Posted on 01/08/2023 1:25:42 AM PST by SoConPubbie
Last month, South Dakota State University (SDSU) sparked fierce criticism from conservatives after allowing a "kid-friendly" drag show to be hosted on campus. Among those critics was Norman Woods, director of the state-based social-conservative advocacy group Family Heritage Alliance (FHA), who penned an open letter to Governor Kristi Noem urging her to take action: "Innocent children should not be exposed to drag shows. Full stop," Woods wrote. "Considering you have the power to hold the South Dakota Board of Regents accountable and fire at will, I am greatly disappointed you and your administration have taken no action to rectify this situation or to ensure that drag shows for children never happen again on South Dakota soil."
Noem has just responded by denying responsibility, threatening to sever ties with FHA, and implicitly calling for Woods to be fired.
"I'd encourage the Family Heritage Alliance to evaluate the purpose of your organization," she wrote in a letter to the group's board of directors yesterday. "Is it to promote family values or is it to attack the most conservative governor in the country? I believe it is the former. . . . I suggest you find an executive director who agrees."
The controversial event, which took place on state property and was organized by the college's Gender & Sexualities Alliance student group, encouraged attendees to "show [their] support for the drag queens by bringing $1 or $5 bills to tip," according to a now-deleted post on the SDSU website. ("This show will be kid-friendly, so bring the whole family," the promotional ad concluded.) The controversy led to swift condemnations from conservatives, including some in the state legislature who argued that the drag show's content could be illegal under South Dakota's prohibition on "show[s] or other presentation[s]" deemed "harmful to minors." Woods's letter echoed those criticisms and requested that Noem "work with the Attorney General's office" to apply that section of South Dakota law, "push legislation that protects South Dakota minors from future drag shows," and speak "to the South Dakota Board of Regents and the President of the South Dakota State University about this drag event to ensure our taxpayer-funded buildings are not used to harm our children in the future."
Noem whose own record on social issues has been the subject of conservative scrutiny responded by expressing disappointment "in Mr. Woods' decision to attack me publicly by sending this letter out of the blue and releasing it to the media at the same time, instead of reaching out to my office to have a productive conversation about how we can work together." As a result of that "behavior," she wrote, "my office will no longer work with the Alliance until and unless its executive director chooses to act professionally." And in any case, the letter continued, "whether or not the event at South Dakota State University violated the state's decency statute" is "not for me to determine as Governor." (Although she added, "I would welcome a clarification from the Attorney General's Office.")
Beyond the adolescent tone of the letter and the obvious hollowness of the claim to be "the most conservative governor in the country" there's a distinct irony to Noem's tirade about Woods's "decision to attack me publicly . . . instead of reaching out to my office." The second-term governor has not exactly been above leveling out-of-the-blue public broadsides against her own critics.
The most obvious example of this came last year, when Jon Hansen and Scott Odenbach Republicans in the state legislature representing South Dakota’s house districts 25 and 31, respectively co-authored the COVID-19 Vaccine Freedom of Conscience Act, a bill proposing to effectively ban vaccination requirements for private as well as public institutions. The two representatives, along with other advocates of the initiative, publicly called for Noem to hold a special legislative session to debate the bill, pointing to similar measures in states like Florida and Texas as precedent. (The necessity of a special session, they argued, derived from the time-sensitive nature of the issue some major private South Dakota employers had announced plans to mandate vaccines in the coming months.) Noem, who had already taken heat for publicly opposing a ban on private mandates, was not impressed and said so publicly:
Workers whose employers are mandating a vaccine for continued employment have the power to say no. Our robust economy and job market gives them the option to find a new employer that values personal choice and responsibility, and doesn't force mandates on their employees.
— Kristi Noem (@KristiNoem) July 31, 2021
Regardless of whether Noem's stance was right on principle, many in her state argued that her position would have significant consequences for vaccine-skeptical South Dakotans. The state's two biggest employers, Sanford Health and Avera McKennan Hospital both health-care providers based in Sioux Falls had already announced their plans to mandate vaccination for all employees in the fall. Critics worried that the move was a sign of more such measures to come.
