Dakota Beacon

MOSCOW

Nearly three decades ago, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that abortion is constitutionally protected. Ostensibly libertarian, the ruling was actually one of the most tyrannical acts in American history.

What greater power can the state claim than the power to redefine human life itself -- to withdraw protection from an entire category of human beings? And what greater power could the Federal Government usurp than the power of the individual states to protect
innocent life from violent death?

The pro-abortion movement has been consistent only in its inconsistency. It began by agreeing with its opponents that abortion was wrong, but arguing that abortion, when banned by law, "happens anyway" and could be better regulated -- made "safe" -- if legalized. Of course this could be said of any crime: murder, burglary, and incest, though banned by law, "happen anyway." Should they too be legalized?

Later the pro-abortion propaganda apparat took a new position: that when life begins is a "religious" question, beyond the competence of the state to decide. Oddly enough, my Darwinian public-school biology teachers used to answer the question without consulting their Bibles: life began at conception. Frog life, bovine life, human life. But in those days nobody had any axes to grind, so nobody denied or evaded the obvious. "When does life begin?" became a mystery only with the emergence of a political interest in killing the unborn.

Still later, the pro-abortion -- alias "pro-choice" -- crowd decided that abortion, far from being a necessary evil, was a positive good, which the state should not only tolerate but support, encourage, subsidize, maximize. Taxpayers should be forced to payfor abortions. They should have no more "choice" than the child.

How did the pro-abortion position evolve from the necessary evil position to the positive good position? Easy. The Court arbitrarily ruled that the U.S. Constitution shelters abortion. Did the Court cite any passage in the Constitution saying so? No. Did it find
any evidence that the Framers hoped to protect abortion? No. Did it name any justice of the Court, even the most liberal, who had ever claimed constitutional protection for abortion before 1973? No. It merely discovered, all of a sudden, that the abortion laws of all 50 states had been violating the Constitution all along, even when nobody suspected it.

This fantastic ruling generated a new debate about the "original intent" of the Constitution. Liberals argued that "original intent" didn't matter or was unknowable anyway. The Constitution didn't have a single fixed meaning; it "evolved" over time. Any interpretation was bound to be more or less "subjective" -- yet somehow the Court's subjective rulings had the binding force of law.

This amounted to saying that the Constitution means whatever today's liberal interpreters choose to say it means. If that were so, there would be no point in having a written constitution, or for that matter any written law. We would be defenseless against legal sophistry, especially the sophistry of self-aggrandizing power. That's the perfect prescription for tyranny, the opposite of the rule of law.

Anti-abortion forces thought they had a winning Issue when they raised the subject of the agony the aborted child may suffer, as rendered visible in films of aborted fetuses. The pro-abortion crowd replied -- when they didn't just ignore the question -- that nobody

really knew whether abortion caused pain. But when the issue of late-term (or "partial-birth") abortion emerged, it transpired that they didn't care at all whether a fully developed baby suffered when its skull was crushed and evacuated.

The Court agreed. It had originally made quibbling distinctions among first, second, and third trimesters of pregnancy, holding that a state might protect a child in the third trimester, when it had achieved "viability" and was capable of living outside the womb. But now the viability pretext was discarded. Killing the unborn was constitutionally protected at every stage between conception and live birth.

Right from the start, the pro-abortion movement has been defined by shifting arguments, fallacies, evasions, lame excuses, and utter bad faith. The Court has not only acted as part of that movement, but has been its greatest asset, sparing it the need for persuasion by imposing its arbitrary will on the entire United States -- and in the name of the Constitution it actually despises.

[This column was published originally by Griffin Internet Syndicate on January 15, 2002.]

###

The Reactionary Utopian by Joe Sobran is copyright (c) 2011 by the Fitzgerald Griffin Foundation http://www.fgfbooks.com.

All rights reserved.

It may be forwarded if attribution is given to the author and fgfBooks.com. For permission to publish or post this column,

contact Fran Griffin at (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address).

###

Joe Sobran's book, Single Issues: Essays on the Crucial Social Questions (Human Life Press, 1983) is out-of-print but available in pdf format on a CD for $10. Call or write to (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) for details or send a check to the address below

Picking Winners and Losers in North Dakota

Last week, we told you about how a company in oil boom country was given a five-year exemption on income taxes due to their business being so good they needed to expand.  This exemption was granted by the State Board of Tax Equalization (SBTE) - which is comprised of The Governor, State Treasurer, State Auditor, State Agriculture Commissioner, and the State Tax Commissioner.

