Toby Doeden - Unfiltered

Episode 4

• Toby Doeden - Unfiltered • Episode 4

Share episode

0:01 - Introduction 
02:25 - South Dakota Government Efficiency and Future
19:20 - South Dakota Tax and Regulation
32:50 - State Regulation and Government Efficiency
44:41 - Immigration, Media, USPS, and FCS Football

Speaker 1:

What an amazing place we live, south Dakota. My mission statement is simple To re-energize the true conservative values of South Dakota. You're listening to Toby Doden Unfiltered. Well, welcome back to Toby Doden Unfiltered. This is episode four. I am your host, toby Doden. I got to tell you it has gone fast, it has been fun, and I cannot tell you how much I appreciate the tens of thousands of individuals that have tuned in every week to hear our take on the most important issues in South Dakota.

Speaker 1:

Just like the last three weeks, we've got a lot of great topics to discuss this week. We're going to talk a lot about things directly impacting the great state of South Dakota. We're also going to talk about the recent acquittal of Daniel Penny. I'm sure you've all heard of Daniel Penny, of Daniel Penny. I'm sure you've all heard of Daniel Penny. He was the individual that was tried for, you know, protecting innocent riders on a subway. So we're going to talk about that. We're going to talk about the tanking mainstream media ratings. I mean just people, by the millions, are walking away from the main street media and they're listening to people in ways they've never done so before, largely on platforms like x and other social media platforms. We're also going to talk about how inefficient in general governments are, especially the federal government. We're going to talk a little bit about the us postal service. They recently released their fiscal financial numbers and boy is it embarrassing. We're also going to talk about a hereon teacher who, it was recently reported by Kettleland and other local news organizations, is being accused of some very, very serious and heinous crimes involving young minor children.

Speaker 1:

But before we get to any of that, we're going to start by talking about the South Dakota state government. So I think if you were generally speaking, you were going to talk to just random registered voters in the state of South Dakota. I think a lot of them would tell you that you know South Dakota is a better place to live and you know South Dakota has a lot of you know things that we natives love about South Dakota that a lot of outsiders don't even know about. I think a lot of them would also tell you that our state government is run more efficiently and more effectively than other state governments, and especially our federal government. Well, we're going to talk about that today, because I don't think that's necessarily the case. I think when we dig in and look at the inefficiencies of the South Dakota state government from the top down. I think people are going to start to realize that our state might be smaller, but that doesn't mean that we're more efficient than many of our other states, and so let's talk specifically about regulation.

Speaker 1:

I don't know how many of you are aware of this, but in 2019, governor Brad Little from the great state of Idaho made two executive orders. Keep in mind, these two executive orders were in Governor Little's first month in office, and what he was aiming to do was decrease regulations in his state. So the orders that Governor Little put forth in 2019 in the state of Idaho were going to set the stage for significant deregulation efforts. First thing he did was called the Red Tape Reduction Act. Basically, what that did is it required state agencies to identify at least two existing rules to be repealed or significantly simplified for every new rule proposed Doesn't sound like too bad of an idea, and we're going to talk more about what Governor Little did. About what Governor Little did Governor Little decreased regulation by 38 percent in a very short period of time upon becoming governor of Idaho, and so when we look at a state government like South Dakota, what I see and a lot of the data backs this up, is a relatively inefficient state government.

Speaker 1:

What do I mean by that? Well, it's very simple. Do we have more resources and are we spending more money and resources to accomplish what the duty and responsibility of our state government is? And I think the answer is 100. Yes. I think we could be just as effective, if not more effective, as the state government by spending far less money than we do, not to mention the fact that South Dakota is one of the most dependent states in our country on federal funding. That's right. Our state would be bankrupt without the federal government. So how can we run and operate and live as a free, independent state like South Dakota, like people think we are, when we are basically an echo chamber of the federal government? So we're going to talk about that. So is the best course of action for our state to acquiesce into the federal government and essentially function as one, taking billions and billions of dollars annually in federal money and then letting them dictate how we should run and operate our state? Or or should our state government be proactive in shrinking and reducing our government and our regulation?

Speaker 1:

The current approach of our administration, our governor's administration and this trickles all the way down throughout the state is business as usual. Not only has our current governor become a national figure, she has largely run our state as though we are a subsidized eco-chamber of the federal government. Is that what south dakotans want? That's not what I want. I want a strong, efficient, financially independent state of south dakota so we collectively, the people, can run and operate our state how we see fit, not how the federal government tells us to operate. I resist the strategy and I resist the notion that south South Dakota cannot be a fully self-sustainable state. We need to take a serious look at the direction of our state as we look ahead to the 2026 election cycle.

