I believe the State of South Dakota should also create, establish a State Bank much like the Bank of North Dakota, one of which can help separate us from the Federal Reserve Banking System, one of which we can better manage our Economic, Community, and Land Development providing to the people low interest loans in the name of Business, Housing, and Land Development. We need to get back to real money, gold or silver, we need to invest in ourselves, not those outside our borders. And the legislature itself has the very power given to it to make all that happen. In order to help give South Dakota citizens all the tools necessary to prosper, 'we' must as a state create public policy that supports that goal.

People have asked me for my thoughts regarding fraud in our elections, namely the 2020 Federal Election of the President. Whether or not I believe the 2018 and 2020 General Elections were defrauded or not – we will never know will we, not without first performing a deep and thorough investigation into the matter of both elections, auditing, reviewing, and checking every single ballot, checking the ballots against our voter rolls, and cleaning up any irregularities. Do I feel the presidential election was stolen? I believe there is enough evidence of fraud and abuse in many of the States to warrant such an investigation into the matter, to determine to what degree the fraud and abuse violated the American Citizens right to "Free and Fair Elections' '. And the South Dakota Legislature has the authority to make that investigation happen, and it has the authority to collaborate with other State legislatures to help secure across the United States.

I want a Legislature that will bind itself to the U.S and State Constitutions, not simply to "party politics". I want a Legislature who will stand as our last line of defense between the people and the Federal Government. I want legislators in place that are not afraid to call each other out, showing the passion expressed in their actions, their thoughts, their comments everyday, in order to maintain a Free, Independent, and Honest Government.

"The blessings of a free government can only be maintained by a firm adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, frugality and virtue and by frequent recurrence to fundamental principles." - Those words were codified into our South Dakota Constitution as Article 6, Section 27 - Our 27th Bill of Right as Free People.

A D V E R T I S E M E N T

A D V E R T I S E M E N T

What I support are members of our South Dakota Legislature who believe in creating public discussion, debate, speaking on public policies that do nothing but promise to the people of this great state, the ability to protect their natural right to life, liberty, property, and their own pursuit to happiness (prosperity). As a member of the Republican Party, I intend to help play my role in helping to shape the party long into the future, to become a better, more responsible, more duty based in terms of honoring the constitution itself. We need to reinvent the party into the mold that best represents wishes, the characteristics, and traits of the very American Citizen who calls South Dakota home, and that means creating the best path forward to achieve success. South Dakota can be one of the superior, leading states across the nation in reforming the central government back into what it is supposed to be, one of which serves the states, not one of which gets in the way of the states. To "Make America Great Again'' - We must get back to the basic fundamentals that made this such a great country in the first place, one of which provided to the States, the best path to economic prosperity.

If elected by my fellow citizens of precinct 05-22 as a precinct committeeman - I hope to play my role in uniting people, informing people, leading an effort to help make the Republican Party the party of choice going forward, not by forcing people to change their individual beliefs, but by providing the people a voice, by listening to what the people are saying, what they want, thus ensuring to the people, that the Republican Party will always that party of choice, but most importantly, the party that stands in defense of your natural rights. In order to reform the republican party, it must first present to the people it's ability to listen to all the people, and when it does that, it will become a great party.



Help Support Community Journalism... DONATE TODAY!

--Mike Zitterich

Post Date: 2022-05-11 13:06:59Last Update: 2022-05-11 13:14:08

    


Sioux Falls Home Owners To Pay $1,770.20 in Property Taxes to Fund the Sioux Falls Public School District
By Mike Zitterich

The South Dakota Public School System was first established upon the State of South Dakota being first established in the year 1889. Upon adopting the South Dakota Constitution, it was agreed upon, and codified as part of Article 22, Section 4 of that constitution that:

That provision shall be made for the establishment and maintenance of systems of public schools, which shall be open to all the children of this state, and free from sectarian control.

With that codified act, the People of South Dakota agreed to establish it's public school system, and of which was to be free and clear of all "Sectarian Control". Meaning, the State's role in the matter would be the people's right to fund, manage, and control its public school system without any one faction of people burdening them with undue legislation, rules, or specific types of activities.

Sectarianism is a political or cultural conflict between two groups, often related to the form of government they live under. Prejudice, discrimination, or hatred can arise in these conflicts, depending on the political status quo and if one group holds more power within the government. Often, not all members of these groups are engaged in the conflict. But as tensions rise, political solutions require the participation of more people from either side within the country or polity where the conflict is happening. Common examples of these divisions are denominations of a religion, ethnic identity, class, or region for citizens of a state and factions of a political movement.

A uniform system of free public schools in order to provide for the stability of a republican form of government depending on the morality and intelligence of the people, it shall be the duty of the Legislature to establish and maintain a general and uniform system of public schools wherein tuition shall be without charge, and equally open to all; and to adopt all suitable means to secure to the people the advantages and opportunities of education.

So from day one, while the people have the right to manage and control their own public schools, the Legislature was tasked with ensuring the whole people that the proper maintenance, a uniform set of rules would shall govern the system, and the the fact that public education should be free for all to use, providing the citizens the opportunity to educate their children in subjects such as math, science, reading, writing, history, and literature.

From here, we must also hereby understand, that the Federal Government upon sectioning off lands between 1841 and 1904 - reserved specific lands to be used for public education, while most lands were claimed by Americans, and other lands become public lands held by the State in 1889, there were many sections of land reserved by the Federal Government with the intention of placing public schools throughout the territory.

In 1889, when we became the State of South Dakota we the people had agreed to create the Perpetual Trust Fund in order to deposit monies for the sole reason for the maintenance of public education.

All proceeds of the sale of public lands that have heretofore been or may hereafter be given by the United States for the use of public schools in the state; all such per centum as may be granted by the United States on the sales of public lands; the proceeds of all property that shall fall to the state by escheat; the proceeds of all gifts or donations to the state for public schools or not otherwise appropriated by the terms of the gift; and all property otherwise acquired for public schools, shall be and remain a perpetual fund for the maintenance of public schools in the state. It shall be deemed a trust fund held by the state. The principal shall never be diverted by legislative enactment for any other purpose, and may be increased; but, if any loss occurs through any unconstitutional act, the state shall make the loss good through a special appropriation. Article 8, Section 2

So we have established this public trust fund to be held by the people of South Dakota, to be managed as part of our State Treasury, to appropriate federal and state funds for the maintenance of public education.

Getting more into how the school districts shall be funded, we have to begin to dive into Article 13 of the state constitution itself - in its own words:

School district funds are all monies received by the school district or schools within said district or as a result of an activity carried on by the said school. Said funds come from the following sources: taxes, income from school property; school district borrowing through bonds or promissory notes; funds received from federal, state, or other political subdivisions; funds received from individuals or organizations through paid admission, payments for materials or services, gifts, or trusts; funds received from fines and penalties; and any other funds received by the school district or schools from any other source.

A D V E R T I S E M E N T

A D V E R T I S E M E N T

So you can see, our school districts receive monies from several sources of revenues, and depending on the size of the district, the total residents within the district itself, the activities, and policies established by the governing bodies of the districts, a South Dakota School District can in fact create its own independent budget totally separate from the State government itself.

While as a State, we have placed the Legislature in charge of apportioning our more direct property taxes, whether by means of sales taxes or property taxes assessed to lands ceded to the state by the people, meaning whereas the citizens temporarily surrendered those land patents to the state in order to allow the state to temporarily take ownership of the land, giving the the state to assess property tax to your land. Keep in mind, one who temporarily surrenders their land patent, never truly gives up control of the land, they are in fact listed as 'rightful owners' of the land, but they have chosen to allow the land to be held in public interest of the "Whole People" aka the State of South Dakota in order to raise, collect, and remit public taxes for the sole purpose of funding and maintaining our public schools. More on land patents at a later date.

Property Taxes collected by the State of South Dakota to fund the maintenance of public schools are then deposited into the trust fund, to be proportioned equally or by an apportionment determined by the legislature. Today, the public school system receives about sixty-five (65) percent of this revenues, while counties and cities receive the balance.

Other sources of state funds include the profits created by Video Lottery, which by law the state must maintain a profit of as close to reasonable to 15% of the total receipts deposited into video lottery, depending on expenses, salaries, payouts, liabilities of the Video Lottery system, the public school trust fund shall grab the profits generated from the gaming industry, while the last source of state funds is a small percentage of Sales Tax Dollars as agreed upon when the people adopted the 0.50% tax rate increase in 2019 to help with teachers pay.

