South DaCola

Editorial Cartoonist from South Dakota

1st Amendment

1st Amendment Mayor TenHaken SF City Council Sioux Falls Zoo

A redacted letter over dusty monkeys?

l3wis 7Comments

You would think they are trying to cover up the assassination of JFK?! During the informational today (on a Monday this week, so they can go kiss the ring of the legislature tomorrow) they went over getting rid of the Brockhouse collection and they had letters from the Delbridge family supporting the surplus. So why is this letter redacted? I’m sure there was nothing TOP SECRET about what was said;

I still think this is a missed opportunity. We could have privately raised the $850K to restore the collection then we could put the displays in public buildings all over town. I know the zoo didn’t want the collection anymore, and I am fine with that, but we don’t have to build a whole new museum we could put the collection in special built atmospheric cases and put them in public buildings. The lack of vision from this work group was astounding! We don’t have to build a whole new multi-million dollar building to house the collection, WE HAVE EXISTING PUBLIC BUILDINGS. I am not sure why the mayor and mostly museum director wanted to surplus this collection. Once again, we have allowed Pastor Poops precedent, and they keep piling up.

1st Amendment religion Separation of Church and State South Dakotans State Funding State Legislature

State Dems need to introduce a counter bill to the 10 Commandments bill

l3wis 5Comments

Besides a violation of separation of church and state they seem to think that our government was based on Judeo Christian beliefs. That is completely false. Besides many of the lawmakers at the time were agnostics or just simply ‘believers’ (deists) but did not follow a certain religion. Also ‘GOD’ is not mentioned in the Constitution;

In the United States, the federal constitution does not make a reference to God as such, although it uses the formula “the year of our Lord” in Article VII.

I was told that was used because we used the Christian calendar, which is way different then Christian Doctrine. Also the Declaration of Independence is pretty scarce on that GOD word;

Nature’s God: The source of power in the first sentence of the Declaration

Creator: God endows humans with unalienable rights

Supreme Judge of the world: God judges the actions of all people and ensures that justice prevails

Divine Providence: The founders entrusted themselves to God, who they believed had protected them and would continue to do so (The last two references were added during congressional debates over the document.)

Notice no mention of Christianity or ANY religion, and they did that on purpose. Just because you believe in a religious doctrine doesn’t mean it is always referring to the Christian God. They used the word GOD in a way that recognizes all faiths and beliefs and is a universal word for our creator. I will tell people while I am NOT religious I did attend Catholic and Lutheran services growing up and I do have faith in God, but not a religious God. So don’t call me an Atheist like Huether did on the mic at Democratic Forum once right to my face.

IMAGE: https://www.dkclassroomoutlet.com/

I am suggesting to legislative Dems to introduce a bill that would require all classrooms to display a ‘Be Kind’ poster or better yet amend the current bill. Obviously many legislators are too ignorant to understand the separation of church and state (which actually protects Christians more then any other group). Be careful what you ask for. If this passes I look forward to the ACLU lawsuit.

1st Amendment Canton Downtown Sioux Falls Harrisburg School District Mayor TenHaken Open Government Open Meetings Sioux Falls Tea

Is this proof that Mayor TenHaken is actively pursuing closed government?

l3wis 5Comments

Not sure, but I will lay this out for you. Around a year ago or so MPO (Metropolitan Planning Organization of Sioux Falls) had a zoom meeting. At the meeting were several city administrators I believe from Tea, Canton and Mayor TenHaken. The city manager of Harrisburg could NOT attend so he designated a private contractor who was the city’s acting (part-time) planning director at the time (they just recently pulled back after hiring Watertown’s Planning person). The ‘fill-in’ at the meeting said the discussion quickly turned to the dividing line between SF and Harrisburg and Poops adamant distinction of HWY 101 being that line. The ‘fill-in’, a former city of Sioux Falls engineer, disagreed with the mayor and said that is not ‘definitive’ and never has been. Then the mayor proceeded to accuse this person of lying about what he ‘knows’ and what he believes (I am still waiting for the minutes from the meeting). Besides the meeting itself being a little rough and contentious it was what Poops did after the meeting that was really petty. He instructed that MPO changes it’s meeting rules only to include city employees as fill-ins and not private contractors. While I agree, seemed it a little odd you would send your private contractor to this meeting, BUT, they were discussing planning and development and he was the acting planning director for Harrisburg, so it made sense at the time. I just find it incredibly insecure and petty to make a rule change because you didn’t like a private citizen telling you what was up in an a official meeting so you change the rules. You got a lot of issues man.