Speaker 1:

2026 election, in my opinion, is going to be the most important election, or one of at least, in our history of South Dakota. Why, toby? Why are we talking about the 2026 election? It's two years away for crying out loud. The reason I'm talking about the 2026 election and the reason I spend time thinking about the 2028 and the 2030 election is because largely conservatives haven't done that in decades in south dakota and that's how we ended up in the position we were going into 2024. Our state was being run by liberal republic. Conservatives weren't looking ahead. They could see about three feet in front of their face and we got burned. Well, that all changed in 2024.

Speaker 1:

We have talked about this prior. We have all new leadership in the state legislature, all conservative leaders, every single one, not most of them, not a majority. Every single person that was elected to a leadership role in the state legislature is a conservative member of South Dakota. But, friends, listen, I implore you to listen. If you only take this, one thing from this entire podcast is we are only a fraction of the way to where we need to get to be sustainable. Taking the leadership power back in the legislature was only one small step in a very long and complicated process. If 2026 and 2028 elections don't go the way that they need to go, everything we did in 2024 will be for nothing, because if we can't get solid conservative leadership from the top of our state government, the governor's office, all the way down through our state legislature, all the way into our county commissioners, our city council members and everything in between, then what we're doing is for not. So, yes, I am focusing most of my time and energy on the 2026 election cycle.

Speaker 1:

Let's start with governor for 2026. I'm sure those of you listening to this are probably at least somewhat, or very, interested in state politics. That's why a lot of you are tuning in. So some of this is new information. Some of this is old information. But let's look at the 2026 race for governor Kristi Noem assuming she's going to be confirmed as HHS secretary, she's going to be gone. Larry Roden's going to be sworn in sometime after the first of the year. And in 2026, there's going to be a Republican primary in June of that year.

Speaker 1:

South Dakota needs wholesale changes of that year. South Dakota needs wholesale changes Shrinking our state government, taking our government agencies and becoming ultra lean, efficient, effective and be able to operate on a fraction of the resources. It is possible and with the right leadership and peer, it will happen. Do you think dusty johnson is going to come in as governor and make those changes? Has dusty johnson done anything in his entire year after year of political career? Has he ever done anything that would give you any indication that he believes in smaller government and power to we, the people? Dusty has voted for tens, if not hundreds, of billions of dollars in funding to go to places like ukraine. That's just one example. Dusty voted against trump's border wall in 2019. That led to massive amounts of crime and social resources being depleted. Dusty doesn't care about our country. He sure as heck doesn't care about our state. So is dusty the guy that can come in and completely rebuild our state government and make it the smallest, most efficient state government in the history of the united states.

Speaker 1:

No who else is rumored to be running for governor marty jackley, larry roden there's even rumors mike rounds wants a third. Go at it. You needn't look any further than mike rounds voting record in the us senate. His votes are more liberal than many democrat senators. Mike rounds has a 0.0 chance of ever getting re-elected to any office nationally or statewide.

Speaker 1:

In south dakota. People know what you've done, mike. What about marty jackley? Is marty a game changer? Some of you have known marty for years. Marty's a placeholder. Marty keeps running for things but doesn't win.

Speaker 1:

Marty's a really good attorney general, as as a governor, he would just be another faceless bureaucrat going through the motions, trying to trim a budget here, trying to trim a budget there. We need massive reduction, massive changes. We need massive regulatory deletions, not adjustments. But larry roden, larry roden, christy gnome, larry roden, christy gnome if you say it fast enough, five times. They're the same person. They look different, but they have the same political and ideological views. Larry roden would be nothing more than a placeholder.

Speaker 1:

So I'm telling you, voters of South Dakota, it is time right now to start having these conversations, because we need the right leadership at the top of the ticket in 2026. Or everything that we have fought for our land rights, carbon summit, pipeline, everything hundreds and hundreds and hundreds, if not thousands, of South Dakotans have spent thousands of hours fighting against the pipeline. Who's trying to use eminent domain for public gain and they're trying to steal generational farmland. Everything you've done, all of the fights you've won, all of the fights you'll continue to fight and win in the future, are all going to be for nothing. If we get a liberal leaning hat as our next governor, it will all have been for nothing. Wasted years.

Speaker 1:

What about election fraud, election and election integrity? People like dusty and marty and larry road to mike rounds. They don't even know what those words mean and somehow, when you bring up election integrity, people call you an election denier. No, that's not what it means. What it means is we should spend some time looking to make sure we have the absolute most secure elections in the country. And then we should go to florida and we should request a meeting with governor desantis and we should get a tutorial on how to process our damn votes on election day, because florida's done by 11 o'clock on election night and they're one of the biggest states in the country. I went to bed at four in the morning still didn't know. Taffy howard won don't tell me our state government is efficient when we can't even count essentially the smallest amount of votes in the entire country in the same time that ron desantis counts votes in florida. We're closer to california than florida when it comes to counting votes.