Mind you, that just cause the sales tax increase was adopted primarily to help increase teachers pay, the state government itself really has no authority given to it to force each individual school district to pay each teacher a set wage, it may only recommend, that we pay the full time teachers an average of $48,000 annually. At the end of day, each individual school district led by their governing bodies, the residents of the district have the independent right to manage all 'funds' that come into their local treasuries, whereas each school district must meet the guidelines set forth under SDCL 4-4-4 which read as follows:

Any accounting system used by any state agency or any component unit of state government shall be designed to meet the financial accounting and reporting requirements of generally accepted accounting principles

They must have an accounting system that meets the reporting requirements of generally accepted accounting principles, and it must be fair, transparent, and ethical. Meaning, the people have the right to, as any form of government agency, to inspect, aduit, and review the finances of their local district to determine the total amount of revenues received, and where those revenues derive from.

Depending on the size of the district, whether rural or urban, or a mixture of both - these independent school districts themselves have the full right to borrow money from bonds, from banks, they may accept federal and state grants, they may as well accept donations and gifts as mentioned earlier, but predominantly, many of their services are collected by the 'users' or the residents who participate in the district itself. Schools charge lunch meal fees, activity fees such as sports, after school curricular activities, and other necessary fees to provide specific services.

A general overview of the Sioux Falls Public School System shows that it a complete budget that compares heavily to the City of Sioux Falls - for the 2021 to 2022 school year, it has a $286,430,711 dollar budget, while 48% derives from property taxes; 38.5% derive from State revenues; 7.7% come from Federal revenues; 2.3% derive from other County and Local sources, while they receive another 2.9% from previous cash balances and transfers in.

A D V E R T I S E M E N T

A D V E R T I S E M E N T

As you can see, the Sioux Falls School District generates revenue from several funding sources. As proposed by the 2023FY budget, that total is anticipated to reach $303,500,000 million in gross revenues, with an annual budget increasing 8 percent (for inflation) every year for the next ten years.

The question has been asked, can the Public School System survive on less property taxes - to best answer that question, one would have to monitor, inspect, and audit the total monies from other sources on a year to year basis. Just as your cities have to do each year, your school district must allow for independent periodic internal audits, providing the 'residents' of the district with a Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, otherwise known as the C.A.F.R.

Teacher salaries for the Sioux Falls School System make up 54.% of the total expenditures, while the likes of Capital Acquisition amounts to just 5.6% of the total expenditures for the year which amount to total $284,624,153 dollars. Capital Acquisitions can mean investments in land, buildings, infrastructure, sports facilities, vehicles, buses, or real property assets to be used in the future.

Here is an example of Capital Projects for FY-2022 as adopted by the Sioux Falls Public School System:

Capital Projects Fund – CIP (Capital Improvement Projects)

Assessing the Total Property Tax Paid by Sioux Falls Homeowners- If we were to calculate the total 2023 Revenue Plan of the Sioux Falls Public School District, which as stated above is $286,430,711 million dollars; and if the total Sioux Falls area has approximately 78,437 homes or dwellings, according to www.townchart.com, the average homeowner is contributing roughly $3,651.73 dollars to their public school system. If you break that down to just property tax dollars, we are discussing $1,770.20 dollars per year, paid by Sioux Falls residents to for the Public School System. And remember, the district receives 48% of its total revenues from property taxes.

Just as I have spoke on the fact that I feel the City of Sioux Falls could very easily decrease the Second Penny Tax, let alone remove the tax completely and still fund the costs of the City, I believe we could effectively as a state, decrease the Residential Property Tax Rate on lands where those homes are located, by making a slight adjustment to commercial property tax rates, in order to help single family home owners keep more of their incomes 'free' and clear from property tax dollars. What if we were to decrease the "residential property tax rate" by at least 10%, while adjusting the "commercial property tax rate" by 5%, what would the net value be in terms of property tax dollars received by the Sioux Falls School District?

In closing, to better understand where the South Dakota Public School System gets their annual revenues, one has to fully understand What, Where, and How the Public Education System is managed within the borders of South Dakota itself. Once you determine that, then you can better understand how your school district operates, and where they choose to spend those dollars each year. In order to ensure a well operated, timely managed education system, the people themselves must remain in total control of the governing process at both the state and local level. In order to best maintain, and manage the over all checkbook, fiscal responsibility must begin with full transparency and voter control.

As we move forward to help govern, to maintain, and to manage our Sioux Falls Public Education System, let's remember the words of one of our founding fathers:

The Whole People must take upon themselves the Education of the Whole People and must be willing to bear the expenses of it. There should not be a district of one Mile Square without a school in it, not founded by a Charitable individual but maintained at the expense of the People themselves; they must be taught to reverence themselves instead of adorning their servants their Generals, Admirals, Bishops and Statesmen. - John Adams

A D V E R T I S E M E N T

A D V E R T I S E M E N T

Much like his on-again, off-again friend Thomas Jefferson, and other founding fathers, Adams saw a clear link between a strong public education system and the health and strength of American democracy.

He also saw education as a vehicle for previous generations to empower future generations with the ability to learn and prosper, as he eloquently wrote in a letter to his wife, Abigail:

I must study Politics and War so that my sons may have liberty to study Mathematics and Philosophy. My sons ought to study Mathematics and Philosophy, Geography, natural History, Naval Architecture, navigation, Commerce and Agriculture, in order to give their Children a right to study Painting, Poetry, Musick, Architecture, Statuary, Tapestry and Porcelaine

Citations

Help Support Community Journalism... DONATE TODAY!

--Mike Zitterich- Historian and Policy Columnist for The Dakota Leader

Post Date: 2022-04-29 13:33:28Last Update: 2022-05-06 10:40:14

    


Make Your Voice Heard and Know Who You Vote For
Op-Ed “Submitted in good faith” by J.L Nelson

The SD Primary elections are June 7, 2022. Please make sure you are registered to vote. Don’t just vote name recognition. Make sure you know who you are voting for.

South Dakota has two incumbents in DC, John Thune and Dusty Johnson. Ask yourself how much you know about their voting records. Do they represent SD constituents’? Did they support President Trump during his Presidency? Did they support a secure border wall? Did they support fair elections? Did they vote to decrease government spending, protect us from government debt and overreach?

Dusty voted against 2nd amendment rights, for national debt increases, against a southern border wall, and ignored evidence of election fraud. He sides with Democrats on key issues. He prides himself on being in a bipartisan group with Democrats controlled by Nancy Pelosi. It has also been said that Dusty supports the South Dakota Strong PAC , Directed by SD Senator Lee Schoenbeck (R-Watertown), who is openly targeting conservative Republicans like Tom Pischke with false information on flyers. South Dakota Republican party seems to be filled with Democrats who run as Republicans in order to get elected. Please research and know who you are really voting for.

John Thune talks the talk but does he walk the walk? As part of the DC elite, he is part of the swamp. Does he stand up for SD values as he whips the vote for Mitch McConnell? He helped approve Biden’s liberal cabinet members. He denies fraud took place in elections. He helped load our children and grandchildren with trillions in debt. Ask yourself if he follows SD values.

Republican voters have choices you may not know about.

A D V E R T I S E M E N T

A D V E R T I S E M E N T

Taffy Howard is running against Dusty Johnson to represent SD in the US House. She is a fiscally conservative SD legislator, Air force veteran, patriot, SDSU graduate, and reflects our core SD values. You will find her voting record in the SD legislature is sound, conservative, and holds government accountable. She is not afraid to speak up and speak out. Her record shows this. Give her a look, and give her your vote.

Bruce Whalen is running against incumbent John Thune for US Senate. While Thune has name recognition Bruce has SD values. Bruce believes under God the People rule. He will fight to secure our individual and state’s rights. He believes all people are created equal, defends our freedom of speech, religion, 2nd amendment, right to life, fair trade, supports law enforcement, first responders, and a parents’ right to choose how their children will be educated. Bruce is a patriot, served in the Army National Guard, has a Bachelor of Science degree, real life experience in business, Tribal procurement and financial management. He knows what it means to be Domestic Dependents of the Federal Government. He recognizes the slippery slope we are on toward becoming domestic dependents. He believes in States Rights and individual’s rights not dependency on Washington DC. Take a look at Bruce, see what he stands for and give him your vote.



Help Support Independent, Community Journalism, DONATE TODAY!

--J.L Nelson

Post Date: 2022-04-25 21:25:31Last Update: 2022-04-25 10:27:11

    


AMENDMENT C - “The truth, the Facts, and How it Will Protect Your Life, Liberty, Property, Prosperity“
Op-Ed submitted by Mike Zitterich of Sioux Falls

With so much being said about Amendment C and the reason why we have chosen to place it on the South Dakota June Primary Public Election - I wanted to provide my thoughts, opinions, and assessment of the amendment itself, let alone the exact wording within the body of text.

The founding principle of drafting such an amendment, which by the way, would revise the South Dakota Constitution, by adding a 16th Section to Article 11 Revenue and Finance - is grounded in your "sovereign right' to be free from a tyrannical governmental process, by enforcing upon the government, rules as to restrict the power of taxation as it relates to your right to life, liberty, property, pursuit to happiness.

