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
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

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.



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.



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


ARS-Americana Debuts With a Collective Collage
“What Do You Want To See In An Art Community?” By Anna Cole

A-R-S is Latin for art...but actually means the "highly skilled work" or method of art. The last A in ARSA stands for Americana - classic and full of community.

ARSA’s Community Day at the Caille Library on Saturday, May 21st, was the second event of a new organization that took root in Sioux Falls in February 2022, and aims to provide “encouraging, ethical, and truthful art in our communities”.

The event, hosted by founder and CEO Hannah Van Steenwyk, provided a collaborative art environment for all ages that was free and open to the public. Using four large-scale poster boards and markers for guests to draw with, the event prompted the community to share their vision, in answer to- “What do you want to see in an art community?”

Van Steenwyk explained that she chose the materials for their simplicity and accessibility, and drew sketches on small pieces of paper to provide ideas and help people feel more open about expressing themselves. She discussed the way that even children have, over-time, become more afraid of making mistakes, but says that “art is one area for healthy, constructive criticism,” due to its subjective nature. “That skill has been lost,” Van Steenwyk says.

"ARSA’s Community Day is designed to be a space where everyone can create art without the fear of making mistakes," Van Steenwyk shares.

Over the past eight years, Van Steenwyk says that she recognized a growing need for an art agency within South Dakota. “South Dakota needs an art agency,” Van Steenwyk tells The Dakota Leader, "I felt called by God to create an organization that is able to provide sustainable artist residencies in addition to hosting events, workshops, and competitions in Sioux Falls."



It took years to build upon the initial idea for ARSA, due to the challenges of securing funding after becoming a non-profit organization. As many great artists often do, Van Steenwyk was focused on more than one thing at a time. "As an artist, I strongly believe that you don’t need to do one thing with your art career, everybody can be creative, no matter what their primary source of income is or how they spend their time." She believes that art is everywhere, and that everyone has the ability to create and contribute beauty to this world. "Everyone can bring art to their day jobs, if you work at a gas station, why not ask your boss if you can draw with sidewalk chalk during down time and bring more customers in that way, for example?" Van Steenwyk also described how someone can work as an accountant and still be artistically-minded, finding the expressive side of that job, even if it isn’t obvious.

As a Christian, Van Steenwyk has observed that there are many conservative Christian artists in South Dakota who don’t feel as though they can participate in the art community, due to political bias. However, as Van Steenwyk emphasized, “art is not a left or right thing, and our mission at ARSA is to help everyone express themselves artistically." Van Steenwyk shares that she wants to use the inclusive, welcoming energy of her events to bring hope back to people, especially after the disruptions of the last few years, resulting in pandemic restrictions.

ARSA will be hosting a second Community Day at Siouxland Downtown Library on Tuesday, May 24th, from 6-8pm. Free pastries will be provided by La Luna Cafe, and guests can continue to draw on the poster boards, which will be on display at La Luna Cafe, once completed. Tuesday night’s event will also feature an announcement about what ARSA’s new space will look like, and what opportunities, events, and residencies will soon be made available to the public. ARSA will also be offering more information at their booth at Union Gospel Mission’s "Rock the Block Party" on May 29th from 11am-5pm at 701 8th street. Artists who are interested in getting involved can find more information and sign up for ARSA’s newsletter at Arsasd.com.

Help Support Community Journalism... DONATE TODAY!

--Anna Cole- Arts and Entertainment Columnist for The Dakota Leader

Post Date: 2022-05-23 17:12:41Last Update: 2022-05-23 14:44:51


Foundations Destroying American Public Education (full series)
Re-Published by The Dakota Leader with Full Permission From Capital Research

The article published by Capital Research on May 20, 2022 titled "Foundations Destroying American Public Education," written by Luke Rosiak, has been re-published in full with permission to The Dakota Leader.