A recent article by Jamestown Sun’s Keith Norman titled “Street Budget Ends ’11 in Red” helps illustrate why it’s so important we pass Measure 2.

Casey Bradley, Stutsman County chief operating officer said the county’s emergency fund was $2.8 million in the red. When Measure 2 passes the emergency fund will no longer be needed. That’s because disasters such as the flood will be the responsibility of the state. Likewise all legally imposed obligations of political subdivisions will be the responsibility of the state.

Mr. Norman wrote, “Measure 2 would abolish property taxes in North Dakota. Without a property tax the county would have no way to repay any loans used to pay the county share of disaster expense.” With Measure 2 there would be no need to “borrow” or impose local taxes to fund these expenses. They would be funded through the state general fund.

Measure 2 requires the state to fully and properly fund all basic and necessary governmental responsibilities. So, where will the state get the money? It will come from where it always does, from our pockets. These responsibilities must be funded before discretionary and special interest spending.

Public Economic Development entities use property tax forgiveness/abatement to attract business and industry. This is because eliminating property taxes results directly in economic growth. The Beacon Hill econometric study confirms this will happen statewide on passage of Measure 2 passes. That revenue will come in the form of increased sales, income and vehicle registration fees.

This will result in more new revenues from increased sales, income and vehicle registration fees flowing into the general fund than “lost” when property taxes are abolished - Measure 2 pays for itself.

All the money in the state general fund belongs to the taxpayers not the state. Those public entities opposing Measure 2 do so because they do not want to be required to use our taxes for basic governmental services; instead they want to force us to tax ourselves again – through imposition of property taxes – so they can give our money to special interests and use it for non-essential purposes.

Ask yourself why our Legislature is giving $12,000 annual tuition subsidies to 17,000 non-resident college students. Then tell us there isn’t enough money to pay for school buildings, police, fire and road needs. Measure 2 will stop this irrational and irresponsible spending AND allow us to finally own our homes and not perpetually rent them from government.

Here’s something for you term-limit fans to think about.  This week term-limited Governor Haley Barbour (R) of Mississippi left office with quite a flourish: he pardoned some 200 convicted felons.  A few years ago un-elected Tennessee Governor Blanton did the same.  There is no doubt about it: a lame-duck executive without principles is a dangerous person.  Just as a lame-duck Congressman or Senator is dangerous because we have no leverage over him and he can therefore flout our objections to whatever end-of-term folly he might have in mind, so a lame duck, term-limited governor can wreak havoc without looking over his shoulder.

 The pardon action is problematic for several reasons, constitutional ones as well as good old common sense ones.  In practical terms, take a moment to mull over the realities.  Among those released and pardoned are four murderers and assorted and sundry carjackers, woman beaters and others.  David Gatlin, convicted of the murder of his wife as she held their baby, and a friend, for example.  He left the baby on the dead mother’s body.  Other equally brutal murderers went free this week.  Gatlin had just been turned down by a parole board for early release when his pardon came through. 

 One is stunned by the sheer recklessness of such an act by a state governor and left wondering why?  It is known that some of these convicts were in a work-release program where they worked at the governor’s mansion.  Presumably some of these hardened killers brought Barbour his afternoon tea.  Or whatever. There are myriad theories, some quite lurid, to explain the action of Haley Barbour and speculation is running rampant.  We needn’t advance any of them here.

 All we know for sure is that these convicted killers are now on the loose, with the legal right to firearms and whatever other rights the normal law-abiding citizen enjoys.  Which leaves the surviving victims and the survivors of the victims at risk.  Under Mississippi law, they were to have 48 hours’ notice.  There isn’t even a witness protection program for them.  And how would you like to be in the shoes of the district attorney that won the conviction? Or the jurors who sat in the case?  Would you like to serve jury duty in Mississippi after this?  The murderer you sent up probably had a good week or two to study your face . . . and probably knows how to find where you live, thanks to state-of-the-art communications electronics frequently found in prison rec rooms.  Former Governor Barbour will be a little harder to find, or at least well-protected.  He can go wherever he likes, now, unlike the victims, otherwise known as “Fish in a Barrel”.

 Of course this is not an isolated case.  As mentioned above, former Tennessee Governor Blanton did this, and, lest we forget, that folksy guitar picker and man of God, former Governor Huckabee of Arkansas.  And others before him.  Had Huckabee been held accountable for the disastrous result of his pardon of Washington State cop killer Maurice Clemmons, Haley Barbour might have had second thoughts.  But, no.  Huckabee went on to a cushy celebrity spot on FOX NEWS instead.  And seems to have clung to his image as a paragon.  That he was not disciplined by the Republican Party is an outrage. 