Speaker 1:

So we need to start talking about our leadership at the top level. We need to talk about the open senate seat. I say open because even if mike rounds runs, if a good conservative runs against him, I can't see a path of victory for mike other than the fact that he now has the warmongering industrial complex in his back pocket. He's taken more than a hundred thousand dollars recently from these companies. Why do you think senator rounds came out a few weeks ago and said we haven't done enough for ukraine? The 200 billion dollars we sent ukraine's not enough. The hell with people in north carolina that are sleeping in tents. The hell with our homeless veterans. Let's send billions more to ukraine so I can keep lining my pockets. Then the next week rounds, comes out and basically says christopher ray is his BFF, best first friend. In case you don't know what that means, what Chris Wray doesn't even like Chris Wray. Somehow mike rallins has a man crush on him. It's insane. So yes, we need the right person in the governor's office. Yes, we need a strong conservative that shares those values to run for the us senate position in 2026. And, of course, we need somebody to run for Congress in 2026.

Speaker 1:

Not going to get into a lot of innuendo or strategy speak today, but it's likely Dusty Johnson is going to run for governor of South Dakota so long as he believes he can win. You see, dusty's not one of these people that will fight solely based on his core beliefs. You patriots and me and all of us that see things the same, we do pick our fights based on moral absolutes. We have a specific set of values that are non-negotiable and we're okay if we lose as long as we're fighting for what we believe. Do you think people like dusty johnson would ever pick a fight knowing he's likely going to lose just because he 100 believes in the mission? No, are you kidding me? Dusty picks fights based on who he can beat. So, depending on how this 2026 governor's race shapes up between now and the summer, I would say I think there's a chance dusty doesn't run, because I think there's a set of circumstances that could happen that dusty johnson would look at it. He would sit down with all of his aides and go. I think our percentage of winning that primary has decreased. I think it's under 50% and I can't have a loss on my prestigious political record. Well, if that's the case, dusty might go back and run for another two years in the House. He could also go run for rounds senate seat.

Speaker 1:

Dusty's had his heart set on being the governor of south dakota for many, many, many years. This is the worst kept secret in pier, and so, as much as dusty wants to be our general and lead our great state, I kind of think he'd go back to the house and only run two more years to keep his options open for the 2030 governor's race. So we need to find some great conservative patriots in this state that are willing to step up and run against people like dusty if he reruns for his congressional race. We know the other side and I say the other side and I don't mean the democrats, I mean these political hacks like casey crabtree. This self-serving I could give two craps about south dakota legislator has been secretly telling people he's going to run for congress. Don't think he can win. I think the way the votes turned out in 2024, all across the state, all across our country, there is a conservative mandate and that mandate says you either have to be a democrat or you have to be a conservative, but you cannot be a fake republican. People of south dakota are smart. We have the smartest voters in our country. Let me give you an example.

Speaker 1:

The liberals tried to put up this consumption tax on the November ballot. They lied and tried to sell it as a grocery reduction tax, but it was far more complicated than that. Well, inflation fatigue has caught up with everybody in our country, including the residents of South Dakota. Despite the fact that every family in our state has a smaller paycheck, less money to spend because of inflation. Despite that, they voted against a significant grocery tax reduction bill because of all the negative stuff that was attached to it. It was a terrible bill. I'm all for reducing or eliminating taxes, as long as it actually eliminates a tax. But you can't eliminate one tax and then add another tax on a different group of people and call it a tax, like either people are benefiting or people aren't benefiting. The savvy South Dakota voter voted against it. They're like nah, yeah, I know I can save $80 a month on my groceries, but it's going to screw our state long-term because of this, this and this. So let's talk to the legislature right and let's look at ways to put money back in the pockets of South Dakotans.

Speaker 1:

Another thing that's being talked about is a property tax reduction. There are some Republican legislators that are beating their chest because they're going to put forth a property tax reduction. Don't buy the hype. It's a bunch of BS. They want to reduce property taxes on single family homes, but in order to pay for that tax cut, they're going to increase the state sales tax from 4.2% to 5% A 20% tax increase increase. So let me break this down for you if you own a home and you pay real estate taxes every single year on that home because you own it, you are going to get a reduction in your real estate taxes. But every time you go spend money anywhere at any store, for anything retail, you're going to pay 20 percent more tax, not to mention the folks that don't own homes, and in south dakota there's a between 30 and 40 percent of the occupants in south dakota do not own their home. They don't get any tax reduction because they don't own any property, but they still have to pay 20% more sales tax. So the property tax reduction bill that's being discussed right now is actually a tax increase on the lowest income people in our state.