Summary- The world of K–12 education policy has long been dominated by philanthropic foundations. Much of the education “reform” sweeping across America has been financed and pushed by elite, well-heeled foundations. They have used the billions from their endowments to create various associations and activist groups to promote these changes. The Ford, Kellogg, and MacArthur Foundations commanded assets of nearly $27 billion and, between them, doled out more than one billion dollars in 2015. For example, it is philanthropic foundations who have injected critical race theory into society. The Ford Foundation spent $665 million on “racial equity” between 2011 and 2020.

Pierce Delahunt is a trust-fund baby with an inheritance in the millions, generated from a chain of successful outlet malls. By thirty-two, Delahunt took “nongendered pronouns” like “their,” was a self-styled anarchist and communist, and was directing the inheritance to nonprofit groups that advanced those causes. Their parents were socially liberal and Delahunt often heard things like “be kind to all, and mindful of those less fortunate.” But after learning “social justice throughout high school,” Delahunt realized that was not equity. They expressed distaste for concepts like “NeoLiberalism (an intentionally repackaged Capitalism), ‘Classical Liberalism’ (similarly repackaged Conservatism), Liberalism itself (as opposed to Leftism) . . . and other liberation-washed practices of oppression.”[1]

With time and money at their disposal, Delahunt “put a lot of energy into critiquing this country. I enjoy problematizing in general.” Though outlet malls provide name-brand goods at deeply discounted prices, allowing lower-income earners to enjoy the same luxuries as the rich, Delahunt was ashamed of the source of their wealth, saying, “When I think about outlet malls, I think about intersectional oppression.” They decided to donate their inheritance to anticapitalist groups that “tackle the externalities of discount shopping.”[2]



Delahunt now has a master’s degree in education and gives speeches to children, such as one geared toward middle and high schoolers called “Vegan Praxis in a Political Context of White Supremacy.” As a professional biography says: “Their research was a study of activist-education programs throughout the country. They grew up in occupied Lenape territories of New York and New Jersey, and . . . teach social emotional learning, activism, social justice, and Leftist eco nomics.”[3]

Key to Delahunt’s activities was a group called Resource Generation, a group funded by the Ford Foundation and the W. K. Kellogg Foundation to coax guilt-ridden young scions of millionaires into steering their families’ funds to activist groups that oppose capitalism. Delahunt is one of a thousand or so dues-paying members of Resource Generation, a network that stands to influence a combined $22 billion in inheritance. The group held “workshops on family dynamics” to train young inheritors how to siphon off their parents’ money on the premise that capitalism is based on “stolen land, stolen labor, and stolen lives.”[4]

This is typical of how philanthropic foundations like Ford and Kellogg work. Elite, well-heeled foundation executives use the billions from their endowments—a massed through capitalism—to create various associations and activist groups. Those nonprofits radicalize youth by associating racism with America, and America with capitalism. The foundation money serves as seed money that is eventually leveraged by another source. The foundations have created their own mouthpieces, and gotten others to pay for it.

There are hundreds of such activist groups, local and national, pushing complaints about “systemic racism,” equity, and the evils of capitalism to public schools and children. It is a veritable industry, breathtaking in its volume and complexity.

But like the Hydra of Greek mythology—the immortal, multi-headed snake monster that, if someone cut off a head, would grow two more in its place—these activist groups are all parts of one machine. Pick any one of them, and its funding is likely to tie back to the foundations, primarily Ford; Gates; W. K. Kellogg; Annie E. Casey; MacArthur; and Surdna. There is also the New Venture Fund, a group that pools money from all of these foundations and then distributes it.



The Ford Foundation spent $665 million on “racial equity” between 2011 and 2020. But foundations do not simply subsidize existing, independent nonprofits. They decide what they want to allocate their focus and money to, then a crowd of activist groups lines up with grant proposals promising to do just that, even if it means diverting from what those groups would have otherwise done. In October 2020, Ford announced $180 million in new funding for racial equity, with a focus on litigation—perhaps suing over racism and fighting for the likes of racial quotas in the courts. In making this decision, Darren Walker, the gay black former securities trader who leads the foundation, was like a coach calling the play, sending his players out into position, and setting the course of American activism.[5]

Equity grantee groups are professional outfits, but many operate in largely esoteric areas such as school board policy making and curriculum development, where the “other team” is simply regular parents, who rarely have the time or know-how to resist, or even notice these efforts. The obscurity of their work makes them harder to challenge.