 The Republican Party should take care that it does not carry the “Eleventh Commandment” too far and leave itself open to a certain degree of culpability here If Haley Barbour, also, survives this off-hand attitude toward public safety, we must hold the Party responsible for abandonment of principle . . . in yet another area. 

 Barbour is in disfavor with many Conservatives and constituionalists and citizens’ groups such as the Castle Coalition, due to his veto of legislation giving property owners protection from the use of eminent domain to benefit private entities.  The Republican Party needs to clean house.  We should not open our arms to just anyone and call him a “Conservative.  Barbour has been calling himself that for years and by extension, inattentive Republicans have therefore accorded him that status. 

 The Republican Party, like the nation it hopes to represent, is in big trouble these days.  It is in an identity crisis of its own and of its own making.  Even while we watch it atrophy as it attempts to be more Democrat than Republican, while it contorts itself to be a “big tent” that embraces everyone and every position, its own core is disintegrating.  It seems to have lost its soul.

 Arguably one of the best and brightest and most resoundingly successful of Republican governors, New Mexico’s Gary Johnson, found himself outside the door this year, while the Party ranges around every nook and cranny to find a left-enough leaning candidate for President.  The party that favors a left-of-center Chris Christie over a Gary Johnson is no alternative to the socialist Democrats now in the driver’s seat.  And by labeling such as Haley Barbour and Mike Huckabee “Conservative Republicans” the Party advertises its bankruptcy.  Will it survive its fear of its own identity?  I hope so.  We shall see.  Unless it shapes up I will join many others in calling myself  “Independent”.

 Sally Morris is a member of Americans for Constitutional Government and the Executive Committee of the Valley Tea Party Conservative Coalition, for whose website (vtpcc.com) she also blogs.  She has been an active member of the Republican Party in both North Dakota and Minnesota.

In the late Sixties, the liberal cartoonist and wag Al Capp suddenly turned against the Left. People were startled by his apparent rightward swing. "I haven't
changed," he insisted. "Liberalism has."

Today it's conservatism that has changed. The conservative movement of yesterday has moved like a migrating herd from most of its old principles. Staunch conservatives like Patrick Buchanan and Samuel Francis have been excommunicated, attacked, snubbed, blacklisted.

Once upon a time, conservatives stood for limited government, the rollback of the welfare state, strict construction of the Constitution, and traditional morality. Today they merely want their own people to run big government.

They used to oppose needless military intervention abroad; today they equate militarism with patriotism. They used to demand that the U.S. Department of Education be abolished; today they want to expand it. They used to denounce Franklin Roosevelt; today they venerate him.

Constitutional government? Conservatives have simply dropped the subject. They can live with the status quo, which is not conservatism's legacy but liberalism's. Yesterday's heresy has become today's orthodoxy.

Traditional morality? Again, conservatives havedropped the subject. Their new hero is former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani, who supported legal abortion and homosexual rights and brought his mistress to official functions. Giuliani is a winner. He knows how to get and use power. The media have adored him since the 9/11 attacks. So conservatives have adopted him as their poster boy.

When Ronald Reagan was elected president in 1980, conservatives (including me) wanted to feel they had triumphed, that a victory for their movement meant the permanent vanquishing of liberalism. Even liberals thought Reagan had "turned the country around." But Reagan, while repeating conservative platitudes,challenged very little of the institutional structure of liberalism and in fact embraced most of it. During his eight years in office the Federal Government continued to grow, nearly doubling its spending. As Federal deficits mounted monstrously, conservatives dropped another subject: the evils of deficit spending and unbalanced budgets.

Still, conservatives pretended they had conquered. They equated Reagan's minor gains with the radical and lasting changes Roosevelt had effected. Reagan himself encouraged this feeling by inviting conservative leaders to White House dinners. That was all it took to sustain their delusions. After all, most of them had never been beckoned to the White House before. What better proof that they now reigned?

Meanwhile, a new breed was emerging: the "neoconservatives." These were former liberals, mostly pro-Israel and anti-Communist Jewish intellectuals. There weren't really very many of them, but they had disproportionate influence; conservatives welcomed them
as allies with awe and gratitude.

In the conservative press, support for Israel suddenly became mandatory and criticism of Israel became taboo. Conservatives stopped complaining about "foreign entanglements" and foreign aid. Yet another inconvenient subject had been dropped, to be replaced by embarrassing fawning on Israel. Just as liberals had once turned a blind eye to Soviet spies and agents, conservatives ignored Israeli espionage.