Speaker 1:

Is that how we want to treat the residents of South Dakota? If we're going to do income tax reduction or, excuse me, real estate tax reduction or grocery tax or any other tax? If you're going to call it a tax break, it has to be a net tax break, yeah. But if we do the property tax relief, it's going to leave a $280 million gap in the state budget. Well, let's get smaller and more efficient. You don't think South Dakota can operate on $280 million less.

Speaker 1:

Our budget is $7.4 billion a year. $7.4 billion is our South Dakota budget. You want to know what it was just three years ago? $4.4 billion is our South Dakota budget. You want to know what it was just three years ago, $4.8 billion. Our budget right now is nearly $3 billion higher than it was three years ago $7.4 billion budget. So 10% of that would be $740 million. 10% of that would be $740 million. So reducing property taxes is basically a 3% cut across the board in our state government. I can guarantee you there is far more, far more than 3% that can be shaved in expense from our state government. I'll bet you it's more like 20% to 30% in expense from our state government. I'll bet you it's more like 20 to 30 percent. And so if we're going bill gets anywhere close to the legislature unless it is completely reformed, you can't reduce my taxes on my home and then jack up my sales tax 20 percent. The South Dakota voters are too smart for that.

Speaker 1:

And there's another caveat to this proposed real estate tax reform. Who needs money-saving measures more in South Dakota? People that own $500,000 homes or people that are renting apartments for $600 per month? I think it's the person renting the apartment for $600 a month. So how are they going to get their reduction? They're not, because the bill that's being talked about does not lower the real estate taxes for apartment buildings, commercial properties, multi-unit family residences, single family homes only so.

Speaker 1:

As an individual that owns a lot of real estate in South Dakota, much of it is multi-family residential, large apartment buildings and complexes when my expenses go up, I have to raise the rent. Otherwise I can't pay the bank, I can't pay my taxes, I can't pay my insurance, I can't pay the maintenance, repairs, upkeep, vacancy, etc. It's not a glamorous business. So they want to reduce the real estate taxes, but not for the people that actually need it If they reduce my real estate taxes that have gone up 38% in the last estate taxes, but not for the people that actually need it If they reduce my real estate taxes that have gone up 38% in the last two years.

Speaker 1:

I pay hundreds of thousands of dollars more this year than I did two years ago with the same property. Hundreds of thousands of dollars. Who pays for that in the long run? Who pays for that? I can't lose money as a business owner. I can't stay in business. So rents go up. And then it's my fault that the rents go up. No, it's your government's fault. It's poor legislation, over-regulation, weak governments. That's why your rents go up. I understand you need somebody to point the finger at. I get it, I've been there. But let me be clear. If my real estate taxes I'm not even looking for a decrease, I'm looking for them to be reset to what they were two years ago, before they were unfairly raised 38%. If my taxes go back to the way they were two years ago on all of my apartment rentals, I'll pass that savings on to my tenants day one.

Speaker 1:

So let's get back to Governor Little from the great state of Idaho. In addition to the Red Tape Reduction Act, he also issued the Licensing Freedom Act. This act was aimed at reducing the burdens on Idaho businesses by scaling back, eliminating. Reducing the burdens on Idaho businesses by scaling back, eliminating or significantly simplifying occupational licensing rules. As somebody who has a lot of licenses or in the fuel business, restaurant business we have liquor licenses, casino licenses, car dealer licenses you name it license, license, license we literally have a full-time person just to maintain our licensing. I mean, you want to talk about over regulation?

Speaker 1:

He also did something called zero-based regulation approach. This is interesting. What zero-based regulation is? Simply? Simply put that agencies were required to justify the necessity of existing regulations, leading to a comprehensive review where only essential rules were readopted. Basically, that means we will constantly look at what we're doing and we will say do we need to be doing that anymore? And if the answer is no, we do not need to be doing that anymore, we will not do that anymore Seems simple.

Speaker 1:

So the state of idaho since 2019, pretty similar to south dakota 1.8 million residents. We have about 900 000, so it's about twice as big, but it's a very, very small state. Geographical size they're slightly larger, but very similar. They've reduced or simplified 95 percent 95 percent of state regulation since 2019, making idaho one of the least regulated states in our country. This included cutting or simplifying rules across various sectors, from environmental regulations to business licensing. I think governor brad little from idaho nailed it. I think the state of south dakota albeit not identical and things wouldn't be identical I think in four years we could massively reduce regulation in the state of south dakota. I don't know when or why or who decided that every state law has to walk us through every single step of our daily life. Government needs to get off our backs.