In fact, the S.D Constitution Article 6, Section 1 says it best:

Inherent rights - All men are born equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, of acquiring and protecting property and the pursuit of happiness. To secure these rights governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

In fact, that first Bill of Right adopted by the "people" of South Dakota, is well grounded in American philosophy. It is a central cornerstone in the Declaration of Independence, written more than two-hundred years ago. This occurred as the American Colonies began the quest to fight the British for the independent right to self govern, free and clear from some foreign power.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."..."That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed"...."That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government"...."laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." - From the Declaration of Independence



One of the big key principles by the Americans was to hold the ruling class accountable, and to avoid allowing such a ruling class to impose taxes beyond the 'consent of the governed'.

How do we define the terminology - "The Consent of the Governed":

In political philosophy, the phrase consent of the governed refers to the idea that a government's legitimacy and moral right to use state power is justified and lawful only when consented to by the people or society over which that political power is exercised. This theory of consent is historically contrasted to the divine right of kings and had often been invoked against the legitimacy of colonialism. Article 21 of the United Nations' 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that "The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government".

What this means is that the "Sovereign" has the right to impose rules, laws, and codes on himself, and prior to 1776, that sovereign was the King of England. That all changed when the Americans became their own free country of 'freemen' - for the first time, the people as a whole became the sovereign, and by that, "We The People of South Dakota" meaning the greater majority of citizens making up the State, shall agree by consent to be governed in such manner, that we allow the government to govern all matters of public interest - Public Buildings, Lands, Things, Properties.

We do not necessarily rule by the majority of voters, no. But as we head to the polls to cast a ballot on what laws to adopt, whom to elect to represent us in our districts, we vote to provide a public opinion of what the majority of the people may, or may not want, while at the same time, the very people have the right to provide a second opinion by virtue referring by petition a second vote, or petitioning the courts to request a second opinion on whether or not the law is constitutional or not as it relates to our state constitution.

The goal should be to make it as difficult as can be, on the total nature of adopting new taxes, or to raise current tax and fees, meaning, if the people so choose to create public policy that will directly affect our right to life, liberty, property, pursuit to happiness, then we shall want a rule put in place that makes it very difficult to impose such tax or tax increase to be put into place.

A D V E R T I S E M E N T

A D V E R T I S E M E N T

Back to the Declaration of Independence for a second - remember, we adopted a founding principle that the citizen shall have the "natural right" to come and go freely, to barter and trade his labor in order to create for himself - an income in order to purchase property, to conduct his life providing food, clothing, and all the things that come with surviving on this earth. Nature's law allow you do do all those things, so long as they do not restrict another persons right to do the same, so long as you do not rob, rape, or murder. The three crimes that go against nature itself.

Natural law is a system of law based on a close observation of human nature, and based on values intrinsic to human nature that can be deduced and applied independently of positive law (the enacted laws of a state or society). According to natural law theory, all people have inherent rights, conferred not by act of legislation but by "God, nature, or reason." Natural law theory can also refer to "theories of ethics, theories of politics, theories of civil law, and theories of religious morality.

When placed in this perspective, natural law takes full precedence as it relates to statutory law, which is rules placed on government in order to restrict it to such responsibilities of managing the public buildings, things, lands, properties, and services adopted by the people, in order to manage those public things. We agree to adopt public taxes in order to manage that public cause, while we adopt 'common law codes' in order to regulate our natural rights, protecting you from another, in order to safeguard those natural rights to life, liberty, property, pursuit to happiness.

Now, what why do I feel Amendment C needs to be adopted by the people, cause if we truly want to safeguard our natural right to all those rights given to you by your creator, we then should imply a super majority vote on the voters, to whom are then asked to adopt such legislation which will increase our public spending by more than $10,000,000 a year during the first five years after the measure is adopted.

Any initiated constitutional amendment, initiated measure, constitutional amendment proposed and submitted to the people by the Legislature, or measure referred to the people by the Legislature that imposes or increases taxes or fees, and any initiated constitutional amendment, initiated measure, constitutional amendment proposed and submitted to the people by the Legislature, or measure referred to the people by the Legislature that obligates the state to appropriate funds of ten million dollars or more in any of the first five fiscal years after enactment, to be annually adjusted for inflation as determined by the Legislature, shall become part of the Constitution or statute only if approved by three-fifths of the votes cast thereon. - Amendent C

What it really is saying is this - IF, if the people, either by means of their legislature, or by means of a public vote, hereby wish to impose directly on the people appropriations of $10,000,000 million a year, which will affect the first five years of our governmental process of obligating the "State" (or the people) directly to spend a huge sum of money, which effects the taxes and fees as they relate to the spending plan, we wish to impose onto the voters a 60% supermajority vote in order to safeguard, our protected right to life, liberty, property, pursuit to happiness from being forced to pay a tax we wish not to pay.

Truth is, because the vast majority of the citizens of South Dakota have chosen to elect very conservative minded people to their legislature, whom of course must also obtain a 2/3 majority vote in both chambers to adopt spending bills of the same value, there are some people outside the State of South Dakota who wish to place on public ballots, the so called 'hot topics' which can easily gain support of a simple majority of voters by means of by-passing the legislative process of adopting new laws, appropriate our public taxes, to adopting new age ideals onto the majority of people, all cause they want to manipulate our process of governing our state.

If, this outside faction of people wish to come into our State to force upon, adopt these expensive programs, measures, or enact new taxes and fees to spend money as they want us to do, then we should by all means have the authority as a free people to impose a rule on them, to obtain a large majority of support to prove to us, that a vast majority have have the opinion that the measure may or may not be good for us. Especially where they fail to gain the support of the very people 'we' elect to represent us in our State Capitol.

The City of Sioux Falls has more than enough residents residing in its incorporated territory, that a simple majority of 51% or just 200,000 voters could easily impose such tax increases on the majority of state citizens. We must protect ourselves from such a mob-rule type mentality, if we are to remain a free, independent, and sovereign people, who have the right to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit to happiness.

The overall ECONOMIC WEALTH OF STATES, shall be free from the Federal Government and any foreign lobby. By enforcing our sovereignty as a free state and people, we should not be forced to pay taxes outside our state, or be forced by outside lobbies to pay higher than expected taxes and fees. Preserving such right, so leads to a sense of strong economic prosperity. The State of South Dakota is in a great place due to the ability of its own citizens to remain free from a tyrannical form of government, and from those who wish to impose their will on us.

We do not have to, nor are we forced to pay federal taxes outside our state borders. We owe no tax but to our state and local governments who provide to us a combination of state and local roads, public utilities, parks, police, fire, rescue, public education, and other public services. It should be a CHOICE on whether to enter into a contract with the Federal Government, or to act in foreign commerce where we pay federal excise taxes, or to use s federal service paying federal duties, or to transact business with foriegn persons outside our state electing to pay federal imposition fees such as tariffs, transaction fees, patents, business license, permits, federal income tax, etc. Unless we enter into such an arrangement, we claim our American Citizenship of our State, protecting our sovereign right to be free from the powers of the Federal Government, or any such foreign lobby who wish to impose on us unjust appropriations of public taxes. Always invest in yourself first, your state second, and your city third. That provides us the extreme economic prosperity to pay for the things we choose to support in South Dakota.

You have the ultimate authority over your life, your liberty, your property, your pursuit to happiness, you must protect that with all your heart, and not allow a small faction of people to come between you and your state, as we go about our daily business of governing our public buildings, places, things, and public services.

A D V E R T I S E M E N T

A D V E R T I S E M E N T

Economic wealth is the total value of the resources you have to meet your physical or material needs. Money is the currency of economic wealth. So all of these resources can be inter-converted through money. These resources include the value of your assets (home, car, bank accounts, other material possessions, etc.) and income from your job or other sources. If you have borrowed monetary resources (loans) then you have to subtract those. Total net economic wealth is calculated by totaling the value of your resources and subtracting from that the total of your debts.

My overall assessment of Amendment C, is as such, it will help us ensure to all the population of the State, that we the people shall remain every bit, a part of the governing process of managing our State, and by imposing this rule on the governing process of adopting new appropriation bills, we are in fact restricting the ability of all of us from imposing new and increased tax rates on the citizens of this state. I urge you to vote Yes on Amendment C on June 7, 2022 - by doing so, you will have played a huge part in your own economic means of enjoying your right to all the inherent rights you have as a free, independent, person living in the State of South Dakota. The power to tax, shall not be taken lightly, with it comes a grave danger to our freedoms. If you value your liberty, you must vote in favor of Amendment C.