The neoconservatives were still basically liberals, albeit Cold War liberals. They favored the New Deal legacy and looked back at Harry Truman as a great president. The old conservative agenda of a return to constitutional government left them cold; limited
government would hamper military action abroad. But they have moved to the head of the conservative movement, and their chief followers are conservative "leaders."

In short, conservatism has been swallowed up by neoconservatism. THE WEEKLY STANDARD, a neoconservative magazine, has made William Buckley's NATIONAL REVIEW redundant. The founding generation of NATIONAL REVIEW included men of the stature of Whittaker Chambers, James Burnham, Willmoore Kendall, Henry Hazlitt, Frank Meyer, and Brent Bozell; none of them could write for the magazine today. It has no room for independent or original thinkers -- or even for writers who espouse its
own founding principles.

Former Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan has observed that we have "defined deviancy downward" -- that is, we have become so inured to behavior formerly recognized as
deviant that we have tried to cope by lowering our standards. In the same way, conservatism has been "defined downward." The principles conservatives once
upheld have been defeated politically, so conservatism has abandoned them, adopting instead the old liberal positions and calling them conservative.

How odd, and sad, that a movement professing to fight for tradition should drop its own past down the Memory Hole.

[This column was published originally by Griffin Internet Syndicate on January 2, 2002.]

The Reactionary Utopian by Joe Sobran is copyright (c) 2011 by the Fitzgerald Griffin Foundation http://www.fgfbooks.com. All rights reserved.

Those opposing Measure 2 (the Initiated Measure to abolish property taxes, signed by almost 30,000 North Dakota voters) are imitating Chicken Little. They’re claiming that abolishing property taxes will effectively end civilization as we know it. All their claims are based on fear and none on factual information. In fact, the language of Measure 2 answers most of the concerns we’ve heard expressed regarding abolition of property taxes.

Opponents are manufacturing outrageous and foolish hypothetical’s calling them “unintended consequences”. “There are too many unforeseen, unintended consequences to this measure”, they say. “It’s too confusing, too complex and if you make a false move, things will be much worse. So don’t you worry your pretty little heads by voting for this measure. Just vote “no” on this measure and let us wise, farseeing sages take care of the problem of property tax for you.”

What they are not saying is that since 1981 there have been more than 131 state legislative changes to property taxes. Of course, these same people tell us that property taxes are locally controlled. If that’s the case, why do we have a “State Supervisor of Assessments and Director of Property tax Division for the Office of State Tax Commissioner? Or, why has the State Legislature passed more than 131 laws directing how property taxes are assessed, imposed and managed since 1981? Or, why is there a State Board of Equalization if property taxes are locally controlled?

I’m not sure what crystal ball those opposing Measure 2 have that makes them so much wiser than the citizens of this state. However like any rational, thinking person, we can rely on past experience, common sense, economist’s studies as well as the law and Constitutional authority to anticipate and predict the actual impacts of abolishing property taxes.

The prophets’ of doom and gloom’s first scare tactic is: “Abolishing property tax is too drastic. Cities and counties will dry up and die if they can’t tax property. Let us reform it instead.” But here’s what the past teaches us: The legislature has amended, tweaked and reformed property tax 134 times in the past 30 years. The result? A more complex system, more shifting taxes away from special interests onto the shoulders of middle-class taxpayers resulting in more spending and more taxing. You don’t need a crystal ball to know that if we leave property tax reform in the hands of the legislature we’ll get more of the same.

Another lesson from the past: North Dakota abolished personal property tax in 1965. That’s right, the state used to tax you for your washer and dryer, TV, car, shoes, furniture, every bit of personal property you owned. But some bright person decided to bring North Dakota out of the Dark Ages and abolish that tax. And guess what? The state found ways to compensate and continue services and there were no increases in any other taxes to do it. They did it once before, they can do it again.

Here’s another bogeyman from the prophets of doom: “What if the oil wells dry up? Without property tax the fallout would be catastrophic.” Well, we know that when the oil wells dried up in the 80’s, it was devastating to the state. Since the state’s economy is built on oil and agriculture, when oil was knocked out from under us, hundreds were left jobless and were forced to sell their homes. But if we abolish property tax, our state’s economy will no longer depend primarily on just agriculture and oil for revenue. An economic study done by Beacon Hill Institute (read the entire study at our website: http://www.empowerthetaxpayer.com) shows that abolishing property tax makes the entire state an Economic Development Zone and will attract a wide variety of new businesses and industry to the state. This will result in new revenues that will more than make up for the lost property tax revenue.