Speaker 1:

So this licensing freedom act that governor little enacted, it's basically what it does, is it it? It it's sunrise and sunset processes, right. So it implements processes for evaluating new licensing laws and reviews existing licensing laws to ensure that they are still necessary and not overly restrictive. Well, I can tell you they are overly restrictive. Heck, some of the licensing we have. You have to meet specific requirements of how many dollars of food you have to sell in a period of time versus how much liquor you can serve in a period of time, and then you have to report these very specific analytics to your local government. Does that not sound like over-regulation? Hey, if I want to have a liquor license and I pay the city or I buy it from an existing license owner, I buy that license, it's my license. And if it says I can serve liquor between these hours, do we really need more regulation than that? Oh toby, you didn't sell enough cheeseburgers last year. We're going to pull your liquor license, not paying people to monitor this stuff. It would streamline licensing. It's aimed at reducing the number of licenses required or simplifying the process. Aim n public input. It encourages public and industry feedback on licensing requirements. When's the last time the state government listened to anybody governor?

Speaker 1:

Little also talked about rules reauthorization process. In idaho. It's a. It's basically a legislative mechanism where Idaho's administrative code, which includes all state regulations, must be periodically reauthorized by the legislature to remain in effect, checks and balance. The legislature can look at money that's being spent administrative money and say I want you to come in and tell me why you need that. That's not happening right now. There's no oversight.

Speaker 1:

Zero-based regulation it's basically an approach that was formalized by Governor Little in 2020, where regulations are reviewed from a zero base, meaning agencies must justify the need for each regulation from scratch rather than assuming all existing rules are necessary. So what does that mean? That means I go to a government agency and I say show me all of your regulations. And then I say you have to sell me on every regulation on your books and if you cannot, the regulation goes away. Let me repeat that. So you go to a specific agency in your state, let's say tourism, for example and you say show me all the regulations involved with this particular agency and then, line item by line item, the people representing that agency have to sell the value of what it is that it does in order to keep it. You think that happens in South Dakota? You think that's going to happen in Dusty Johnson's South Dakota?

Speaker 1:

If you think we are over regulated today, you wait until one of these placeholder, faceless, nameless career politicians become our governor, things would change for the worse drastically, and they're already headed in the wrong direction. The world also the wealthiest man in the world. His recent net worth was reported at $442 billion. Yes, with a B. He has publicly Elon has publicly discussed the topic of regulatory reduction, emphasizing the need for less regulation to foster innovation and economic growth. He has applauded Governor Little in Idaho about his 38% reduction in state regulation. So what are some benefits of shrinking regulation in the state of South Dakota? Well, how about economic growth? Number one, right at the top of the list. Reducing state regulations in South Dakota would significantly increase economic growth.

Speaker 1:

People talk all the time. How can we keep more of our young adults that are graduating colleges, our state colleges, school of Mines, all of the great schools that South Dakota has to offer for higher education? We are keeping a very, very small minority percentage of them in our state. Why? We don't have enough opportunities for them to follow the path that they achieve with their degrees. So, over regulation prevents employers from wanting to set up shop in your state. Yep companies look for the least amount of government resistance. Why do you think there's a billion dollar data processing, ai, bitcoin mining whatever they're doing in Ellendale, north Dakota, because it would take them 20 years to build that in the Twin Cities or New York City or Chicago. But job creation, business attraction, all of it when it's easier, less complicated and far less expensive to do business and start businesses and to develop and grow companies and hire hundreds, if not thousands, of people. It's much easier to do in states that have significantly reduced regulation. It provides increased innovation, increased efficiency, reduces costs for consumers I mean I can go on and on and on increase transparency and accountability.

Speaker 1:

You do understand the difference between a government agency or a government and the private sector, right? What do government agencies and government leaders? What do they do when they are short of money? They raise taxes, right, 100%. What do private sector businesses do when times are tough and profitability has shrunk or they are losing money? What do they do? Well, they can do nothing and go bankrupt. They can't snap their fingers like the government does and just print more money or raise taxes or both.

Speaker 1:

No, people like me that own and operate businesses and I've been doing this for almost 30 years and I have been through every up and down you can imagine in every industry We've had some really lean, tough times with many of our businesses. So what did we do? We got more efficient. We made hard, tough decisions, and every decision I made was always for the benefit of the whole and forward thinking. We have to survive today, but we also need to be here in 10 years and in 20 years and in 30 years. It involves making hard decisions. If your business booms and you grow to 300 employees and the economy tanks and you're losing money, you have to lay staff off. No business owner likes to do that.