--Mike Zitterich

Post Date: 2022-04-25 12:28:41Last Update: 2022-04-25 11:33:04

    


OP-ED “Who Do You Want To Be A Statesman or Just an Ordinary Politician?”
OP-ED submitted by Mike Zitterich of Sioux Falls

Politician vs Statesman - many people confuse the two words to mean, one or the other, but in reality, based on my research, "WE" are all politicians within the American Governing Process (AGP). America was founded on ideals and concepts of the ancient Greeks, of whom were led by the likes of Plato and Aristotle. But, if you refer to yourself as a "Statesman" you are saying that you are placing your community's needs above your own.

So what is the difference between a Politician and a Statesman?

Let's review the origins and meaning of each term-

Politics derived from the ancient Greek word "politeia" – means: POLIS – City-State

and from the verb politeuomai – which means "I am living as an active citizen of the polis."

If "Polis" means city-state, and politeuma is a verb that means we are living as active citizens of the city-state, then we are all doing so in order to protect our own life, liberty, and prosperity as it relates to the overall interests of the community? As my friend and statesman Bill Nees, a truck driver and former presidential candidate (2008) from the State of Georgia once asked me-

"Are we not all politicians today? If, at the very best, we wish to protect our own self interests as they relate to the everyday needs of the community we reside in... Wouldn't we commonly adopt rules, codes, and means of governing said community, in order to preserve to ourselves the right to life, liberty, property, and pursuit of happiness?"

Many confuse the word (politician) to mean having a "career" in politics, but I would argue that not all who run for public office or have a career in politics are in fact politicians. Rather, "every citizen" of this city and State is a politician, by root definition, for he or she plays an active role in their government with the intent to protect his or her interests. IF, a "politician" is someone who will protect his/her own interest, then ( as Mr Nees suggests) are we not ALL politicians by definition?

A D V E R T I S E M E N T

A D V E R T I S E M E N T

Conversely, a "statesman" is defined as someone versed in the principles or art of government. A wise, skillful, and respected political leader who is actively engaged in conducting the business of a government or in shaping its policies.

A "Statesman" is someone who places the interest of others above their own, and does not make a career out of politics, but actively works among political leaders to keep the people engaged within their governing process. A statesman does not make a career out of politics, but yet, remains engaged in the process or actively participates in the process of which the people play a direct role in their government. Statesman, by its own definition, means "all the people who wish to actively take the lead within our governing system."This could be an elected official, or could simply be a concerned citizen, who actively steps up to play a direct or indirect role in the democratic process today.

James Madison, the author of the Constitution wrote in Federalist #10 (1787) – "It is in vain to say that enlightened statesmen will be able to adjust these clashing interests, and render them all subservient to the public good. Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm: Nor, in many cases, can such an adjustment be made at all, without taking into view indirect and remote considerations, which will rarely prevail over the immediate interest which one party may find in disregarding the rights of another, or the good of the whole."

Therefore, a Statesman is someone who chooses not to serve his/her own interest, but maintains an active role in politics in order to place the needs of the community above their own.

A D V E R T I S E M E N T

A D V E R T I S E M E N T

A Statesman does not do it for a paycheck, nor for reward, or for recognition. That person does so, because they are called upon by a personal ambition to get more involved in the daily needs of the community, and to actively take the lead within the political process of governing the city, state, or even the country.

Those people whom are grounded in, or bound by a specific faction, whether it is Republican, Democrat, or some other political party, are acting in a very narrow viewpoint of what the overall needs of any given community might be. George Washington famously warned future generations against a two party system.

“The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.”

As if Washington had a crystal ball, we have indeed divided this great country. On one side we have the Republican Kingdom and on the other side, we have the Democratic Kingdom, each serving their own masters.

Federalist Document #10, written by James Madison on November 22, 1787:

"As long as the reason of man continues fallible, and he is at liberty to exercise it, different opinions will be formed. As long as the connection subsists between his reason and his self-love, his opinions and his passions will have a reciprocal influence on each other; and the former will be objects to which the latter will attach themselves. The diversity in the faculties of men from which the rights of property originate, is not less an insuperable obstacle to an uniformity of interests. The protection of these faculties is the first object of government. From the protection of different and unequal faculties of acquiring property, the possession of different degrees and kinds of property immediately results: And from the influence of these on the sentiments and views of the respective proprietors, ensues a division of the society into different interests and parties." - James Madison (Founder of the U.S Constitution)

I believe we are all politicians, for we all want what is in our best interest as it relates to the city. However, the mark of a true statesman is an individual that strives to serve the needs of the many, while placing their own needs and desires aside.

"No man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause; because his interest would certainly bias his judgment, and, not improbably, corrupt his integrity." James Madison wrote.

Our founding fathers understood that man is inherently flawed, and imperfect. Our laws were written to limit government, because government is comprised of fallible and imperfect humans.

Patrick Henry was a brilliant orator whose devotion to the pursuit of liberty fueled the fire of the American Revolution. As a lawyer and a member of the Virginia House of Burgess, Henry spoke eloquently of the inalienable rights all men are born with. His philosophy inspired the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and, most significantly, the Bill of Rights. Famous for the line "Give me liberty or give me death!" Patrick Henry was a man who stirred souls and whose dedication to individual liberty became the voice of a country.

As we head to the polls this election - think to yourself, who among us are actively leading in the best interests of all residents? Who among us are actively partaking in a role, or our governing process with statesmen like conduct, decorum and solution oriented policies?

As we shape the city of Sioux Falls, and the state of South Dakota into a much better place for our children, please, lets become a carbon copy of the great Patrick Henry. Let us inspire within one another true statesmanship, and like our founders strive to create policies that benefit all, or limit the power of our inherently flawed government



Help Support Independent Journalism, Donate Today!

--Mike Zitterich

Post Date: 2022-04-15 16:47:28Last Update: 2022-04-21 21:12:29

    


OP-ED “Why I Am Voting For Bruce Whalen”
Submitted By-Crystal Paulson

The voters in South Dakota have a very important question that they must answer in the Primary Election on June 7, 2022. Do you want someone who will go to Washington DC and cast votes but does nothing to stand up for the people who live in South Dakota, someone who will follow the liberal side of the Republican party, or do you want someone who believes in the Founding documents and believes that we should follow the Constitution as it was written?

If you want to continue being represented by someone who has little knowledge or interest in the things that you want or need, then you should vote for anyone but Bruce Whalen because that is what you will get.

A D V E R T I S E M E N T

A D V E R T I S E M E N T

If you want representation that represents you, you should vote for Bruce Whalen. Bruce has spent his life living and working in one of the poorest areas of our state. He has studied our history and the Founding documents, so he knows and believes what is in them. He has spent the last 20 years of his life traveling across the state and getting to know the people who live in all areas. He knows from his own experience that the more government is involved in your life the less freedom you will have. He is committed to not just stopping the spread of Socialism that is making its way across the country, but to working to turn back the creep that has been happening for years. Bruce is dedicated to working to restore the freedoms that have been eroded over the years. It will be a hard battle, but he is up for it.

When you go to the polls on June 7th, don’t just look at what is said in an election year but look at the life experience of the candidate you will be voting for. Do his words and actions match?

Thank you. Crystal Paulson


--Opinion

Post Date: 2022-04-15 14:22:27Last Update: 2022-04-21 21:12:16

    


“Ordinary Americans Must Step-up”
Op-Ed Submitted by Lee Hulm

Well, God bless him! He's got a difficult task ahead. Unseating an entrenched incumbent is never easy, but Mark Mowry's "America First" campaign (for U. S. Senate in 2022) to replace long term Sen. John Thune in South Dakota is off and running. "We are in the final showdown for either a Constitutional Republic or a socialist regime. It's time to choose," says he, echoing the sentiments of millions of concerned Americans.

The ranch-raised South Dakotan is pro-life, pro-nuclear family, pro-2nd amendment (gun rights), and a major supporter of law enforcement. "I'm for American workers and American jobs, for a reduced federal government, for border integrity, and for national strength (a strong military)," Mr. Mowry declared to visitors at the Rapid City Stock Show, adding, "I'm not a globalist. I will stand up and speak out for America First values."

Which would be a refreshing change from the current assortment of weak-minded, timorous congressional elites who sat on their tongues all throughout the summer 2020 BLM and ANTIFA riots that saw both businesses and private assets looted and torched, innocent people unmercifully attacked, police officers under siege (with precincts set aflame), and millions of jobs and livelihoods literally gone up in smoke ... poof!

South Dakota's Thune, Rounds, and Johnson (plus McConnell, Sasse, Cheney, Fischer, Graham and others) owe the country a long overdue apology. Timidity in the face of evil is no virtue, and absence of action does not a caring, accountable legislator make! Politics and strange bedfellows, perhaps? Well, let's hope not! Remaining mum as villains lay waste to the rights, property, and privileges of others is a sin!

