Cold Day in Hell May Affect SD Highway Funding

By Gordon Garnos

AT ISSUE: For months now South Dakotans have been hearing about the shortage of funds in the state's highway fund program. This, with the reduction of fuel being used on our highways, has also caused a cut in the amount of gasoline tax the state gets from motorists. This, of course, adds to the problem of how South Dakota is going to be able to not only maintain its highways and bridges, but to repair and/or replace our highways and bridges.

The lack of funding also poses several interesting questions.

A FORMER West River long time legislator was guaranteed re-elections when he profoundly uttered his often used expression, "It will be a cold day in hell before I'll ever vote for a raise in taxes."

This and similar expressions have almost always been favorites to South Dakota voters. We have been generally recognized nationally for our conservative views, particularly when it comes to raising taxes. However, considering the shortfall on highway funding, South Dakota now finds both voters as well as our legislators may have to rethink "cold day in hell".

A special legislative committee has been meeting off and on for the past several weeks trying to assemble the pieces of the puzzle that will help solve highway funding. Ideas generated from these meetings have run the gamut from the proposal to have yet another study committee, to increasing South Dakota's 22-cent gas tax by several percentage points.

HERE ARE SOME pieces of the puzzle that make an interesting picture. First of all, one piece of the picture puzzle is the fact that $72.3 million will be needed to maintain our roads as they are. Another $17 million is needed for bridge preservation. Yet another $25 million is the cost of the wish list by the Department of Transportation which needs to be done, but which are not scheduled due to the lack of funding.

As I mentioned, the possible solutions are extremely varied. For example, the legislature would have to raise its current 22-cent tax on gasoline and 20 cents per gallon on ethanol by 13 cents a gallon to come close to raising the $72.3 million needed for highway preservation. This appears to be excessive, but if a portion of this proposal would be combined with other tax and fee raises, the $72.3 million may be able to be reached.

ANOTHER SUGGESTION to raise that $72.3 million would be to add the four percent sales tax to the purchase of fuel. It would appear that these two options are the best solutions because using motor fuels would make everyone on the highway share the load. I might add that when I say everyone, this includes those thousands of people, maybe millions, who use South Dakota as a drive-through state.

At the same time, raising license plate fees a few dollars should not cripple any of us too severely. Another option that has been discussed would be to remove the fees on license plates for older vehicles. However, the older cars are generally owned by those who cannot afford newer cars.

This would put a major stumbling block on this proposal.

THERE YOU HAVE IT, a picture puzzle that may not have the l,000 piece puzzle that we used to put together as kids. But assembling the few pieces we do have makes the job as difficult.

How the legislature will resolve the highway funding problem will be dealt with in just a few short weeks. Other options would be to do nothing at all or throw it to another study committee which are both bad ideas.

Consequently, if anything is going to be done, our legislature will have to realize there may be a "cold day in hell" as well as in Pierre awaiting them....

Gordon Garnos was long-time editor of the Watertown Public Opinion and recently retired after 39 years with that newspaper. Garnos, a lifelong resident of South Dakota except for his military service in the U.S. Air Force, was born and raised in Presho.

More Petty Bitterness from Stan Adelstein

Stan Adelstein never lets you down, does he? That is, if you're looking for a small, bitter person who's very stuck on himself.

Tom Lawrence of the Rapid City Weekly News says a couple of weeks ago the paper wanted take a photo of the three candidates for Dist. 32 senate for the front page of the paper: incumbent Democrat Tom Katus, Independent Elli Schwiesow and Republican Stan Adelstein.

But one of the trio doesn't work and play well with others.

Elli was the first one I asked and she quickly said yes. Tom also agreed, with a wry smile and a joke about he and Stan being “two thorns next to a rose” when they posed with Elli.

Stan liked the idea but chose not to be in the picture. “It’s good journalism but bad politics,” he said.

We were stuck without Stan. They’re a set -- you can’t have two without the third.

Yes, I'm sure it's "bad politics." More likely that he despises Elli Schwiesow so badly that he not only threw her out of Republican HQ (a building he owns but leased to the GOP) this summer, but can't stand to be in a picture with her.

No wonder Adelstein is thought of by other legislators as a "cancer" in the Republican caucus.

What a pity that by less than 200 votes, the people of Dist. 32 chose this man over someone who far better represents Republican values and is probably the nicest person you'll ever meet: Elli Schwiesow.

Adelstein Already Showing His Colors

Stan Adelstein, the winner of last night's Dist. 32 senate race, has already illustrated why he is a lousy choice to represent the good people of Dist. 32.

From the Rapid City Journal today:

Tom Katus said he visited Adelstein personally to congratulate him and urged him to reach out to all the voters in the district, include Schwiesow’s supporters.

“He didn’t appreciate that, he said they didn’t respond to him,” Katus said. “It’s part of what still wrong with this part of South Dakota, we’re still too polarized, we’re still one-party.”

Didn't take long, did it? Just a few hours, and the grandfatherly smile disappears and the fangs come out.