In 2016, Hillary Clinton spent more than half a billion dollars on her presidential campaign. By comparison, the Ford, Kellogg, and MacArthur foundations alone commanded assets of nearly $27 billion and, between them, doled out more than one billion dollars in 2015.[6] Imagine having the resources of two presidential political campaigns without having to worry about expensive advertising, because the arena they were influencing was, to the average citizen, so small and arcane.

Then imagine that in this presidential campaign, there was no opposing candidate—essentially no organized faction presenting a competing choice.

Then imagine that the views being pushed by this campaign were far more extreme than a mainstream candidate like Clinton—ideas that, if Americans had been paying attention, most would oppose, regardless of political party.

Now imagine that the people behind this campaign were among the wealthiest, most powerful people in America, working in close coordination, and that their arena was the nation’s K–12 schools. This is how this game is actually being played.

In this framework, the foundations seek to transform America in ways few Americans would want, and to do it, they seek to transform your children, by influencing the largest and most intimate thing government does: operating America’s public schools. For some reason, this is viewed as an obscure policy arena by most people, who spend more time paying attention to things like presidential politics. But it shouldn’t be. And the philanthropic foundations should not be thought of as merely the rich families who paid for some art museums or public television programming. These rogue foundations are perhaps the most radical, powerful, and least understood force in American politics. And their aspirations go far beyond the outcome of an election.

Please visit Capital Research for all citations and sources.
--by Luke Rosiak

Post Date: 2022-05-23 16:50:21Last Update: 2022-05-23 17:15:37


Amendment C Made Easy
UPDATED 5/24/22 By Representative Kevin Jensen

UPDATED NOTE 5/24/22 “I want to clarify my position - I Voted yes, and I encourage others to do the same as I think it should be more difficult for out-of-state groups, and corporations to raise your taxes.” - Rep Kevin Jensen on follow-up.

Everywhere I go while campaigning in District 16, the most frequently asked question is “What’s the deal on Amendment C?” The truth is, one side is doing a terrible marketing job and the other is just flat out deceiving you.

Let’s start with some facts. In order for the legislature to raise taxes and spend money, a two- thirds majority is required in the House and in the Senate and the Governor must sign it. That two thirds is of what we refer to as ‘members elect,’ which means two thirds of all the elected legislators, not just two thirds of those voting. If 5 people are absent it still takes two thirds of both houses, or of all 105 legislators, to pass it. If they are absent it is considered a 'No' vote.

There are currently 640,185 registered voters in South Dakota. According to the Secretary of State’s office there are 576,829 ‘active’ voters. I am not certain what they deem is an active voter, but these numbers do not include deceased individuals. So, to keep the math simple I will use the number 600,000 to represent ‘the voters.’

The ‘vote yes’ campaign keeps using the phrase – ‘60% of the voters.’ That is a little misleading because there are potentially 600,000 voters (using the example above). The truth, is that it currently only takes a simple majority of THOSE WHO VOTED to raise your taxes. If we have a 60% voter turnout, that means only 360,000 people voted. A simple majority is then 180,001. So in this scenario, it only takes 180,001 voters to raise your taxes, which represents less than one third of the total number of potential voters.



And now, the misleading ads. The ‘vote no’ campaign makes claims that it ends majority rule and it allows the minority to raise your taxes. Well folks, the TRUTH is, that is what we already have! In almost every possible scenario, a minority is all that is required to raise your taxes, even if Amendment C passes. In my previous example it CLEARLY shows that a minority of the voters can raise your taxes, and unless we get all 600,000+ to go to the polls it will likely always be that way.

Amendment C raises the requirement to raise your taxes from a simple majority of 50% of those voting to a majority of 60%. Using the previously used number of 360,000 people voting, it would raise the number required to increase taxes to 216,000. That clearly is still a minority of all the voters (600,000).