A D V E R T I S E M E N T

A D V E R T I S E M E N T

Frankly, the 2020 anarchy should have been stopped dead in its tracks. There's no excuse either for the carnage or for the tacit acceptance of spineless bureaucrats. If the cowards in congress and WOKE (Witlessness Overlapping Kooky Evildoing) generals had summoned up enough courage to back the president and rendered assistance to quell the rioting (and arrest and prosecute the thugs who perpetrated it), it would have ended PDQ.

Indeed, let's face facts! Hiding under one's desk is not acceptable. The responsibility for the Jan. 6 debacle at "The People's House" lies at the feet of our so-called representatives who stood by and let the 2020 mayhem drag on month after month. They could have stopped it! They had the power to act! That's why they were elected, for God's sake! Had they done their job, the Jan. 6 foolishness wouldn't have happened. It's on them, period!

Frustration (malfeasance of office generated, too) has consequences, which helps in explaining the sale of 16.5 million firearms (over 60 percent to women and to first time purchasers) in the last two years. Given the lesson from 2020 and the realization that self-defense is our most likely forthcoming option (police unbelievably defunded, crime statistics off the charts, prosecutors out to lunch, etc.), what else could sanity possibly command?

And now comes irrefutable evidence (from Johns Hopkins and others) that lockdowns and shutdowns had virtually zero (.02) effect on the Covid death count and that masking children is senseless —harmful, in effect. Yet, an unpardonable cabal of corrupt ideologues — seduced by power and control —refuse to let go. They're prime examples of mindless despotism, and they need to be replaced, sooner rather than later.

Yes, Mark Mowry may lack the name recognition of famed surgeon, Dr. Mehmet Oz (candidate for senate in Pennsylvania), or gridiron idol, Herschel Walker (candidate for senate in Georgia), both of whom are expected to win handily. Nevertheless, if we want to restore common sense to government, "ordinary" people, too, must step up to the plate. Congratulations are due Mr. Mowry for taking his stance in the batter's box.

A D V E R T I S E M E N T

A D V E R T I S E M E N T



Help Support Independent Journalism, Donate Today!


Send us your op-ed, press release, or letter to the editor--Editor@dakotaleader.com!
--Staff Reports

Post Date: 2022-04-13 11:07:56Last Update: 2022-04-21 21:11:49

    


AMENDMENT B - Does the City Council Not Already Have the Power to Hold City Directors Accountable Regarding the Affairs of the City?
Op-ED submitted by Mike Zitterich of Sioux Falls

Come April 12th - the Electors (the voters) will be voting to amend the City Charter on two topics. Amendment A regarding the salaries of the Mayor and City Council, and Amendment B which will allow for the City Council to basically fire the City Attorney on its own terms. While Amendment A is getting all of the media coverage, it is Amendment B which is getting overlooked, and going without notice. To better explain what it is what the council is hoping to accomplish, let's take a look at what the charter does and does not do first.

Section 4.03 creates the City Attorney position -

"There shall be a legal officer of the city appointed by the mayor effective with the advice and consent of a majority of the eight members of the council. Notwithstanding Charter
Section 2.05(b), the legal officer may be removed by the mayor during the mayor's four-year term of office only with the consent of a majority of the eight members of the council. The consent of a majority of the council is not required for the expiration of the legal officer's term of office that occurs upon the mayor's expiration of term of office. The legal officer shall serve as chief legal advisor to the city council, the mayor and all city departments, offices and agencies, shall perform any other duties prescribed by state law, by this charter or by ordinance, and shall handle or monitor the representation of the city in legal proceedings."

Basically, the charter here is telling you who the City Attorney works for, what his responsibilities are, and what his job function shall be, and what it shall not be. It also states clearly that the 'term' of the City Attorney expires at the end of the Mayor's four year term of office, so the mayor controls whether or not the City Attorney can come back for a second term or not, considering whether or not the mayor is re-elected as well.

To better understand the role the City Council has in managing the role of the City Attorney, one now must look to
Section 2.05 to better get clearity of how the process of appointing or replacing the City Attorney as it relates to the powers of the city itself.

A. Holding other office. No council member shall hold any other elected public office during the term for which the member was elected to the council. No council member shall hold any other city office or city employment during the terms for which the member was elected or appointed to the council. No former council member shall hold any compensated appointive office or employment with the city until two (2) years after the expiration of the term for which the member was elected or appointed to the council. Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit the council or mayor from selecting any current or former council member to represent the city on the governing board of any regional, national, or other intergovernmental agency.

B. Appointments and removal. Neither the city council nor any of its members shall in any manner control or demand the appointment or removal of any city administrative officer or employee whom the mayor or any subordinate of the mayor is empowered to appoint, but the council may express its views and fully and freely discuss with the mayor anything pertaining to appointment or removal of such officers and employees.

C. Interference with administration. Except for the purpose of inquiries and investigations under section 2.09, the council or its members shall deal with city officers and employees who are subject to the direction and supervision of the mayor solely through the mayor and neither the council nor its members shall give orders to any such officer or employee, either publicly or privately. Pursuant to
Section 2.09 - The city council may make investigations into the affairs of the city and the conduct of any city department, office, or agency and for this purpose may subpoena witnesses, administer oaths, take testimony, and require the production of evidence. Failure or refusal to obey a lawful order issued in the exercise of these powers by the council shall be a violation and punishable as provided in state law.

Basically put -
Section 2.05 sets in place prohibitions placed on the City Council of what it can and cannot do. Here it is saying, it cannot directly remove the City Attorney, at least not by demand. If it wishes to hold the City Attorney accountable for his opinions, public statements, to the residents, the overall interest of the city itself - it has to include the Mayor within that process. The Council cannot personally, nor publicly interfere with the duties of the mayor, who was elected at-large by the very people who elected the counselor(s), it cannot go around the mayor to speak to city staff, employees, or department manages to go behind the mayor's back in order to convince the mayor to remove his choice of the City Attorney. The 'charter' point blank gives the full power of appointing the city attorney to the mayor himself (herself). IF, and only if the City Council utilizes section 2.09 in order to conduct an official investigation, of which it must hold public hearings, calling forth subpoenas, bringing evidence, facts, and testimony into that hearing, can the City Council itself force the the City Attorney to resign, or step down without the mayor's opinion, can they remove the city attorney (or other department head) from his office.

The City Attorney is appointed by the people's choice of Mayor, the council has the ability to provide advice and consent, object to that choice up front, but once they agree to place the City Attorney in his current chair, they cannot physically remove him without first including the mayor, thus jointly discussing the city attorney together. They cannot demand, nor force his removal from public office, at least without bringing forth such investigation/trial to be held publicly, at least not during the Mayor's 4 year term itself.

If the mayor is up for re-election, and gets re-elected, a new term begins, and at this point, the council could request to discuss with the mayor the possibility of changing City Attorney's, but then again, it still has to be the mayor's choice to do so, they cannot force the mayor to make such decision, except by means of a legal investigation, based in South Dakota Law, this Charter, etc.

A D V E R T I S E M E N T

A D V E R T I S E M E N T

So what does Amendment B actually do - well for that, let's take a look at what it says shall we:

AMENDMENT B- Shall Sections 2.05(b) and Section 4.03 be amended to read: Section 2.05(b) [Prohibitions] Appointments and Removal. Except as authorized by Charter Section 4.03, neither the city council nor any of its members shall in any manner control or demand the appointment or removal of any city administrative officer or employee whom the mayor or any subordinate of the mayor is empowered to appoint, but the council may express its views and fully and freely discuss with the mayor anything pertaining to appointment or removal of such officers and employees. Section 4.03 [Legal Officer] There shall be a legal officer of the city appointed by the mayor effective with the advice and consent of five (5) or more members of the council. Notwithstanding Charter Section 2.05(b), the legal officer may be removed by an affirmative vote of six (6) or more members of the council or by the mayor with the consent of five (5) or more members of the council. The consent of a majority of the council is not required for the expiration of the legal officer's term of office that occurs upon the mayor's expiration of term of office. The legal officer shall serve as chief legal advisor to the city council, the mayor, and all city departments, offices, and agencies; shall perform any other duties prescribed by state law, by this charter, or by ordinance; and shall handle or monitor the representation of the city in legal proceedings. The role of the legal officer is to provide counsel in the best interest of the city, not the interest of one inquiring source.

What the change is in fact attempting to do is impose the will of the City Council to remove the "City Attorney" without the mayor's opinion or approval. While part of the change does include the mayor, I feel it was a compromise in order to include the mayor in that decision, because now if the Mayor wants to freely remove the City Attorney, which by our own 'charter' he legally can, now the 'change' restricts the mayor to doing so. This is a power play by the City Council in order to strip the mayor of his constitutional and chartered authority.

As for the overall responsibility of the City Attorney himself - his main role is to work with the Mayor, as an elected city official to run, operate, manage the City in the best overall interest of the residents, based on the needs, wishes, and wants of the people. By electing a mayor, the people are wishing for, and supporting the current mayor's direction, promise, and agenda to manage the city government in a stated or governed right to do so, so long as all acts and agenda are within the rules put forth by the state constitution, the city charter, and all statutory rules and ordinances set forth by laws adopted within this state and city.