1st Amendment Media

Welcome to Push!

l3wis 2Comments

My friend Suzanne Sunshower, who now lives in Michigan (she used to live in SD for a short stint) started this blog by reprinting her father’s editorials from the 60’s thru the 80’s, it is fascinating;

PUSH is a new writing partnership between myself and my long-deceased dad.  For almost twenty years, from deep within the 1960’s to the early-1980’s, my dad wrote weekly editorials for a popular Black newspaper called The Michigan Chronicle.

1st Amendment Developers Development Downtown Sioux Falls religion Riverline District SF City Council Sioux Falls

UPDATE: Why is the city lending a religious organization $500K?

l3wis 6Comments

UPDATE: I guess the original developer has already sold the development to tRE ministries so they are no longer involved. But if you connect the dots you will see that one of the leaders in the institution is married to a certain person connected to a very large company in town. So instead of this being funded by Big MJ, VL and Liquor it’s being funded by ‘Big Corn’ (Which these days seems more scandalous with all their money scam pipelines they want to build.)

This money will come out of the Community Development funds. (Item #6, Sub-Item 28):

Agreement for a redevelopment project located within the All Saints Neighborhood and the Sherman Historical District, tRE ministries, $500K (interest free loan).

I received a Community Development loan about 20 years ago for needed upgrades to my house, my loan was about $4,500 with a 2% interest rate. I guess I am wondering why we would take this much for ONE project when we could rehabilitate 40-50 houses with this money instead? And I mean ‘Rehab’ not demolition, which is what this money will be spent on. There is also the questionable relationship with the developer who is worth millions from video lottery, liquor and Med MJ (unless he has already handed over ownership). Why isn’t he just loaning them the money? I also don’t think tax dollars should go to non-profits (religious organizations) since they pay very little taxes and the fact they have a Daddy Warbucks taking care of them (who ironically makes money from sin taxation). I actually support this project to clean up that part of town but like any development with private parties, they need to pony up the money, but NOT in Sioux Falls, GRIFT, GRIFT, GRIFT. I thought at least ONE councilor would vote against this, but who am I kidding. The mayor wants to turn the entire town into a mega-church. Ick.

MAYOR FIRST AMENDMENT DENIER, INTERRUPTS A CITIZEN, AGAIN

Poops was at it again tonight, ignoring his Constitutional duties and denying a commenter his input. (FF: 1:44:00) Jordan Deffenbaugh came up tonight to talk about how housing would be affected by the Riverline District and the mayor cut him off saying this was already discussed. Oh, Paul, we have been over this, you can’t control the narrative at the podium that is a violation of their 1st Amendment rights but you seem to be above that. I wonder what it is like to take an oath on the Bible, surrounded by friends, family and colleagues and once installed ignore all those constitutional ‘thingies’. Paul, it may not be me, but the city and specifically you as the chair will be sued and it isn’t going to be pretty. Maybe they will let you on one of those East Coast TV morning shows where you can talk about your lack of knowledge when it comes to the Constitution and the lawsuit should be dismissed because of your stupidity. Stranger things have happened.

« Previous Page — Next Page »

You Missed

Art Sioux Falls

What is the City’s Art’s Coordinator up to?

Uncategorized

The Anti-Bike Crap needs to end in Sioux Falls!

Downtown Sioux Falls Elections Erica Beck Former Mayor Jim Entenman Mayor TenHaken Sioux Falls

So Erica Beck wants to run for mayor? LOL.

1st Amendment Bishop Dudley House Downtown Sioux Falls Homeless Mayor TenHaken Open Government Open Meetings SF City Council

The City of Sioux Falls doesn’t understand transparency and open government