Contrast that with the ever-graceful Elli Schwiesow:

While the race has been flagged by the Secretary of State’s office for a possible recall, Schwiesow, a registered Republican, says she’s “at peace” with the results and she hasn’t yet decided yet whether she’ll press for a review of the vote.

How long do you think it'll be before the voters of Dist. 32 wake up to the truth that they've elected a bitter RINO whose greatest political attribute is his large wealth?

Dist.32 Schwiesow, Adelstein, Katus Race in Possible Recount

According to the South Dakota Secretary of State website, all precincts are in for legislative District 32 and Republican Stan Adelstein has a 151 vote lead on Independent Elli Schwiesow, with incumbent Democrat Tom Katus bringing up third.

The percentage breakdown sits at 34.92% for Adelstein, 33.54% for Schwiesow, and 31.54% for Katus.

The results are flagged "Possible Recount" on the website.

It is doubtful a recount could help Schwiesow close a 151 vote gap...but who knows?

Regardless, Elli has fought a tremendous grassroots campaign against a very, very wealthy and connected opponent. She can hold her head high no matter what the outcome.

And as always, she has upheld Republican values in the finest tradition...even if she did have an "I" after her name in this campaign.

Rapid City Area Legislative Update

No significant change in any of the Rapid City area legislative races.

Rapid City Area Legislative Results Coming In

Results are starting to come in for the Rapid City area legislative races.

Right now, in the Dist. 32 Senate race, Republican Stan Adelstein has a 1.84 percentage point lead on Independent Elli Schwiesow; incumbent Democrat Tom Katus is third, .76 percentage points behind Schwiesow.

Republicans Dreyer and Gosche are ahead in the Dist. 32 House race.

In Dist. 33, Republican Dennis Schmidt is ahead of Democrat challenger Dennis Finch 55-44. Both Republicans (Phil Jensen and Jacqueline Sly) are on track to win both House seats.

In Dist 34, Republican and former police chief Craig Tiezen is out in front for the senate seat with 68%, and both Republicans Lust and McLaughlin are on track for a win in the state House.

Finally, in Dist. 35, all the Republicans are looking good: Jeff Haverly for Senate, and Don Kopp and Mark Kirkeby for House.

West River Legislative Updates

In the Mountain time zone, West River legislative races have been slow to start showing results, but some are starting to come in.

In Dist. 29 with 8/40 precincts reporting, former House Majority Leader Larry Rhoden is out in front in his race for state senate: 66.63%

In Dist. 30, Gordon Howie is ahead 60-40 with 7/39 reporting.

Voter Guide - South Dakota Legislature

The South Dakota Family Policy Council has compiled a voter guide which covers a broad range of questions which can help you vote your values when picking a legislative candidate today.

The questions asked of legislative candidates are as follows:


1 Support an act to require abortion facilities to offer sonograms to pregnant women?

2 Support an act to revise certain provisions regarding the rulemaking authority of the South Dakota Board of Education for prekindergarten programs?

3 Support an act to regulate the location and hours of operation of adult oriented businesses? e.g., strip clubs, massage parlors, adult book stores, cabarets, adult theaters.

4 Support an act to clarify the application of certain statutes relative to contraception and birth control? This measure takes away and repeals current legal protections for pharmacists that allow them to exercise their conscience in whether to dispense medication that could cause an abortion.

5 Support an act to regulate the right to carry a firearm on the campuses of public institutions of higher education? The legislation allows law abiding citizens to bare arms for self defense on college campuses.

6 Support an act to allow a home school student to partially enroll in the student's resident school district or in another school district under certain circumstances and to clarify certain testing requirements for students who are partially enrolled? This bill would allow home-schooled students to attend a public school less than 50
percent of the time.

7 Support an act to bring transparency to state spending by requiring the Bureau of Finance and Management to create a website making certain state government information available to the public? This bill would require the state government to publish a website with information on how all tax dollars are spent.

8 Support extending to homosexual couples the legal benefits, rights, and privileges that the state currently provides to married couples?

9 Support legislation that prohibits adoption of children to homosexual parents?

10 Support a health education curriculum that teaches sexual abstinence is the only 100% effective method in preventing sexually transmitted diseases?

11 Support the expansion of public education to offer Universal Pre-Kindergarten for all three and four year olds?

Click here for the guide.

Pro-Homosexual Legislative Endorsements in South Dakota

We've had a first this year in South Dakota: the first time we've seen a pro-homosexual group come out and endorse a list of legislative candidates.

Equality South Dakota has endorsed several legislative candidates across the state and has provided many of them with campaign contributions.

In order to receive the endorsement and the cash, candidates had to fill out a survey from EqSD.

Here are the questions EqSD asked on their survey:

1. Employment Discrimination: In South Dakota, it is legal to fire or refuse to hire someone just because they are lesbian, gay, bisexual, heterosexual, or transgender. More than 430 of the Fortune 500 companies have already adopted inclusive antidiscrimination policies and 74% of Americans support legislation that would ban employment discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity by state and local governments. In concept, would you support such a bill?