Are the changes necessary? No. Does the City Attorney represent the views of all members of the council? No - not directly. His main job is to provide the mayor, city staff, and the city council opinions, proclamations, and viewpoints on legislative documents, as they come before the mayor and city council. The city council has the right to request an opinion of the city attorney anytime they wish to, by current charter, the City Attorney while working for the mayor, must also represent the best interest of the people, and that alone binds him to the city council.

I do not support Amendment B - it is a power play by the City Council to over-step the mayor, giving the city council, of which the "mayor" is actually a member of a more direct authority in all legal matters of city government. While I support the councils in holding the mayor accountable, I also feel the manner of which the current charter is written in relation to appointment and removal of the City Attorney is worded in such manner, it allows for the city council to create that dialogue with the mayor in order to discuss the city attorney and his role, his duties, and the effects of his decisions.

On one hand, the charter says the city council "shall not" demand nor ask for the removal of the city attorney, but on the flip side, the "amendment" is allowing the city council to go around the mayor to remove the city attorney for any stated reason or belief. To me, the amendment poses a huge conflict with the city charter itself, and that may be cause enough to allow someone to bring forth a legal challenge to a public court.

IF we are wishing for diplomacy in the matter of appointing or removing the city attorney, the amendment at best is removing any hope of diplomacy to be had. This appears to be a huge power play by the city council itself, and with that, I urge my fellow voters to "VOTE NO" on Amendment B.

There are simply better ways to address the issue of holding the City Attorney accountable, but this style, form, and manner of which to do so, is not in my opinion, the right approach. I am all for separation of powers between the Mayor and City Council, but this is not the proper way to go about it, it will cause more divisive issues than not. My recommendation would be - to change the charter to force any mayor, elected or re-elected to go thru the process of reaffirming all Department Heads at the beginning of each 'term', in this manner, the council then has the ability to discuss publicly every four years, the ability to select a new department head, let alone the City Attorney himself.

On April 12, 2022 - you will be asked to approve or disprove of Amendment B - I simply want to help you understand what the amendment does, how it changes the city charter, and why I am choosing not to support it. End of day, you have the right to vote any which way you wish. That is your protected right. But I wanted to at least help you understand what Amendment B is hoping to do.




--Mike Zitterich

Post Date: 2022-04-06 09:52:16Last Update: 2022-04-21 21:08:18

    


Occupy Wall Street’s Transformation into Cancel Culture
An Op-Ed about how we got here by Anna Cole

In October 2011, Occupy Wall Street ‘s webpage ran a poll to find out what sort of people were involved in their movement. The published findings might be surprising in 2022, as 70% of participants and supporters were “politically independent”.

The last call to action mentioned on www.occupywallst.org is a protest against the DNC in Philadelphia on July 2016. Their primary grievance? Hillary Clinton had stolen the nomination that “rightfully belonged to Bernie Sanders”.

By January 2021, many of the same people who had been accusing Clinton of stealing the Democratic primary condemned the ones who had concerns about the results of the 2020 presidential election. The ones who claimed that “all cops are bastards” cheered for the police when they targeted “anti-maskers” or “anti-vaxxers”. Most curiously, the ones who claimed to be against the 1% asked no questions when the largest upward transfer of wealth in all of human history happened right under their noses.

John Lydon of the Sex Pistols has even commented on this phenomenon, saying, “I never thought I'd live to see the day when the right wing would become to cool ones giving the middle finger to the establishment, and the left wing become the sniveling self-righteous twatty ones going around shaming everyone.”

How did this shift happen? How did Occupy get absorbed by the mainstream left, and how did the mainstream left begin to engage in behavior that the leftists of the 2000s would have considered authoritarian and pro-war?

According to one of the Occupy movement’s funders, Michael Pella, who now runs a tour in New York City specific to the Occupy movement and working-class history, “understanding that shift requires analyzing the events that began in 1997.”

In 1997, William Kristol formed the
Project for the New American Century (PNAC), a neoconservative think tank which heavily influenced George W Bush’s presidency, especially his foreign policy. PNAC encouraged more defense spending to prevent nations such as Russia and China from challenging America’s global dominance. This resulted in the ostracization of citizens who did not support such forms of American Imperialism.

Questioning or opposing the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in those early naughts was considered unpatriotic and cowardly–eerily similar to today’s treatment of the COVID-19 vaccine hesitant.

Pella theorizes that the mentality of “you’re with us or against us” shifted from being about terrorists to being about Trump supporters. Straw man political reasoning used to be “if you don’t want the US to invade Iraq you’re enabling Terrorism.,” now it’s, “if you don’t get the vaccine, you’re anti-science and must have voted for Trump, and since Trump is a fascist, that means you’re also a fascist.” It’s a string of illogic reminiscent of the classic Monty Python and the Holy Grail sketch about witches– witches burn because they’re made of wood, wood floats and so do ducks, so if she weighs as much as a duck, then she’s a witch.

Pella described Bush as “the worst president of (his) lifetime”. His reasons? “Bush used 9/11 to propagandize America to go along with the program relative to regime changes worldwide. Regime change wars cost American taxpayers 8 - 12 trillion dollars, killing some 9 million people who were brown and black in the Middle East and Africa. Hurricane Katrina happened, and he didn’t ride in. He just let people die there. He deregulated the financial industry.
Bear Stearns collapsed, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac issued subprime, and predatory lending to first-time buyers. The market collapsed when the bubble eventually burst in 2008.

“Too Big to Fail” banking C.E.Os flew to D.C in private jets, begging for taxpayer funded bail-outs, while still receiving multi-million dollar salaries. Bush bailed his friends out, while average people lost their jobs and homes. Our country witnessed one of the largest upward transfers of wealth, and no one said or did anything about it.

Pella, who shares that he’s been “canceled” by former friends and allies, says “when Occupy Wall Street started, we were upset about an $eight-billion dollar transfer of wealth, upwards. That $eight-billion was nothing compared to the $2,000,000,000,000 that transferred upwards during the lockdowns of 2020-2021 and approximately $3,000,000,000,000 trillion lost in business closures, yet most ex-Occupiers supported the lockdowns.”

Obama had already been in office for about three years when Occupy Wall Street began, and many liberals who had been vigilant about what Bush did while in office were complacent when Obama failed to reverse the economic damage or end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Obama was sold as a progressive who would make life easier, while the reality for most people struggling through the Great Recession was that their day-to-day lives were not improving with him in office.

A D V E R T I S E M E N T

A D V E R T I S E M E N T

Occupy Wall Street was a reaction against the neoconservativism of the Bush administration, but threw an equal amount of criticism against Obama. Campers in Washington DC’s McPherson Park would frequently march to the white house at night to vent their rage towards Obama. On December 31st, 2011 Occupiers, gathered in New York City’s Zuccotti Park, shouted angrily about Obama approving the NDAA, which allowed for indefinite detention of American citizens. The rage manifested into tearing down the police barricades that surrounded the park and piling them into “Barricade Mountain”. Lights were later torn off the trees, and eventually that night evolved into drunken marching through the streets. Several arrests were made that night, but NDAA protests continued into 2012.

Occupy Wall Street took the streets of Chicago for a week in July 2012 to protest against NATO. They camped at both the RNC and DNC.

“We are the 99%” included everyone, regardless of ethnicity, age, gender, religion, sexual orientation, or even political affiliation. The 99% was everyone not in the ruling class, and included the majority of the people who would support Trump in 2016. In 2011, one of Occupy’s chants was: “Left wing, right wing, cut that chatter! Corporations own the government. Your votes don’t matter!” Only four years later, in 2016, there was almost no discussion about that kind of unity among ex-Occupiers on social media, but there was endless re-hashing about how, “Trump is bad, Republicans are bad, don’t vote Republican, Hillary is the lesser of two evils, you better vote for her”.

Ironically enough, Trump had some policies that aligned with what Occupy Wall Street had been asking for. He withdrew the US from the Trans-Pacific Partnership in January 2017– a move that would have been applauded under Obama, if this “break the TPP” video from 2015 is any indication

Shake it off – Break the TPP.mov from Owen Crowley on Vimeo.



If ex-Occupiers could criticize Obama, despite many of them having voted for him, why couldn’t they approach Trump’s presidency with the same level of independent thought?

Trump was sold to the Occupy movement as the ultimate symbol of everything that is evil. Somehow the focus shifted from the 1 percent to middle class America. The mainstream media reacted to Trump’s presidency with a relentless monomania. Social media amplified the hysterical yellow journalism ad-nauseum, until it felt as if the entire population was constantly distracted by someone screaming in their ears and banging pots and pans around the clock. This bombardment resulted, not only in less questioning and investigation from ex-Occupiers, but it also had an almost amnestic effect on a massive scale.