Noem then attacked Hansen and Odenbach on social media after having refused to act on a request the legislators had sent to her office asking for "the Governor's help and leadership" on the initiative weeks earlier and snubbed multiple subsequent public statements to the same effect. A video posted to Noem's Twitter and Facebook accounts, captioned "The Truth on where I stand...," called out Hansen and Odenbach by name. "It is not conservative to tell businesses what to do and how to treat their employees," Noem declared in the video. "Most of the Republican legislators get that in South Dakota they get that. But there are the vocal few, like Jon Hansen and Scott Odenbach, who are chasing headlines and are trying to tell South Dakotans how to do business. They want to make government bigger and more powerful in your life. It's like a wolf in sheep's clothing."
In brief, Noem is no stranger to lashing out publicly and "out of the blue" rather than engaging in "productive conversation about how we can work together." (Just one day after her criticism of Hansen and Odenbach, Noem lobbed a bizarre set of angry tweets at conservative commentator Matt Walsh in response to his criticisms of her, arguing that he had "stooped to horrible misogyny" "eyes up here, Matt" and that Walsh "couldn't walk a day in my shoes.")
One might argue that her call for Woods's termination, in response to FHA's eminently reasonable and respectful initial letter, is indicative of the very behavior about which Noem is complaining.
She vetoed the bill to protect girl’s sports from them, too.
Nome’s comment about telling private businesses how to operate is logical. Let some competition even things out.
Nineteenth Amendment. The gift that keeps on giving.
So she took zero responsibility.
Is that untrue...or a miscontruel of what actually happened?
Noem is a Chamber of Commerce sock puppet. She has CoC insiders on her staff who tell her what to do.
the issue in question is not being addressed by the governor.
all this other falderal is meant to obfuscate the association’s unspoken quesgion:
“is the goverrnor in support of these queer shows, or not?”
Yikes! That's some ego she's got there.
And you had better agree with her views. A sad ending to a once promising conservative carreer.
“Nome’s comment about telling private businesses how to operate is logical.”
While at the same time hiding behind the Federal Government as it mandates the jab for the State Guard. I take issue with the idea that my employer has any right under the Constitution to make me take poison in the form of the jab in order to work for them. If they do, my only protection would be to leave that employment. That would mean my employer is now the last word in the Doctor patient relationship, and that is illogical.
Kristi Noem is a walking example of a Governor on the opposite side of where I stand on most issues. She had to be literally dragged across the finish line in her first run for Governor as her Democrat opponent was breathing down her neck.
I could not cast a vote for her in her latest run or for any of our DC legislative slate. I left them all blank.
She lost me on the previous ‘gender issue’……
…….however, I am still surprised with her response, on this present issue, as it reads
She must be a severe conservative like Pierre Delecto.
And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient (Romans 1:28).
Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith (2Timothy 3:8).
They profess that they know God; but in works they deny him, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate (Titus 1:16).
YOU are dealing with unseen forces of darkness. This kind can only be defeated with prayers and fasting.
Innocent? It's fat white trash mothers who bring their kids to freak shows - and to drag shows..
>> Let the legislature legislate and pass laws against taking minors to drag shows.
There already are laws against taking minors to sexually oriented shows.
Ironic: it would not be conservative to force businesses to refrain from forcing their employees to take the shot.
The woman seems to be in the pocket of Sanford Health...
This is as arrogant an response as it gets:
“I’d encourage the Family Heritage Alliance to evaluate the purpose of your organization,” she wrote in a letter to the group’s board of directors yesterday. “Is it to promote family values or is it to attack the most conservative governor in the country? I believe it is the former. . . . I suggest you find an executive director who agrees.”
One could agree with her position 100% but this response is the epitome of a self important egotistical politician.
Well...bye.
Innocent? We wish.
It's fat white trash mothers bringing their kids to drag shows that's half the problem. The other half is idiots who think it's OK to have children exposed to sexually explicit 'shows' if the sex is kink.
That's stupid. (think 'stealing airport luggage to get fancy women's dresses' level of stupid)
There are laws against taking children to sexually explicit 'shows'. The people putting on the shows should get a visit from the police for allowing minors to attend and the fat white trash mothers? They should be referred to social workers. (who they probably already know from other offenses.)
You mean about mandating the jabs? No, that position is murderous and evil on her part.
I liked her so much when she first burst onto the scene, but she has now long been thoroughly exposed.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.