What neither side is telling in the ads is that none of Amendment C goes into effect unless the ballot measure or Constitutional amendment you are voting on commits the state to spending 10 million dollars or more. If it does not commit over 10 million in taxes or fees, the 50% simple majority is still the law.

Help Support Community Journalism... DONATE TODAY!

--Kevin Jensen Majority Whip District 16 SD House of Representatives

Post Date: 2022-05-23 14:01:28Last Update: 2022-05-24 12:13:04


The Full List of Conservatives That Gov. Noem and Sen. Lee Schoenbeck are Working to Replace
By Breeauna Sagdal

Sources tell The Dakota Leader a full hit-list of who to support and whom to oppose this primary, was recently circulated by Senator Lee Schoenbeck (R-Watertown), and sent to South Dakota political insiders with money. As reported by Joe Sneve of The Argus Leader, the hit-list is comprised of South Dakota's most conservative representatives in the State's House and Senate.

During a recent debate in Watertown, Schoenbeck alleged that Gov. Kristi Noem fully supported his efforts to rid the state of "wack-a-doodles," meaning the most conservative voices that opposed Noem's efforts to shut down the state during COVID-19. Even within the state of South Dakota, it is not widely known that a group of 29 conservatives in the house voted against Noem's bills to close the state on March 30, 2020, while the
Lt. Governor, Larry Rhoden and the senate leadership drank at a nearby lobbyist's house.

"In the primary, she's (Gov. Noem) probably the greatest asset we have," Schoenbeck stated during the Watertown debate, with conservative challenger and Watertown City Council Member, Colin Paulsen. "Our oars are rowing in the same directions," Schoenbeck told the audience regarding his joint efforts with Gov. Noem to replace conservatives.

Daniel Horowitz of The Blaze,
recently wrote an op-ed detailing Gov. Noem's support of the candidates who are opposing the very same conservative incumbents that Lee Schoenbeck is attacking, via mailers. In his op-ed, Horowitz shares a partial list of the those who the South Dakota establishment is to support and oppose.

The Dakota Leader now brings readers the entire list.

Editor's note- Names outlined in red, only represent those who are known conservative incumbents in the House and Senate, running for re-election.

Gov. Kristi Noem has denied involvement, telling supporters that she is not working with Sen. Lee Schoenbeck. However, as shown in The Argus Leader article, Noem has offered candidate school seminars, made endorsements and is supporting the primary challengers to the incumbents denoted on the list in red.

While Noem's South Dakota PAC states that it is not willing to "go negative," Noem has publicly chastised Republican incumbents that have opposed her actions. Conservative Representative Fred Deutsch (R-Florence) was recently attacked by Gov. Noem, and his primary challenger Stephanie Sauder, when the two women appeared together on a radio program. Noem accused Deutsch of doing damage and being a poor legislator, while openly endorsing Sauder to replace Deutsch. Noem has also endorsed/supported Rachel Dix, the primary opponent of conservative Sen. Al Norvstrup (R-Aberdeen). Dix, who is on the board of two housing authorities, was a registered Democrat prior to filing this primary. Dix is running as a Republican, on a left-leaning "woke" platform of subsidized housing, socialized medicine, and social justice policies.



Possibly most damning however, is Noem's refusal to publicly disavow any connection to Lee Schoenbeck's efforts, along with her endorsement of Lee's son, Jake Schoenbeck currently running for the House.

Meanwhile, Schoenbeck via his South Dakota Strong PAC, (not associated with Noem's South Dakota Strong PAC) is going negative, and attacking these same incumbents with mailers, billboards and t.v ads.

According to one South Dakota senator who has asked to remain anonymous, "everyone knows Noem and Schoenbeck are working together, you'd have to be blind not to see it."

Help Support The Dakota Leader... DONATE TODAY!

--Breeauna Sagdal- Editor At Large

Post Date: 2022-05-21 14:49:50Last Update: 2022-05-21 17:12:41


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.



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.



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



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



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.



