Dog-killer Noem tries a new excuse: I was protecting my children

Originally published at:


President Biden recently had a problem dog that had a history of biting people, including but not limited to Secret Service agents…

Guess what? He didn’t blow its brains out and toss its corpse in the White House Rose Garden. He re-homed it to a more appropriate environment.


She completely misread the kind of cruelty that is acceptable to that particular base; even though 45 himself hates animals, I’d wager that most of his thrall do not.


I think it’s the toughness that’s supposed to matter. Despite the victim being a defenseless member of a well-loved species, she supposedly “steeled herself and did what she had to do.”


Sure, I get that.


Next up, “The dog shot first.”


I somehow missed that this woman is a Governor in all of these posts about her. Good grief and wow. She had to have had staff whose entire job is to help craft her image and somehow, even with the insanity that is MAGA, she felt this was the best play?


Noem: I hated that dog, so I shot it.

PR Firm: You can’t just blurt that out, you have to build up to it slowly. First say it was acting strangely and your kids were scared. Then later you say it was biting people and killing livestock. Then say it was foaming at the mouth and threatening your kids, so you did what had to be done. By the way, how’s your ex-husband?

Noem: He was acting strangely and my kids were scared.


There was a Simpson’s episode* (there always is) where Mr Burns was running for office and Marge served him some of his nuclear plant three-eyed (“blinky”) mutated fish and he spat it out on television. Upon seeing that, his campaign manager said something akin to: “We lost before it hit the ground”. That’s how Noem’s political future felt when she proudly published her story about being a dog and goat murderer.

(* “Two Cars in Every Garage and Three Eyes on Every Fish”)


And she’s been banned, declared an illegal, by more than 15% of South Dakota.

Native Americans hate her. Probably more so now.


Sounds like she badly misjudged the idea that she could “stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot a dog and not lose any voters” not realizing that the public cares about dogs a helluva lot more than they do voters.


No, no. A dog exercising its Second Amendment rights would be a hero to Republicans!

What you have to say is “It’s coming right for us!”
scared gun GIF by South Park


Certain segments of it, certainly.

Remember, Michael Vick got more jail time for running a dog fighting ring than Johannes Mehserle got for killing Oscar Grant on camera.


and conservative Christian adulteress Kristi Noem

I LOLd at that very accurate description (though ‘grifter’ and ‘lickspittle’ could also be added.

I wouldn’t be surprised if this whole thing is made up - in some misguided attempt to present as a MAGA Woman Who Can Make Hard Decisions™ in appealing to the Orange One.


Well, Droopy McFace Guilfoyle is now claiming that “someone” inserted the passage on the down low. :man_shrugging:


Well with disney being too “woke” these days, maybe she felt Old Yeller needed a rewrite.

Son: “It’s my dog Ma. I’ll do it.”

Noem: “Like hell you will. Gimme that gun. This is my path to power.”


So how does this side of the tale side up with when she was tweeting about how you can read the dog-killing “and other politically incorrect stories” in her book?


Perhaps she came to the realization that nobody other than a few unfortunate journalists are likely to ever read her book, so she can start lying about what it says and no MAGA folks will know.


I realize that consistency is not the point here; but this seems like a really dumb second-line excuse:

The more we believe her initial round of excuses, about it being a psychotic murder dog with a long rap sheet, the more irresponsible it is to have allowed it continued access to children for as long as she did(if memory serves, it wasn’t until it killed some chickens that it was execution time; so apparently the risk of children getting gnawed on was acceptable losses material); and the less we believe the initial round of excuses the less plausible it is that there was actually any serious risk to child safety.


So this addition slipped through on her book, but she didn’t catch it. Uh huh. How many people had write access to her book?

Why should the constituents of hers trust her to read a bill before signing it?

Why do conservatives have the most incidences of being “hacked”? They can’t protect their twitter account, but they want to be in charge of legislation?

These are all rhetorical questions.