2. Safe Schools
Studies show that lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender students face disproportionate levels of violence, harassment, and discrimination in public schools. A recent survey found that when these students reported harassment to school officials, it went unaddressed 73% of the time. Equality SD believes the legislature must send a clear message to school officials that every student has a right to a safe learning environment, regardless of race, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, religion or disability. In concept would you support legislation requiring school systems to adopt inclusive harassment and discrimination policies?

3. Relationship Recognition
Because same sex couples can legally be denied access to their partners in health care settings, such as hospital emergency room events, gays and lesbians have lost partners without entry to their deathbed or the ability to comfort their loved in their last hour. In concept, would you support legislation granting hospital visitation rights and similar protections that recognize gay relationships.

These questions were designed to seem benign and non-threatening items that many reasonable but uninformed people might support. They are actually vehicles used to advance an agenda of homosexual legitimization and to force acceptance of homosexual behavior on society.

Unless a homosexual is flaunting their sexual behavior openly, an employer probably isn't going to even know they're a homosexual. Many business owners these days wouldn't care anyway. And for those employers who try to run a Christian business that is part of the testimony of their faith, they should not be forced to compromise their testimony with an employee who does openly thumb their nose at their deeply held religious values.

As for safe schools, how about school officials protect every student from bullying? If they aren't, they should be. And if they are, why do homosexuals need special protection? The "safe schools" initiative is nothing but a vehicle to force legitimization and acceptance of homosexuality onto young, impressionable minds.

And as for visitation rights, homosexuals can take care of this with a power of attorney if they'd like. But their relationship has done nothing positive for society to merit the special considerations given to legitimate marital and family relationships.

Marriages produce children, the next generation to continue a society; homosexual couples are completely incapable of producing children--something a society needs. Homosexual relationships provide no positive benefit to society deserving of the kind of recognition awarded to married couples

Here is the list of candidates EqSD endorsed in the 2008 general election:

Elaine Elliott, Democrat, House District 2, Aberdeen.
Daniel Kaiser, Republican, House District 2, Aberdeen.
Mark Remily, Democrat, House District 3, Aberdeen.
Curt Johnson, Democrat, House District 5, Watertown. (new endorsement)
Dennis Nemmers, Democrat, Senate District 6, Castlewood.
Mitch Fargen, Democrat, House District 8, Flandreau.
Patricia Stricherz, Republican, House District 8, Dell Rapids.
Marlyn "Sonny" Beebe, Democrat, House District 9, Sioux Falls. (new endorsement)
Clara Hart, Democrat, District 10 Senate, Sioux Falls. (new endorsement)
Mary Ann Giebink, Democrat, House District 10, Sioux Falls.
Nate Welch, Democrat, Senate District 11, Sioux Falls.
Darrell Solberg, Democrat, House District 11, Sioux Falls.
Greg Kniffen, Democrat, House District 12, Sioux Falls.
Paula Johnson, Democrat, House District 12, Sioux Falls.
Susy Blake, Democrat, House District 13, Sioux Falls.
Bill Thompson, Democrat, House District 13, Sioux Falls.
Bob Stevens, Democrat, Senate District 14, Sioux Falls.
Jacey Harmon, Democrat, House District 14, Sioux Falls.
Martha Vanderlinde, Democrat, House District 15, Sioux Falls.
Janelle O'Connor, Democrat, House District 16, Alcester.
Ben Nesselhuf, Democrat, Senate District 17, Vermillion.
Roger Tigert, Republican, House District 17, Vermillion. (new endorsement)
Bernie Hunhoff, Democrat, House District 18, Yankton.
Nicholas Nemec, Democrat, Senate District 23, Holabird.
Kim Sargent, Democrat, Senate District 24, Pierre.
Larry Lucas, Democrat, House District 26A, Mission.
Kevin Killer, Democrat, House District 27, Pine Ridge.
Everett Hunt, Republican, House District 28A, Eagle Butte.
Fred McPherson, Democrat, House District 29, Sturgis.
Jacqueline Gerenz, Democrat, House District 30, Custer.
Nyla Griffith, Democrat, Senate District 31, Deadwood.
Kevin O'Dea, Democrat, House District 31, Spearfish.
Eric Abrahamson, Democrat, House District 32, Rapid City.
Bethany Wojahn, Democrat, House District 32, Rapid City.
Dennis Finch, Democrat, Senate District 33, Rapid City.
Jeff Nelsen, Democrat, House District 33, Rapid City.
Craig Tieszen, Republican, Senate District 34, Rapid City.
Bonny Petersen, Democrat, House District 34, Rapid City. (new endorsement)
Fern Johnson, Democrat, House District 35, Rapid City.
Curtis Marquardt, Democrat, House District 35, Rapid City.

Keep these in mind when you head to the polls today and vote your values.