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


Roe v. Wade Reversal: What Would It Mean For The Future Of Privacy Rights?
COUNTERSPEECH with Constitutional Law Professor Deana Sacks

Deana Sacks hosts Counterspeech with guest Emily Anderson to discuss the leaked draft opinion by Justice Alito in the pending case Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, which threatens to reverse Roe v. Wade (1973) such that there is no federal constitutional right of abortion. The right of abortion was found to be implicit in the privacy aspect of the Liberty Clause in Roe v. Wade. Other rights such as the right of gay sexual autonomy have also been found to be implicit in the privacy aspect of the Liberty Clause (Lawrence v. Texas, 2003). If Roe v. Wade is reversed, are other rights implicit in the Liberty Clause also at risk for being dismantled? Could the constitutional right of privacy be at risk altogether?



--Re-Published by The Dakota Leader With Full Permission from COUNTERSPEECH on Rumble

Post Date: 2022-05-17 13:31:24Last Update: 2022-05-17 13:48:13


Democratic Operatives and SDEA Fight Amendment C to Push Medicaid Expansion

New advertising has hit South Dakota's airwaves in an attempt to stop Amendment C. The ads are funded by a PAC (Political Action Committee) called "South Dakotans For Fair Elections".

Ads use clever messaging and inverse logic to claim that “Amendment C will end majority rule for ballot measures,” omitting the fact that Amendment C would require 60 percent of voters (the majority) to agree on tax increases. While a search of the PAC’s website shows a campaign completely reliant upon omissions of information, e.g “Amendment C will block decisions that most voters want, including funding for law enforcement, rural healthcare centers, our schools and more.” In this example, messaging fails to disclose that the source of funding would come from ballot measure tax increases, which circumnavigate SD tax protections.

A blank “Endorsement” page states, “Amendment C faces widespread opposition from business owners, workers, mayors of our cities and rural residents alike all oppose C because they know it’s wrong for South Dakota’s future. Vote “NO” on Amendment C.” Again, it’s hard to know who these business owners and rural residents are, who supposedly oppose making it harder to raise their taxes, because the endorsement page is completely blank. Given that Amendment C would only apply to tax increases and big government spending, proponents for Amendment C are calling the ads misleading at best.

George Eccarius, of Americans For Prosperity, a Sioux Falls based organization supporting Amendment C, told The Dakota Leader in a phone call Wednesday morning, Amendment C is just good policy.

"We would support Amendment C on the primary ballot, or the general ballot, it's just good policy," Eccarius says. "South Dakota has taxpayer protections in the legislature, which requires a 2/3rds majority to pass tax increases, but those safeguards do not extend to ballot measures. Special interest groups think it should be easy to use ballot measures to tax your money and spend it on their priorities with just 50.0001% of the vote."

According to the South Dakota Secretary of State, the South Dakotans For Fair Elections PAC was filed by Ashley Kingsdon of Huron, SD. Kingsdon owns an in-home care organization called Independent Health Solutions. Kingsdon "launched Independent Health Solutions to provide in-home care for the chronically ill, aging adults and disabled populations. Independent Health Solutions is now helping South Dakota's aging population live independently and actively, while addressing the rural healthcare shortage," according to her LinkedIn profile.

The Dakota Leader reached out to Ashley Kingsdon, in an effort to better understand the connection between her in-home healthcare organization, and her PAC's statement of organization, listed as an effort to "To Stop Amendment C".

Kingsdon is unavailable for the next week according to a receptionist for Independent Health Solutions. However, upon further scrutiny The Dakota Leader finds that Independent Health Solutions
receives nearly 66 percent of its client billing from Medicaid. In 2020 the organization also received 176,200 thousand dollars in PPE loans, accounting for the lionshare of their half-a-million in revenue for the 2021 fiscal year.

According to FCC filings, Kingsdon's PAC has hired Sen Kozar Strategies, a left-leaning political consultant, and media relations group. Testimonials, on the Sen Kozar website, boast their work in overturning Colorado from a Red state to a Blue state, along with a photo of Nancy Pelosi, and testimonials speaking to their work on ballot measures.