Speaker 1:

When's the last time you heard a government agency federal state south dakota, the city of aberdeen? When's the last time you heard a government agency federal state South Dakota, the city of Aberdeen? When's the last time that you saw a federal agency reducing staff because of a budget shortfall? Never, it's never happened. They just go into debt or they borrow or they overtax. We need more private sector minds smart, shrewd business people that make decisions based on data, facts and analytics.

Speaker 1:

This notion that government agencies should be run differently than a private sector business is fool's gold, smoke and mirrors. That's what the bureaucracy wants you to think, so they can justify doing what they're doing. If south dakota had a successful, shrewd, analytical, analytical business person running our state. I can guarantee you we would become more efficient, our government would become smaller, regulation would significantly decrease and you would see budget surpluses that the state of south dakota has never imagined. We would take less federal money. The goal would be to take no federal money. And what happens with these massive, massive state budget surpluses? What happens to them? Well, now, if they have extra money, they spend it on something. What should happen? It should go back to you. I would advocate strongly that we get lean and we get efficient and we run the state government as a for-profit business and we end up with more money at the end of the year than what we needed to operate and then we return that money back to you, the people of south dakota.

Speaker 1:

I don't know when the turning point was when south dakota became a de facto dictatorship. The state legislature is supposed to be running our state. State senators and state representatives are elected by we, the people, and they, much like the senate back in ancient rome. They are chosen by the people to represent we, the people. But when we get a commander-in-chief, aka the governor of south dakota, when the governor of south dakota oversteps their bounds and authority and starts mingling and dictating to the state legislature. We are no longer a republic, we are a dictatorship.

Speaker 1:

The governor in our state should be there to support the legislature. There's over 100 members, 100 members selected by the great people, the smart voters of South Dakota. Those 100 people should be running our state, not the governor. The governor should be the CEO of our state, holding everybody accountable and dropping the hammer when it needs to be. That, my friends, is the role of a governor. It's a CEO. I'm the CEO of nearly 20 businesses and an investment group. I never get involved in day-to-day decisions. I set the course of my business, I point my business in a direction, I give my leadership guardrails and I hold them accountable. Absolute, 100% accountability, 100% of the time, no exceptions, no equivocations. Yet for years. And now we have governors who think they run the whole state, calling legislatures in and belittling them because they disagree. No, you want that. You vote for dusty, you vote for marty, you vote for Marty Jackley, you vote for Larry Roden. I want change. I want the power to be back to we, the people, and I want the power to solely rest with the state legislature. And I want our governor to run this state with an iron fist and hand it off to the next generation. So the state of South Dakota can only survive forever and remain a conservative stronghold.

Speaker 1:

Speaking of the state of South Dakota, let's talk about illegal immigration. Illegal immigration, that's a national problem, right? Guess how many illegal immigrants, criminals, criminals, criminals. Illegal is synonymous with criminal. So can we stop with the? Oh, don't call them criminals, they're criminals.

Speaker 1:

There's a process in this country for people from other parts of the world to come here legally. Yes, I know it's a long process. Yes, I know it's hard, but shouldn't it be hard and shouldn't it take a long time to vet these people who decided that the several hundred million people of the united states should suffer because of the terrible governments around the country? We can't fix the entire globe. We, we can't, and it's frustrating to come to those conclusions. I've been frustrated for years. My companies give back in a very large way. We help out a lot of people in a lot of groups, and it is frustrating because all of the money in the world, I couldn't help everybody that I want to, and that's the way we need to look at it as a federal government. So you can either feel sad about people around the world, and that's okay, I do too. It's awful, it's horrible what some people have to live with, but do you want to jeopardize your family livelihood, your safety, your families, your next generation, like at some point we have to take care of ourselves, because if we don't remain a strong, unified nation, we're not going to be here a hundred years from now to make sure that there's peace in the world.

Speaker 1:

So that's estimated that south dakota has 10000 criminal illegal aliens. What does it cost the state of South Dakota, directly or indirectly, to have these roughly 10,000 illegal immigrants living here? It's estimated at $89 million to $102 million a year. So over the next 10 10 years, not even factoring in inflation or an increase of illegal immigrants, based on today's numbers, in 10 years we will have spent north of a billion dollars because of illegal, undocumented aliens living in the state of south dakota. People know this.

Speaker 1:

Do people not just want to? I mean, like, being an effective leader does not mean that you can pick and choose the subjects and the issues that you need to address. The overwhelming majority of people that I've met in my life don't want to be leaders, and that's okay. Not everybody can be, but if you're going to step up to the plate and you're going to take a leadership position, or you want to achieve a leadership position, you have to be willing to address every subject, even if they're delicate, and I get it. Illegal immigration it's a delicate subject, but the fact of the matter is they should not be here.