Elli Schwiesow on Health Care in South Dakota

Dakota Voice wraps up our series on issues with District 32 Independent Senate candidate Elli Schwiesow.

Schwiesow, a life-long Republican, faces Republican Stan Adelstein and Democrat Tom Katus in tomorrow's election.

In this series, Schwiesow has discussed her stand on the issues of taxes, Second Amendment rights, universal preschool, energy, Native American issues, Initiated Measure 11, and education funding. In today's final installment she discusses health care.

Asked about the Zaniya Health Care Task Force which took place last year, Schwiesow said that while the task force compiled a great deal of useful statistics, it remains unclear just what will be done with them and where they may be used to take health care in South Dakota.

"I am concerned about who is setting the agenda," said Schwiesow. "Do they have consumers in mind or do they have those involved in the health care industry in mind?"

Schwiesow thinks the best role the government can and should play is simply to keep the playing field level.

"It's difficult to do even that when dealing with the monopolies often involved in health care," said Schwiesow. "Things like insurance companies, hospitals, physicians...each entity presents huge barriers to entry that prevent competition."

"I do not favor government involvement," she continued. "I would like someone at the state or federal level to remove artificial barriers so that a South Dakota consumer could shop around and purchase health insurance in any state to receive the best plan his money could buy. Consumers in states adjoining South Dakota pay less for similar health plans than we do. That is not right and it would seem a simple matter to require that any insurer that does business in South Dakota should extend the same premiums to our citizens that they receive in bordering states.

"I've always though that health care should be competitive, and insurance should be competitive. Surrounding states have much cheaper insurance than South Dakota, and if we opened our markets to insurance from other states that would help greatly."

Schwiesow also said we should try to expand insurance pools to reduce risk so that older citizens are not priced out of the market while others are denied access due to pre-existing conditions.

She also believes consumer involvement is key in improving our system and bringing down costs. This includes the customer being more involved in health care decisions and cost options, but also in simple things like taking better care of ourselves with better diet and exercise.

"America has the best health care system in the world," said Schwiesow. "People from around the world including Canada come for the quality care we have here.

"Is health care the responsibility of government, and what do you do about all the uninsured people? I believe it is something for private individuals to work out, it certainly isn't the government's role to do that."

Pro-Homosexual Candidate Scurries for Cover in Dist. 33

The Rapid City Journal is upset that an issue postcard went out about Dennis Finch, Democrat candidate for District 33 senate.

The pink postcard from a group from Hermosa called Family Matters features a pic of two homosexual men about to kiss and asks: "Does Democrat Candidate Dennis Finch support this?

Why, you might ask, would the Family Matters group believe Finch would support homosexual behavior? Because the pro-homosexual group "Equality South Dakota" or EqSD endorsed him and several other pro-homosexual candidates back in July.

In order to receive an endorsement and/or campaign contributions from EqSD, candidates had to fill out a survey from EqSD. And I can't imagine this pro-homosexual group would give an endorsement and/or financial contributions if they didn't like the answers they received.

Here are the questions EqSD asked on their survey:

1. Employment Discrimination: In South Dakota, it is legal to fire or refuse to hire someone just because they are lesbian, gay, bisexual, heterosexual, or transgender. More than 430 of the Fortune 500 companies have already adopted inclusive antidiscrimination policies and 74% of Americans support legislation that would ban employment discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity by state and local governments. In concept, would you support such a bill?

2. Safe Schools
Studies show that lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender students face disproportionate levels of violence, harassment, and discrimination in public schools. A recent survey found that when these students reported harassment to school officials, it went unaddressed 73% of the time. Equality SD believes the legislature must send a clear message to school officials that every student has a right to a safe learning environment, regardless of race, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, religion or disability. In concept would you support legislation requiring school systems to adopt inclusive harassment and discrimination policies?

3. Relationship Recognition
Because same sex couples can legally be denied access to their partners in health care settings, such as hospital emergency room events, gays and lesbians have lost partners without entry to their deathbed or the ability to comfort their loved in their last hour. In concept, would you support legislation granting hospital visitation rights and similar protections that recognize gay relationships.

In case you're not familiar with how homosexual activists operate, they try to find causes they believe can generate sympathy, then craft the issue in such a way that no reasonable (and ignorant) person could oppose it.

After all, who could oppose giving a guy a job? Who could oppose efforts to keep kids from being beaten up? Who could oppose somebody visiting someone they care about in the hospital?

The only thing is, these are merely vehicles to advance their agenda of homosexual legitimization.

Unless a homosexual is flaunting their sexual behavior openly, an employer probably isn't going to even know they're a homosexual. Many business owners these days wouldn't care anyway. And for those employers who try to run a Christian business that is part of the testimony of their faith, they should not be forced to compromise their testimony with an employee who does openly thumb their nose at their deeply held religious values.

As for safe schools, how about school officials protect every student from bullying? If they aren't, they should be. And if they are, why do homosexuals need special protection? The "safe schools" initiative is nothing but a vehicle to force legitimization and acceptance of homosexuality onto young, impressionable minds.