FCC filings also revealed Minnesota based accountant and Democratic political operative Shelli Hesselroth, as the PAC's treasurer. Hesselroth has ties to Democratic campaigns in Colorado, Nevada and Minnesota. Hesselroth's efforts in a recent Minnesota campaign made headlines
due to transparency issues.

Possibly of most peculiar interest is the involvement of
Sandra Waltman in the efforts to stop Amendment C. Waltman is the Government Affairs Director for the SDEA, South Dakota's chapter of the National Teachers Union (NEA). The NEA has been embroiled in controversy lately due to a push for Critical Race Theory and the Sexualization of youth within classrooms.



So what does the government affairs director of the South Dakota Teachers Union, a Democratic operative, a left-leaning consultancy group, and the owner of an in-home healthcare organization for the elderly and chronically ill, have to do with tax increases?

Like their sister organization, SouthDakotans4Health states on its website, the issue boils down to Medicaid Expansion. Medicaid expansion is being proposed as a ballot measure by South Dakota political operative Rick Weiland. Weiland, backed by millions of dollars from Sanford and Avera, is not only spearheading efforts to stop Amendment C, but he is also working to expand medicaid in South Dakota on behalf of the hospitals.

“Medicaid expansion is the definition of big government spending. It'll require tax increases or cuts to pay for it," Eccarius explains. "Nearly half of our budget goes toward education currently. If Medicaid Expansion passes, that money needs to come from somewhere. Our lawmakers are constitutionally required to balance our budget in South Dakota, and unfortunately that could mean tough choices."

According to a Medicaid/Medicare FAQ, "When most Americans reach the age of 65, they are automatically enrolled in the Medicare program, which currently covers nearly 96 percent of the country’s elderly.”

Medicare covers 55 million Americans, or roughly 17% of the population, and its beneficiaries are the country’s oldest, sickest, and most disabled citizens, with three-quarters having one or more chronic conditions and one-quarter rating their health as fair or poor.

Groups currently working to stop Amendment C, in order to pass medicaid expansion, insist that medicaid is desperately needed in South Dakota.
However, wallethub ranks South Dakota 10th in the nation for access, affordability, and patient health outcomes. Health insurance for a family of four in South Dakota, starts at $32.00 a month via the marketplace.

According to Forbes and The Manhattan Institute, "medicaid poses a severe fiscal threat to many state budgets. Due to federal restrictions on Medicaid program management, state tools for managing Medicaid budgets are largely limited to adjusting payment rates for providers. Over time, this has resulted in severe underpayment of doctors and hospitals, preventing many Medicaid recipients from gaining access to basic and specialist health care. This access problem, in turn, leads to significantly worse health outcomes and higher mortality rates for Medicaid recipients when compared with private insurance and even Medicare.

Read the Full Brief Here

Physicians For Reform compared health outcomes in states with Medicaid expansion, showing that minorities are disproportionately impacted by the lower standard of care. The group asserts that Medicaid provides the worst healthcare outcomes compared to every other form of insurance in America.



Investopedia estimates that Medicaid is currently costing U.S taxpayers an average of $12,530 per person. That figure is about to rise due to new earmarks within Biden's American Rescue Plan.

Possibly more astounding, is that a mere 20-40 cents of every dollar is actually going towards healthcare.
According to ProPublica, Medicaid is one of the largest government entities lobbying policy makers for its own expansion, and it does so using U.S. tax dollars.

The CMS (Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Services) estimates that healthcare spending will grow by 5.4 percent each year between 2019 and 2028. Meaning healthcare is expected to cost an estimated $6.2 trillion by 2028. Projections also indicate
that health spending will grow 1.1 percent faster than the country's Gross Domestic Product from 2019 to 2028.

That's quite the incentive to stop a constitutional limitation on tax increases. If Amendment C is passed, 60 percent of South Dakota voters would then need to agree to expand the failing Medicaid system.

Help Support Community Journalism... DONATE TODAY!