Speaker 1:

The 10 000 illegal immigrants, regardless of what they're doing here, regardless of whether they've broken a law, they either need to pay their share to be here or they need to be deported from south dakota. A hundred million dollars per year. All the while we are gouging homeowners with 30 to 40 real estate tax increases. Utilities have more than doubled in the state of south dakota in the last four years. Insurance premiums have doubled in the state of South Dakota the last four years. Gas prices, groceries, pharmacy, everything has gone up. Families have less money to spend. Everybody in our state, with the exception of very few, are worse off financially today than they were four years ago. What could we do with the $100 million a year that we're spending supporting illegal immigration in south dakota?

Speaker 1:

So, moving on to a national topic, real quick, um, a lot of people have been kind of keeping up on this story. I think most people have been keeping up on the daniel penny story. If you haven't, I'll give you a quick recap, but I mean this has been, you know, capturing everybody around the country. Daniel Penny it's been a long time ago now, I don't have the date in front of me, but it's been a long time was on a subway and a gentleman by the name of Jordan Neely entered the subway and I'll fill in the details in a moment, but Daniel Penny ended up restraining him in a chokehold to keep him from harming other passengers, and Jordan Neely eventually ended up dying, I believe, in the hospital hours later. The police that were on site right after it happened didn't arrest daniel penny because they said it was a justifiable act. They let him go home, but george soros da alvin bragg had him arrested and charged him with very serious crimes.

Speaker 1:

So who was jordan neely? Jordan neely was arrested 42 times in an eight-year span. He was arrested for assault four times. One notable case involved an assault on a 67 year old woman in 2021, where he reportedly punched her, causing significant injuries. Another incident included neely assaulting a woman by hitting her in the face. There was an attempted kidnapping in 2015. He was trying to kidnap a seven-year-old girl. He drug her down the street. He pleaded guilty to endangering the welfare of a child and was sentenced to four months in jail. His record also included charges for fraud, criminal trespass, public lewdness, criminal contempt and for violating a restraining order. He had an active warrant at the time of his death. He also had allegedly mental health issues and homelessness on a regular basis.

Speaker 1:

Who was Daniel Penny? Daniel Penny, of course, was the hero that saved innocent lives on the subway that day. Who was daniel penny? Well, he was a veteran, is a veteran. He served in the united states marine corps for four years. He achieved the rank of sergeant. His last assignment was at camp lejeune in North Carolina. His platoon sergeants testified during the trial that Penny had a reputation for being calm and peaceful, highlighting his character as one that would not easily resort to violence or aggression.

Speaker 1:

The incident on the subway was described by supporters as an example of Penny's willingness to protect others, portraying him as a good samaritan. Witnesses on the subway that day reported that neely had entered the subway and threatened to kill passengers, and he said that he was willing to die. So an individual in the United States enters a subway crowded with hundreds of Americans states. Very clearly, and several witnesses talked about this during the trial Mr Neely very clearly threatened to kill other passengers on the subway that day and said he didn't care if he died. While doing so, it was physically threatening and intimidating them. It was at some point that Daniel Penny and his military training prompted him to act. He was the only person on the train, or at least the first person on the train, to act very courageously, putting jordan neely in an ordinary chokehold. Jordan neely later died.

Speaker 1:

It's been a lot of disputes about why he died. Uh, you know, you can look up his blood work and his blood tests and all the stuff that was in his system. But whether he died or not because of the choke in my opinion is meaningless. I would hope that any upstanding citizen in this country was in a situation where innocent americans were being physically threatened with harm or death that they would immediately put their safety aside and intervene. I know I would, and thank god that justice prevailed and daniel penny was acquitted, because now I think that will give americans all over the country the trust maybe that they need to get involved. Like you've seen these videos on social media of people getting beat up, people getting attacked, and there's always these idiots that are videotaping with their phones. And every time I'm thinking why aren't you helping the victim? Some people say it's because of what happened to Daniel Penny. I still call complete BS on that. Regardless of what you think, the aftermath is going to be when somebody is in trouble, you help, period.

Speaker 1:

So at the beginning I mentioned that I wanted to talk about the mainstream media and their ratings tanking right. Fox News is actually up 12% year over year Probably not a surprise, although they're certainly not as conservative as they ought to be. Msnbc year over over year, ratings down 53. Msnbc in one year has lost over half of their viewership. Cnn down 34. And here's a quick little fact cnn just lost in the ratings to drum roll please. The Food Network you foodies, you did it. The Food Network, despite their really, really low ratings, finished in 17th place among all cable stations last week in primetime, beating CNN. What? Some of these long-term anchors at CNN and MSNBC, like Rachel Maddow, show a picture of her up on the screen and then, right next to it, we're going to show a picture of Mark Cuban, and if there ever in the history of America was a set of twins that were separated at birth but then found each other later in life. It's definitely rachel maddow and mark cuban.