And as for visitation rights, homosexuals can take care of this with a power of attorney if they'd like. But their relationship has done nothing positive for society to merit the special considerations given to legitimate marital and family relationships.

Marriages produce children, the next generation to continue a society; homosexual couples can never produce children, even if all their reproductive organs are working correctly.

Married families also provide another valuable service to society: a safe, stable and healthy environment in which to nurture and raise children. Homosexuals have higher rates of AIDS, other STDs, hepatitis, anal cancer, depression, substance abuse and suicide. Such an unhealthy and unstable environment is no place to situate a child, even by adoption. Homosexuals couples also have much higher rates of domestic violence--another situation you wouldn't want to drop a child into. Homosexuals are also much more promiscuous than heterosexuals; even those who claim to be "monogamous" in reality often involve outside sexual partners. And why would we want to teach a child from his home environment that one sex or the other is unnecessary or undesirable?

No, unlike married couples, homosexual couples provide no legitimate benefit to society. There is no logical reason to give homosexual behavior or homosexual relationships any special recognition or consideration.

I have to wonder why Finch is so upset over this, though. (1) It is an established fact that EqSD endorsed him; (2) as I said above, I can't imagine they would endorse him without a solid reason to believe he supports their agenda, and (3) Finch did not deny supporting EqSD, or the behavior exhibited on the mailer.

Finch did say in the article that he "does not support either of the policy goals alleged in the mailing." Well, "either" implies two objects, but there were three goals stated on the mailer, and one of those was specifically included in the survey EqSD sent out.

Does he really expect us to believe EqSD would endorse him if he didn't support at least part of their agenda?

If Finch didn't want people to know he supports the homosexual agenda, maybe he shouldn't have indicated he did with the EqSD survey.

A couple of the pro-homosexual blogs in South Dakota have indicated they are upset by the mailer. If EqSD didn't want people to know Finch supports the homosexual agenda, maybe they shouldn't have publicly endorsed him.

What are they so ashamed of? If they want to push acceptance of homosexual behavior on our society, force Christian businesses to hire people who openly oppose their values, push pro-homosexual indoctrination on our schools, and undermine marriage and the family, do they expect to be left alone to undermine our culture unhindered and in secret?

Sorry, some of us aren't willing to bare our necks and and allow homosexual activists to butcher the family and normal human sexuality. We're not going to let them tear to shreds the moral fabric of our society.

Homosexual activists like to have their cake and eat it, too. They want to have their sexual practices celebrated while undermining marriage and family, and if you say anything in opposition to their assault, then you're a "hater," a "homophobe" and "mean spirited."

Sorry, some of us aren't stupid enough to fall for that intimidation ploy, either.

Shouldn't the voters of District 33 know what they're supporting when they vote for a candidate? If Finch supports two men kissing, then voters are supporting the same thing if they vote for him.

The folks at Family Matters have done a public service. Finch didn't help the voters of District 33 get informed; he ignored the South Dakota Family Policy Council voter guide that most of his fellow Dist. 33 candidates responded to (click image to enlarge).


The voter guide specifically asked two questions about the homosexual agenda:

8. Support extending to homosexual couples the legal benefits, rights,and privileges that the state currently provides to married couples?

9. Support legislation that prohibits adoption of children to homosexual parents?

It seems that while Finch could find time to respond to a survey from a pro-homosexual group, he couldn't find time to respond to a pro-family group concerned about things like marriage, family, children, the life of unborn children, Second Amendment rights, transparency in government, sex ed and public education.

His opponent, Dennis Schmidt, didn't seem to have anything to hide; Schmidt answered every question.

Shouldn't candidates running for office to represent the people of their district be up-front about what they support and what they are likely to support if they are elected?

It sounds to me from Finch's scurrying and angst over this post card that he's worried people might find out what he really supports.

Stan Adelstein is His Own Biggest Fan

The Rapid City Journal reports today that District 32 senate "Republican" candidate Stan Adelstein has spent more to buy, er, win that seat in the South Dakota legislature than both his opponents combined.

Adelstein pitched in $53,000 of his own money toward his $53,515 campaign tab. Of that total, Adelstein spent $42,998 on advertising and $10,500 in consulting fees.

Five individual donors contributed $1,265 to his campaign. Adelstein received $200 from the Pennington County Republican Women, $100 from the SD Association of Insurance Agents and $250 from the SD Association of Specialty Care Providers. The state Republican Party paid $638 for a promotional mailing campaign.

Wow. Adelstein received a whopping $2,453 from others. What a resounding community endorsement of his campaign!

Since he kicked in about 96% of his own campaign contributions, he must be his own biggest fan.

Democrat Tom Katus received $28,495.

Independent candidate Elli Schwiesow received $20,262. She had the most identified single donors (37).

I wonder who has the most grassroots community support in this race.

Elli Schwiesow on Education Funding

Dakota Voice continues our series from an issues-interview with Independent District 32 senate candidate Elli Schwiesow.