--Breeauna Sagdal- Health and Policy Journalist for The Dakota Leader

Post Date: 2022-05-12 09:38:26Last Update: 2022-05-12 10:43:13


The Dakota Leader LIVE on The Robert Scott Bell Show
Monday May 16, 2022

The Dakota Leader is quickly growing and attracting national attention. Editor at Large, and The Dakota Leader's Health and Policy Journalist, Breeauna Sagdal will be a guest on The Robert Scott Bell Show this Monday the 16th, at 2:30pm central.

Bell and Sagdal will discuss South Dakota health policies, political dynamics and the special interest fight for Medicaid Expansion.

Tune-in Live via FACEBOOK

OR catch the show later via
Apple Podcasts

--Staff Reports

Post Date: 2022-05-12 09:08:07Last Update: 2022-05-12 09:38:26


Letter to The Editor- A Response to Voter Suppression Article
By Patrick W. Schubert Sr

Up until 1978-1980 it was impossible for any candidates to be suppressed during the Primary Process. Any man or woman could get petitions, signatures and support and run for any office in their state. It was illegal for any party to support, endorse or fund any candidates prior to the people's Primary vote. This was a plan by BOTH parties to slowly take control of elections, have control over all candidates and ensure unfriendly candidates don't get anywhere near the General Election ballots. Their goal was almost realized, until Trump came along. His candidacy & victory helped keep the citizen politician in the fight and they are winning now! Had Hillary won the Citizen Politician would have been dragged out behind the chemical sheds...

Lawyers for the Republicans & Democrats got together and challenged what was a law in almost every state. The lawyers argued, on both sides that if the parties were not involved in the pre-primary process, the citizens would not be represented "properly". Nobody defended the People's position in this process. They used the "suppression of the Parties was unconstitutional" against the People's Right to free & fair elections. They won, and state by state these laws were removed from the books...This decision was made with a heavy liberal leaning Supreme Court. This needs to come back up in front of a Conservative Supreme Court. Currently it has led to situations like are described in 2000 Mules. States like New Jersey, New York and California have used this power to install irremovable Super Majorities. It has also led to Campaign Funding laws such as McCain-Feingold which is nothing more than a way to hide the sources of billions from hostile foreign nations that are attempting to buy candidates friendly to them and hostile to America as a whole.

This is verifiable by looking at the removed laws in the Election Laws for any state. SD lists some laws as removed and there's no access to what the law was prior to its removal. An experienced election lawyer would know what the law was.

The current Republican Party in SD is no better than the Democrats by silencing any candidates that do not subscribe to their agenda. The party has openly prevented any non-incumbent from gaining access to their membership. During my campaign the top question I got was would I bow out to minimize the challengers to Thune. No candidate would say they're quitting if they feel they are the best in the bunch. Who survives to get on the ballot is not the choice of the candidates, it is the choice of the People. Candidates should be given opportunities to debate, be questioned and interact with citizens. After January 1 when petitions are out, every county party should be having events like debates and a vote by the membership determining who gets the endorsement of each county party to be on the ballot. Currently the concept is bring the Incumbents to an event with softball questions on short notice. They protect Incumbents and deflect any and all challengers.

My campaign may be over, of my own choosing but I surely have plans for the future. I know 1 thing for sure, the top tier of the Republican party here has to be overturned. It needs to be led by people who will empower their members to be involved and be heard. I met a lot of citizens who would not join their local Republican groups because they don't trust the parties on any level and they were also not happy a portion of their dues gets divided up by national & state party groups that helped overthrow the People's choice for President. This leads to citizens who truly are Republicans registering as Independents thinking its a protest against the state's non-functioning party when in reality it prevents them from voting in the primary against candidates they feel should be removed.

There is nothing about this process that is for ensuring a government of the People, by the People or for the People... The parties are preserving, protecting and defending their stranglehold on We the People's right to a free and fair process.

Help Support Community Journalism... DONATE TODAY!

--Patrick W. Schubert Sr.

Post Date: 2022-05-11 13:54:44Last Update: 2022-05-11 13:13:53


Read More Articles