The fear of Trump turned into a fear of anyone associated with him. It spread even to people who considered themselves moderate or neutral. Gone was the solidarity between Libertarians and Marxists that had existed in 2011 and 2012–the fear of Trump flattened and simplified the left’s worldview into trying to eliminate Trump support in all forms. If that meant excluding people socially, cutting off family members, old friends, and getting people fired from their jobs, so be it. Trump was portrayed as so evil that “canceling” people associated with him was seen as a necessity. Cancel culture became so pervasive after 2016 that in 2019, one of Pella’s friends killed himself over the isolation that resulted from it: “he felt lost without his people, and he was losing all of them. He got ‘canceled’ by the very people he’d been defending. There was a big mindfuck happening for years to divide everyone after Occupy because they were realizing the 1% was their enemy.”

The “America First” veneer of PNAC’s emphasis on the flag and the cross has been replaced by a woke, intersectional rebranding that focuses on tearing down statues, canceling people, and turning anarchists against normal working-class white people instead of the 1%. In 2011, the conversation about police brutality was tied in with the larger class struggle and took place among small working groups in the park or unplanned marches in the street. By summer 2020, BLM was represented by the major corporations that had profited immensely from the same lockdowns that thrust countless black families into poverty when those corporations displayed flashy signs in a mostly abandoned Times Square.

The war hawk mentality has also moved from right to left, and the weaponization of social justice fervor plays out in scenarios like Robert Grodt dying in Syria. Grodt was a medic at Occupy Wall Street who helped the women who were kettled and pepper sprayed early in the movement. One of the women he met that day struck up a relationship with him, and they had a child together in 2012. Over the following years, Grodt became more radical with his views, and Pella believes that when Grodt died in 2017, “he did it thinking he was defending an intersectional Kurdish lesbian commune from Assad and Isis, when really he died for Dick Cheney. People are shipping themselves off to Ukraine for the same reasons now. It’s the weaponization of the left.”

When asked what can be done to reverse the radicalization and polarization of the ex-Occupiers and move forward, Pella’s suggested plan of action is simple in theory, difficult in reality: “The Left needs to stop calling everyone ‘conspiracy theorists’ and listen to them. I go on these alternative social media platforms like “Minds” that are filled with so-called ‘right-wingers’, and they’re critiquing the very same corporations we were fighting against 10 years ago. Qanon and Trumpers call them the ‘Globalists’, but these are the same one percenters we were fighting. The Deep state is the CIA, military-industrial complex, and Wall Street. It’s not a conspiracy theory. The left needs to get over themselves and stop listening to this mainstream media BS. We were opposed to both Fox News AND MSNBC! All the mainstream media blurred our message and minimized us so that people on the right wouldn’t listen and people on the left didn’t understand us at all. Then the Democrats thought we were on their side because we were protesting Republicans– when really we protested both parties! Ignore Occupy Democrats– they have nothing to do with Occupy Wall Street. And as for the right, they need to study Occupy and learn from it– talk to people who can tell them the truth about our movement instead of relying on Qanon. There were many Communists and Anarchists involved, but there were also Libertarians!”

Both social media and mainstream media have evolved rapidly in the last decade, and the resulting twin echo chambers resulted in more wealth, power, and control for the people at the top, along with fractured friendships and family bonds. The skeptical, independent spirit that initially launched the Occupy movement over a decade ago is well worth revisiting, even if it means working to look past the current form of the mainstream left it morphed into.





Please help support Ms Anna Cole, donate today and buy her a cup of coffee.
--Anna Cole- Arts and Entertainment Columnist for The Dakota Leader

Post Date: 2022-04-04 11:43:15Last Update: 2022-04-21 21:06:17

    


Are The Environmental Impacts and Human Atrocities Worth An EV Battery?
EV owners lack transparency of the environmental degradation and human atrocities occurring in developing countries that are mining for battery materials

The worldwide movement towards the electrification of everything, from more electric vehicles (EV’s) to more intermittent, battery stored electricity by wind turbines and solar panels, fail to disclose to consumers that there is a darker side of green technology, associated with environmental degradation, human atrocities, and other embedded costs for the exploitation of rare earth materials.

It should concern everyone that there are toxic components which come from mining for the exotic minerals and metals required to manufacture EV batteries, wind turbines, and solar panels. This mining is predominately occurring in less-developed countries where people of color are exploited for their cheap labor, in locations without regulations or child labor laws. Global consumers might feel good about "going green", but they lack the transparency, and facts regarding human rights' abuses, environmental degradation, and the true costs associated with "green" technologies.

In an attempt to make the embedded costs of going “green” transparent to the world, the Pulitzer Prize nominated book,
Clean Energy Exploitations - Helping Citizens Understand the Environmental and Humanity Abuses That Support Clean Energy, highlights how Asians and Africans, many of them children from the poorer and less healthy countries, are being enslaved and are dying in mines and factories to obtain the exotic minerals and metals required for green energy technologies like the construction of EV batteries, solar panels, wind turbines, and utility-scale storage batteries.

The Tesla EV e.g has a one-thousand-pound battery that contains 25 pounds of lithium, 60 pounds of nickel, 44 pounds of manganese, 30 pounds cobalt, 200 pounds of copper, 400 pounds of aluminum, steel, and plastic.
Inside the Tesla battery are 6,831 individual lithium-ion cells.

The environmental impact of battery production is significant. The
production of lithium is either carbon dioxide polluting or wasteful of water — up to 500,000 gallons per ton of the mineral. Cobalt mining produces radioactive contaminants, including uranium. About 80 percent of the weight of a Tesla battery –requires mined materials. In practice, that means mining about 50 tons of raw ore per vehicle. If 10 million U.S.-based electric cars are sold in 2030 (about half of sales), that would translate to 500 million tons of new mining with all the accompanying emissions from mining equipment and the accompanying pollution.

All those toxic components come from mining. For instance, to manufacture each auto battery, you must process 25,000 pounds of brine for the lithium, 30,000 pounds of ore for the cobalt, 5,000 pounds of ore for the nickel, and 25,000 pounds of ore for copper. All told, you dig up 500,000 pounds of the earth’s crust for just - one – Tesla EV battery.

There was already a huge challenge
in just making enough EV batteries. As physicist Mark Mills pointed out in the Wall Street Journal: "The International Energy Agency (IEA) finds that with a global energy transition like the one President Biden envisions, demand for key minerals such as lithium, graphite, nickel and rare-earth metals would explode, rising by 4,200 percent, 2,500 percent, 1,900 percent and 700 percent, respectively, by 2040”.

Amnesty International has documented children and adults mining cobalt in narrow man-made tunnels), and the exposure to the dangerous gasses emitted during the procurement of these rare minerals, not to mention the destruction of the local ecosystems when the wastewater and other unusable ores are let loose onto the environments they have no choice but to live in because their wages are so infinitesimally small, it should cause us to take a step back and examine our moral obligations to humanity.

A D V E R T I S E M E N T

A D V E R T I S E M E N T

Not only might the planet not have the capacity to meet this demand, but many of these materials come from places that are hostile or that we do not control – such as China/Mongolia, the Congo, and Bolivia – leading to an unpredictable supply.

Most electric vehicles in use today are yet to reach the end of their cycle. The first all-electric car to be powered by lithium-ion batteries, the Tesla Roadster, made its market debut in 2008. This means the first generation of electric vehicle batteries have yet to reach the recycling stage. An estimated 11 million tons of spent lithium-ion batteries will flood our markets by 2025, without systems in place to handle them.

The actions of society are currently supportive of jumping onto the EV train, knowing that
EV’s have a very dark side of environmental atrocities, and the non-existing transparency of human rights abuses occurring in other countries, both of which are directly connected to the mining for the exotic minerals and metals that are required to manufacture wind turbines, solar panels, and EV batteries.

America could promote sustainable mining in those developing countries to restoring the land to a healthy ecosystem after the mine closes and by leaving surrounding communities with more wealth, education, health care, and infrastructure that they had before the mine went into production. Like the mining in America, the mining in developing countries must be the objective of corporate social responsibilities and the outcome of the successful ecological restoration of landscapes.

America’s passion for EV vehicles to reduce emissions must be ethical and should not thrive off human rights and environmental abuses in the foreign countries providing the exotic minerals and metals to support America’s green passion.





This Article Was a Commissioned Piece By The Dakota Leader. Your generous donations help us to pay experts in their field to educate policy makers, as well as consumers on topics, they just won't hear elsewhere. The Dakota Leader is committed to fact based clean energy, science, and a better future for all. Help support our mission today by considering a monthly donation.