Schwiesow, a life-long Republican, is running against incumbent Democrat Tom Katus and Republican Stan Adelstein.

In this series, Schwiesow has discussed her stand on the issues of taxes, Second Amendment rights, universal preschool, energy, Native American issues, and Initiated Measure 11. Today she discusses education funding.

"I am not in favor of education regulations or mandates both state and federal that contribute to cost but little to education," said Schwiesow. "Eliminating mandates would put more money in the classroom and whenever education money is spent, it should be spent as close to the student as possible--books, blackboards, computers, desks, etc. If the student touches it, it has priority over other uses."

On the current education funding lawsuit which has some South Dakota schools suing the state government for more taxpayer funding, Schwiesow doesn't think it will succeed.

"I do think the school funding formula will change in the coming legislative session," she said. " There is lower population density in the western part of the state and we have always been on the losing end of education funding. The school boards and the citizens have brought it to the attention of their representatives, and I think the legislature is ready to make some changes."

She acknowledges that more consolidation is probably a reality, and that it will be tough, but are necessary.

Schwiesow said, "School consolidations will be a reality, though exactly what the cutoff number will be has yet to be determined. But we've been consolidating schools for many years, and while it is sometimes hard, it can become necessary. I think it's the state of Utah which only has five school districts and five superintendents for the whole state."

She pointed out that the general fund has gone from $70 million to $79 million in two years, and the state aid has gone from $28 million to $32 million in that same time frame. This shows that funding has gone up without any real increase in the number of students enrolled.

All the same, Schwiesow sees a lot of good in the South Dakota education system.

"I went to a Board of Regents meeting and they discussed how 70% of our high school graduates continue their education," said Schwiesow. "About 60% of those kids go to school here in the state of South Dakota."

She would also like to see an expansion in vocational education.

"Everyone needs an education but not everyone needs or wants a college education," Schwiesow said. "Give our young people the opportunity to learn skills that will bring them better job opportunities."

In the next and final installment, Elli Schwiesow talks about health care in South Dakota.

Expose on the Pro-Homosexual Gill Action Fund

This video report (below) has a lot of good information about the very active and very radical Gill Action Fund, a pro-homosexual funding group founded by homosexual activist Tim Gill.

The Atlantic also has a lengthy report on Tim Gill and the Gill Action Fund from March 2007.

Focus on the Family Action has a comprehensive report on Tim Gill here.

Here is a list of people who are working with Tim Gill across the country to push the homosexual agenda and hijack marriage in states like Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Idaho, Illinois, Kansas, Michigan, Montana, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Texas, and Wisconsin.

They are hitting California's Proposition 8 marriage protection amendment hard, and big-dollar donors include billionaire George Soros.

Though Gill avoids publicity, likely because his radical agenda works better when good people aren't alerted to it, he made an appearance at the Democrat Convention in Denver to encourage Democrats to dig deep in their pockets to defeat pro-family candidates with pro-homosexual candidates.

Incidentally, we have a pro-homosexual group in South Dakota called "Equality South Dakota" that is working to elect pro-homosexual candidates. They endorsed candidates in the primary election and gave campaign contributions to some, and have again endorsed candidates in the general election and have given them campaign contributions. A number of those candidates are in the Rapid City area and include the following: Democrat Bethany Wojahn House Dist. 32, Democrat Eric Abrahamson House Dist. 32, Democrat Jeff Nelson House Dist. 33, Democrat Dennis Finch Senate Dist. 33, Republican Craig Tieszen Senate Dist. 34, Democrat Curtis Marquardt House Dist. 35, and Democrat Fern Johnson House Dist. 35.

I do not know for sure whether Equality South Dakota is officially aligned with and supported by the Gill Action Fund.

The Gill Action fund was involved in fighting South Dakota's marriage protection amendment, Amendment C, in 2006. You can find information on that here. Gill Action Fund was responsible for 35% of the opposition funds against Amendment C in South Dakota, and 40% overall in eight states in 2006 (see page 14).

That same year in 2006, Republican Stan Adelstein, who is running for South Dakota Dist. 32 Senate this year against Independent Elli Schwiesow and Democrat Tom Katus, hosted an event at his house to defeat Amendment C featuring special guest Patrick Guerriero from the Gill Action Fund.

You may not know his name, but you should.

Multi-millionaire and homosexual activist Tim Gill is leading a small group of incredibly wealthy, elite political donors in an attempt to buy legitimacy for homosexuality. They are quietly bankrolling anti-marriage efforts and targeting conservative state legislative candidates for defeat in order to promote a radical redefinition of gender, family and marriage.

This CBN News report, which aired in April, features an interview with Focus Action's Carrie Gordon Earll.

For more on Tim Gill, read the Citizen magazine article, "In the image of Gill."

Dist. 32 Independent Candidate on Initiated Measure 11

Voters in South Dakota Legislative District 32 will soon decide who will represent them in the state senate.