Speaker 1:

I also promised I was going to talk about the usps, the us postal service. I meant to talk about it a little bit when we were talking about all the government inefficiencies earlier. I didn't, but I do want to highlight it quick. So the fiscal year 2023 usps profit statement has been released. The united states postal service lost 9.5 billion dollars. Excuse me, this is 2024, my bad, I apologize. 2024 fiscal year. The united states postal service has lost 9.5 billion dollars.

Speaker 1:

We pay them to deliver our packages and our mail, and the government agency that's called us postal service lost basically10 billion. So let's compare how they did to their contemporaries in the private sector. How about UPS? Net profit $4 billion. What about FedEx Net profit $4 billion. So FedEx made $4 billion. Ups made $4 billion. Our inefficient postal service lost $10 billion. Ups made 4 billion. Our inefficient postal service lost 10 billion dollars. I would challenge you to find another statistic that more accurately portrays what a disaster our government agencies are. I cannot wait until January 20th, while we get to watch vivek ramaswamy and elon musk start kicking you know what with doge department of government efficiency. I don't like talking about stuff like this, but it's news and it's disgusting.

Speaker 1:

A here on middle school teacher, zachary kaderebek, is on unpaid leave, accused of sending nude pictures to someone he thought was a 14 year old girl. Throw up a picture of him real quick. This gentleman was a huron middle school teacher accused of sending nude pictures to a girl he thought was 14 years old. According to court documents, it wasn't a girl he thought was 14 years old. According to court documents, it wasn't a girl, but it was a teenage boy who made a fake Snapchat account and was catfishing him. Kedara Beck stands accused of two counts of sexual exploitation of a minor, along with two counts of solicitation of a minor. He is scheduled to be in court in January when he'll have to respond to the charges. In May of this year, court documents say a 12-year-old girl told a friend Kaderabek had added her and sent her a message on Snapchat which made her feel uncomfortable. According to court papers, that friend responded by making a catfish or a fake account posing as a 14-year-old girl named Kate. The documents say Kaderabek made sexual comments and sent photos of his genitalia. While we will wait and see what happens to that case. He is presumed innocent until proven guilty. If he indeed is proven guilty, I hope he gets a very, very long prison sentence.

Speaker 1:

And lastly, today we're going to talk about something pretty exciting for you football fans. The fcs championship playoffs are into the quarterfinals and and I'll tell you what, if this isn't exciting? We have three local schools, two that are important because they're from South Dakota. The other ones are, you know, up north and they've won about 600 championships. So you know they can probably sit this one out, but they're still in the quarterfinals.

Speaker 1:

Ndsu plays this weekend. Sdsu plays at home at 11 am on saturday and they play I gotta find it here uiw incarnate word. I love some of these names of these fcs football teams. It's great, I love it. So south dakota State plays at 11 am. It was originally scheduled for noon. It's been pushed up to 11. I am going to the game. I don't know who's going with me yet, but I will be there. We are going to get some content at that game for next week's episode.

Speaker 1:

Sdsu is a pretty large favorite for you folks out there that like to legally wager on some games. Sdsu, I think, is like a 16 or a 17 point favorite. If they take care of business and show up on Saturday, they should win that game handily. University of South Dakota is a slight favorite. They're also at home. They play at 2 pm in the Dakota Dome on Saturday.

Speaker 1:

I am going to plan on being there as well. Well, toby, how are you going to be in Brookings at 11 and Vermillion at 2? I am Houdini and I fully plan on making that happen. So I want to go to the SDSU game. I'm thinking SDSU is going to whoop some butt. We're going to whip out of there by the end of the third quarter.

Speaker 1:

It's basically a 25-minute flight to Vermilion. We're going to catch most of, if not all of the USD game and I'm going to be home by dinner. I'm excited and USD and SDSU are on opposite sides of the bracket and I am already shopping for my tickets in Frisco. I want to go to Frisco and I want to watch the Coyotes versus the Jackrabbits. Let's do a total South Dakota takeover of the FCS football playoffs. Thank you all again for joining me today. As a reminder, you can find us anywhere. We are on Spotify, we are on Apple, we are on YouTube and we are on Facebook and every other social media platform you can think of. Thanks again, we'll see you next week. Thank you for listening to Toby Doden Unfiltered.