--By Ronald Stein Ambassador for Energy and Infrastructure, Irvine, California

Post Date: 2022-03-28 12:03:42Last Update: 2022-04-21 21:05:53

    


“ESG” Efforts to Rid the World of Fossil Fuels Will Drive Humanity Back to Medieval Times
Op-Ed by Ronald Stein

Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) divesting in fossil fuels, the “demons of the world” is leading society back to the decarbonized world of the 1800’s and before.

Published March 15, 2022 at Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow

Summary: Back in the 1800’s, before the discovery of crude oil, we had a “decarbonized” world with no coal or natural gas power plants, and none of the thousands of products made from oil derivatives that facilitate today’s lifestyles and economies.

Today,
Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) divesting in fossil fuels are all the rage on Wall Street these days to divest in all 3 fossil fuels of coal, natural gas, and crude oil, just to reduce emissions. Both President Biden and the United Nations support allowing banks and investment giants to collude to reshape economies and our energy infrastructure.

A group supported and promoted by the United Nations, the Principals of Responsible Investment (PRI), reported 4,721 signatories from more than 135 countries had signed PRI. Collectively, these businesses, investors, and investment management firms control more than $100 trillion in assets. The PRI pact emphasizes the importance of Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) disclosures and sponsors pressuring companies into ESG implementation.

While renewables continue to underperform in the generation of electricity from breezes and sunshine, the innocent bystander of crude oil that is seldom used for electricity, continues to be targeted for elimination along with coal and natural gas.

Allowing banks to collude to reshape economies and lifestyles so that they are in line with the preferences of banks and other financial institution is a very dangerous precedent. People never voted to give banks this sort of control over our world.

Depriving citizens of the more than
6,000 products that were non-existent before 1900, made from the oil derivatives manufactured from crude oil, is immoral and evil as extreme shortages will result in billions of fatalities from diseases, malnutrition, and weather-related deaths.

How dare those ESG banks and investment giants, in the healthier and wealthier countries, insist that we should limit poor countries future access to fossil fuels? Cheap, reliable, accessible power, and products from fossil fuels are lifesaving, and one of the best ways out of poverty.

The domino effects of tinkering with the supply chain of fossil fuels, is
supply shortages and soaring prices for not only electricity, but for the thousands of products manufactured from crude oil.

Unintended consequences of the ESG rage ridding the world of crude oil usage would be the restricted supply and/or elimination of products and fuels manufactured from crude oil that support-



Getting-off-fossil fuels would reverse much of the progress made over the last few centuries. The inventions of the automobile, airplane, and the use of petroleum in the early 1900’s led us into the Industrial Revolution and victories in World Wars I and II. The healthier and wealthier countries of today now have more than
6,000 products that did not exist a few hundred years ago, all manufactured from petroleum derivatives.

Over the last couple of centuries, the prosperity in the wealthier and healthier countries of using fossil fuels has reduced infant mortality, extended longevity from 40+ to more than 80+, allowed us to move to anywhere in the world via planes, trains, ships, and vehicles, and virtually eliminating
weather related fatalities.

A D V E R T I S E M E N T

A D V E R T I S E M E N T

Without fossil fuels we can easily see today, just by observing world’s poorest countries, what lifestyles are like without the thousands of products from oil derivatives, where there are 11 million children in the world dying every year. Those fatalities, in decarbonized developing countries, are from the preventable causes of diarrhea, malaria, neonatal infection, pneumonia, preterm delivery, or lack of oxygen at birth as many developing countries have no, or minimal, access to those products from oil derivatives enjoyed by the wealthy and healthy countries.

A complex trade-off associated with policy choices of moving too quickly into intermittent electricity from breezes and sunshine is that abandoning fossil fuels will further deprive and/or delay from providing at least
80 percent of humanity, or more than 6 billion in this world living on less than $10 a day, from enjoying the same products that benefit the wealthy and healthy countries.

As Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) divesting in fossil fuels progresses, banks and investment giants have short memories of petrochemicals’ golden goose contributions to societies that were responsible for the world populating from 1 to 8 billion in less than 200 years.
Efforts to cease the use of crude oil could be the greatest threat to civilization, not climate change, and lead the world to an era of Extreme Shortages Guaranteed (ESG) like we had in the decarbonized world in the 1800’s!

It's time for the people to demand anti-ESG bills from their legislatures and put a stop to the banks that are colluding to reshape economies and lifestyles, and inflicting shortages and inflation on working folks.

Call-to-Action- Become energy literate so you can cast future ballots for government officials that represent your views on the electricity and fuel challenges facing society and the economy.

Contact Ronald Stein
HERE






--Contributing Author for The Dakota Leader, Ronald Stein. Stein is an Economist and Energy Expert

Post Date: 2022-03-18 15:08:01Last Update: 2022-04-21 21:03:14

    


OPINION- Why Deny That Ivermectin Works?
Are We Trying To Stop A Public Health Emergency, Or Not?

Why do Kristi Noem, John Thune, Dusty Johnson, and Mike Rounds all deny that ivermectin works against Covid 19? Why does Keloland and the Argus Leader refuse to tell the truth about ivermectin? These are questions I have had since June and have fought in my head for well over 6 months. I have watched friends get admitted to the hospital, given the protocol of Remdesivir and then put on a ventilator. It's the same story, their organs shut down, they get put on a ventilator which blows out their lungs. The results have not been good. I have seen this happen multiple times, and it's infuriating knowing that better options exist, and are currently being withheld while people die.

In the middle of July 2021, I went to an event where they told the crowd about ivermectin. It was the Arise USA tour, featuring great American patriots, boldly telling the truth about the state of our Nation. I had heard of ivermectin, but of course had never taken it. One of the speakers was Doctor Bradley Meyer from Okoboji, Iowa.
Dr Meyer shared his story of being fired after giving out ivermectin to his sick patients, and seeing 100 percent recovery rates.

After hearing this and reading several other testimonies from friends, I began emailing the video of Dr Steele to Kristi Noem, John Thune, Dusty Johnson, Mike Rounds, Keloland, and the Argus Leader hoping someone would bring attention the medication, and help save lives. We were in this so called "Pandemic" and here was an early treatment option showing remarkable results. The silence defied logic, as did the response I received from Rounds, Johnson, and Thune, telling me to just get vaccinated. Kristi Noem's office completely failed to respond all together. As a reminder, these people are elected by us, paid by us, and work for us.

Not long after this time-frame, I came down with COVID-19. I lost my sense of taste and smell, but otherwise experienced very mild symptoms. At first, I thought this would be an easy virus to beat, and then day 7 happened. On the seventh day of fighting COVID-19, my breathing became labored and eventually got to the point where walking was difficult. Next I began to really struggle for air, but decided against going to the hospital, knowing the vent and Remdesivir protocol was killing people.

Now, as many are aware, there is an ivermectin paste created for farm animals, and it is true that the paste is not weighted for human consumption. It is also true that taking the animal paste version can be dangerous to the liver, as the paste is lipid soluble and much stronger then the pills. However, conflating the two very different, very separate types of medication in order to perpetuate a narrative, and deny an alternative to expensive pharmaceutical drugs, is more dangerous, in my opinion. Luckily, I was blessed to be in touch with a great group of people, who helped me to get my hands on the human pill form of ivermectin.

I was already taking Vitamin C, Vitamin D, and Zinc. When I started taking the ivermectin tablets, it was like the missing piece of the puzzle. I remember taking my first dose of ivermectin at 2 pm and by 4 pm my appetite had returned, and I could breathe again. It was an awakening for me. I was just in amazement of how quickly it worked. I went on to take the recommended dosage, and by day four I was completely back to normal. I had no side effects from the ivermectin, and now I'm blessed to have natural immunity, thanks to this wonderful medication.

This all brings me to House Bill 1267, which will be heard on the house floor next week. Lets get real, what is going on? Why would we suppress an effective tool in our ongoing battle against COVID-19? What is the real reason behind the suppression of this medication? We the people deserve the truth!

This is my personal experience with ivermectin. I have many questions as to why this medication, and others like it, are being suppressed? Nobody needs to die from or with COVID-19. Withholding viable and early treatment options is a crime against humanity, but thanks to Rep Phil Jensen, South Dakota has a chance to, at least, make ivermectin more broadly available. South Dakota is a state filled with intelligent and aware individuals, who have come through hard times before. I pray we are able to stand up for our providers and give them another tool in their bag, so we may get through this difficult time as well. To learn more about the efficacy of treating COVID-19 early with ivermectin, visit the
FLCCC website, and to review the aggregate meta data for recovery rates, please visit www.c19early.com.

Lastly- Now is the time to elect a leadership that's willing to sacrifice their own personal comfort, in order to safeguard the liberty and financial security of those they serve. Furthermore, it's time that we have leadership who serves us, and not special interests.

God bless the USA!


--Mike Mathis

Post Date: 2022-02-14 09:54:17Last Update: 2022-04-21 20:54:47

    


Read More Articles