This year, they have three choices: incumbent Democrat Tom Katus, Republican Stan Adelstein, and Independent Elli Schwiesow.

The entrance of Schwiesow in the race as an Independent is interesting because she is a life-long Republican who has held a number of official state and local Republican Party positions.

Schwiesow ran against incumbent Adelstein in the 2006 primary and defeated him. However, Adelstein then threw his considerable wealth and support behind Democrat Katus; Katus subsequently won the 2006 general election.

Rather than spend a large sum of money to defeat Adelstein again in the 2008 primary, and be forced to spend another large sum of money to defeat Katus--presumably with Adelstein's help again--in the general election, Schwiesow chose instead to wait until the general election was over and enter the race as an Independent.

Many have argued that, even as an Independent, Schwiesow represents the values of the Republican Party better than Adelstein. After all, the Republican Party has a pro-life and pro-marriage plank, yet in 2006 Adelstein fought strongly against a pro-life measure and a marriage protection amendment.

Yet because of Schwiesow's strong support of the 2006 pro-life Referred Law 6, her opponents succeeded in convincing the voters she was a "single-issue candidate."

Dakota Voice has featured a series of articles from an interview with Schwiesow on several important issues. They have included taxes, Second Amendment rights, universal preschool, energy, and Native American issues.

This week, Schwiesow discusses abortion and the new pro-life measure, Initiated Measure 11.

"I support restrictions on abortion," Schwiesow told me recently. She believes the issue of life is of critical importance, and is something as fundamental as the principles which founded our country.

Schwiesow says, "The Declaration of Independence is generally regarded as the founding document of this nation and it declares for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It boils down to how we define 'life.'"

Informed consent laws are one way pro-life people have sought to reduce abortions. South Dakota passed an informed consent law in 2005 which requires abortionists to inform women of the consequences of an abortion, and that it ends a human life. That law was blocked by a lawsuit from Planned Parenthood, but this summer the injunction on enforcement was lifted by the South Dakota courts.

Judge Raymond W. Gruender indicated in the decision that South Dakota's informed consent law makes some very valid points:

Planned Parenthood presented no evidence to oppose the common understanding that a fetus is a living organism while in the womb, the court majority said.

"The State's evidence suggests that the biological sense in which the embryo or fetus is whole, separate, unique and living should be clear in context to a physician," Judge Raymond W. Gruender wrote for the majority.

Schwiesow says she supports such laws.

"It is interesting that present day medical ethics require you be told of the nature of your illness, the possible treatments for that illness and the potential complications of any particular course of action in treating that illness," said Schwiesow. "Not so with abortion. It seems that anyone requesting an abortion should be denied the very same information that is required for any other medical procedure."

She says that while she would prefer a measure which recognize the value of all human life, she supports Initiated Measure 11, even though it has exceptions for rape, incest, the health of the mother and the life of the mother.

Of the exceptions, Schwiesow says, "I'm okay with them.I would vote for any measure which lessened the number of abortions occurring. Dr. Donald Oliver [Rapid City pediatrician] said that if a building was burning and it was filled with people, would you not save as many as you could, or would you say 'If I can't save them all, I won't save any.' I thought about that for a long time because the exceptions were a smoke screen in 2006."

On whether Initiated Measure 11 would pass where Referred Law 6 did not, she said, "It was phenomenal that South Dakota had 44% standing on 'no exceptions,' or more than one in three. I'm confident this one will pass because it now has the exceptions that many people feel should be there. I'm still concerned about the babies conceived in rape, or babies that doctors thought wouldn't live, yet later we found out they were perfectly healthy."

Even though IM 11 has exceptions, the pro-abortion campaign now objects that the exceptions are "too strict" and "burdensome" to the woman who wants to abort her child. Schwiesown disagrees.

"I don't think the requirements for the exceptions in IM11 are too strict," she said. "Rape is an evil, evil crime and when something like this happens, law enforcement needs to be involved. The perpetrator needs to be arrested, and that involves coming forward, seeking police protection, emergency room treatment. Without these requirements, anyone could just say 'I was raped' and get an abortion with no proof that a crime had actually occurred. Especially in a situation where alcohol was involved and the woman might not even have a clear memory of what happened during a sexual encounter. For genuine crimes of rape, we can't sweep it under the rug."

Schwiesow commended Governor Sarah Palin and her husband for giving life to their son Trig who has Down syndrome, especially when so many abort such children. "What a statement on the value of human life."

Though she is concerned about a number of issues, the value of innocent human life remains near and dear to Schwiesow's heart.

Next time Schwiesow talks about education funding.

Dist. 32 Candidate Elli Schwiesow on Native American Issues

Running as an Independent in the South Dakota Legislative District 32 senate race, Elli Schwiesow has her work cut out for her.

Though she is a life-long Republican who has held a number of official positions in the local and state Republican Parties, she chose to run as an Independent in the general election to avoid a costly primary fight with wealthy Republican candidate Stan Adelstein. She also faces incumbent senator Tom Katus.

In our continuing series of articles on Elli Schwiesow and the issues, today Schwiesow talks about Native American issues. We have previously examined her views on taxes, Second Amendment rights, universal preschool and energy policy.

"I wish someone had all the answers to the problems of the reservation," Schwiesow told me with a smile. "But as a first measure I would suggest or rather endorse the idea that reservations take advantage of the adjacent county seat to obtain justice."

Schwiesow said she has been told that tribal courts are failures in that they cannot be counted on to dispense justice equally.

"The rule of law must apply to everyone equally," said Schwiesow. "Unfortunately on the reservation, that is not the case."

According to Schwiesow, if justice was applied equally, she believes conditions on the reservations would improve.

She acknowledges, however, that alcohol related incidents are complex problems and are not easily addressed by government intervention.

"Individuals must be given incentives to tackle and defeat their own problems," she said.

The conflicting jurisdictions make it very difficult for the government to assist in making progress on the reservations.

"I lived on Pine Ridge Reservation for a while when I was there working for John Thune during his 2004 campaign," she said. "To live there is to learn a lot. Shannon and Todd Counties don't have county seats. Shannon goes to Fall River jurisdiction.

"When there's a problem or a meal program or elderly program is needed, usually you go to your county, but they don't have that option nearby in Shannon and Todd Counties. They have to go to Washington D.C. and the federal government. The more local the action is, the better. How can Native people address problems effectively when the Bureau of Indian Affairs is headquartered in Washington, and tribal government has a lot of corruption problems? These problems actually extend through many levels of government."

Schwiesow believes an old-fashioned tool may go a long way in helping find solutions.

"We can try to improve relationships," she said. "John Thune is working to improve law enforcement on the reservations, to bring down that high crime. The average citizen can do a lot by building relationships. There are many groups who come from out of state to help Natives. I was there when a group from Europe even came to help. But what are we in the surrounding communities doing? Are we doing enough?"

That is a question on the minds of many South Dakotans, both on and off the reservation. The past year has seen several news reports of alarmingly high suicide rates on some reservations.

Schwiesow said, "Suicide on reservations is high, there is a sense of hopelessness. It's a Catch 22. Folks want to hold dearly onto their heritage and culture. That's a wonderful thing, but if that includes not working and looking to others to subsidize your lifestyle, that is to the detriment of family and society. Every culture has wonderful things that are passed on. But many of the kids I've encountered wanted nothing to do with the tribe. Many of them couldn't wait to get rid of the 'Rez Pride' hats and things."

While admitting the problems faced by people on the reservations are complex and there are no easy solutions, the concern in Schwiesow's voice made it clear she is committed to working hard to help those suffering from injustice and despair.

Next time, Schwiesow discusses abortion.

South Dakota Dist. 30 Candidates on Gun Rights for College Students

From the South Dakota Family Policy Council's 2008 general election voter guide, comparing South Dakota District 30 legislative candidates on gun rights for college students:

Support an act to regulate the right to carry a firearm on the campuses of public institutions of higher education? The legislation allows law abiding citizens to bare arms for self defense on college campuses.

D House Jacqueline Gerenz
D House Kathleen Ann
R House Lance S. Russell Y
R House Mike Verchio Y
D Senate David Melmer
R Senate Gordon Howie Y

South Dakota Dist. 32 Candidates on Gun Rights for College Students

From the South Dakota Family Policy Council's 2008 general election voter guide, comparing South Dakota District 32 legislative candidates on gun rights for college students:

Support an act to regulate the right to carry a firearm on the campuses of public institutions of higher education? The legislation allows law abiding citizens to bare arms for self defense on college campuses.

D House Eric Abrahamson
D House Bethany Wojahn N*
R House Brian Gosch
R House Brian Dreyer Y
D Senate Thomas M. Katus N
I Senate Elli Schwiesow Y
R Senate Stan Adelstein

*=Extended Answer

South Dakota Dist. 33 Candidates on Gun Rights for College Students

From the South Dakota Family Policy Council's 2008 general election voter guide, comparing South Dakota District 33 legislative candidates on gun rights for college students:

Support an act to regulate the right to carry a firearm on the campuses of public institutions of higher education? The legislation allows law abiding citizens to bare arms for self defense on college campuses.

D House Kimberly Henderson
D House Jeff Nelsen N
R House Phil Jensen Y
R House Jacqueline Sly N
D Senate Dennis W. Finch
R Senate Dennis R. Schmidt Y

South Dakota Dist. 34 Candidates on Gun Rights for College Students

From the South Dakota Family Policy Council's 2008 general election voter guide, comparing South Dakota District 34 legislative candidates on gun rights for college students:

Support an act to regulate the right to carry a firearm on the campuses of public institutions of higher education? The legislation allows law abiding citizens to bare arms for self defense on college campuses.

D House Lisa F. Cook
D House Bonny Petersen
R House Ed McLaughlin Y
R House David Lust Y
D Senate Gary L. Hargens
R Senate Craig Tieszen N*