So let’s say the doomsayers are right and in 10, 15 or 20 years the oil wells dry up. What will happen if we don’t abolish property tax? We will have a repeat of the 80’s bust. But if we do abolish property taxes and the oil industry tanks, our state will have a much broader and more diversified economic base that can more easily absorb the displaced oil workers and the revenue from oil. And none of them will lose their homes for inability to pay property taxes.

Here’s another scare tactic from the opposition: “Oh, we don’t want to be like Minnesota, where they are cutting funding to cities and schools.” There are two big differences between Measure 2 and what’s happening in Minnesota. First, Minnesota’s buy down of property tax was a legislative action that is undone as easily as it is enacted. Measure 2 is a constitutional amendment that binds this and all future legislators to permanent property tax abolition. And second, Minnesota places special interests above essential government services when it budgets; that is why they are cutting funding to schools but building a stadium for the Vikings. Measure 2, by contrast, mandates that the state funds the legally mandated services (roads, fire and police protection, courts, etc) and schools first, before it funds anything else.

So if the state faces lean years and there’s belt tightening, it won’t be at the expense of schools, roads and essential governmental services. If something needs to be cut, the legislature will have to defund the horserace commission and our hundreds of millions in subsidies to non-resident college students before they cut school or local funding.

Keep in mind that the Measure 2 opponents are not concerned about well-being of the citizens. Their first concern is keeping a steady stream of revenue coming into the coffers, even if it drives homeowners out of their homes, even if it discourages business, even if it makes serfs out of all of us. They want the status quo, which is to put the homeowner at the mercy of the state.

Don’t believe it? Again, look to the past: when the elderly lost their homes, did they abolish property tax? No, they instituted the Homestead Credit, which shifted the tax burden away from a few and onto the shoulders of other taxpayers. When businesses wouldn’t build because of high property taxes, did they abolish the tax? No, they gave a tax exemption to a select few and again put the burden of lost revenues on the shoulders of the rest of us. When property owners would not improve or repair their properties because it would result in increased taxes, did that give them pause? No, they created Renaissance Zones so that a select few could improve their property without penalty.

At every turn, the response has been the same: shift the burden onto someone else with the threat of losing your home if you don’t pay the increase in taxes. But never, ever let this revenue stream run dry, no matter the economic, social or personal cost to business, citizens and communities. It’s time for the citizens of this state to be free of this unfair, unreasonable and unfixable tax.

My column has attempted to direct the reader’s mind to the true conclusions which the facts, and past reality, point; a working "truth". It would be, in engineering, called "reverse engineering"—proving why a "self-evident" truth is true by merely accepting the reasons that the "working model" works. That is the sole purpose of critical thinking. Truth cannot be invented. It merely "is."

Imaginary thinking, on the other hand, creates a believable story by arranging the data to arrive at a predicted ending or conclusion, which exists, at first, only in the imaginer’s mind, which he is attempting, with all his glowing rhetoric, serious gravitas, and acting and plotting skills, to get the reader or listener to accept as truth. Truth, however, rejects all this false posturing, smooth talking, glib rhetoric, and sanctimonious plot structuring. Truth just is! 2 + 2 = 4! It’s that simple. Why, then, is it so hard for people to detect truth, and seemingly, so easy to be accept falsehoods in data and fallacies in reasoning? You can use the following little facts in your struggle to discover the truth about anything. Is the US Army Corpse of Engineers’ "explanation" of the 2011 Missouri flood rational and valid? Are President Obama’s "Tele-prompter Tidbits" about job-creation, compromise, partisanship, "equality or equity" in terms of "share the wealth" rational or valid?

1. Be alert to anyone who speaks in absolutes: who uses words such as "all, none, no one, never, always, everyone , must, immediately, or who refers to a group of people as if all the members have identical characteristics, beliefs, or attitudes. {Use this on "Tea Party-ers, OWS protesters, Libiya "freedom fighters" etc.

2. Be alert to anyone who uses emotional language and evaluative words instead of objective, factual responses.

3. Do not confuse opinion, personal bias, speculation, personal assurance, unsupported generalizations with hard, factual evidence.

4. When authority is referred to, do not automatically accept that authority unless his/hers/its credentials are relevant to the issue under discussion.

5. Make sure that the evidence is thorough, not selective.

6. THINK CRITICALLY! Never let a fallacy go by without making a mental note of it; even if you don’t say anything: say to your SELF, "THIS IS NONSENCE." Put up a RED FLAG!

Following are some others observations that help critical thinkers stay sane, in what seems, many times, to be an irrational world.

The tools of propaganda, aided by the explosion of instant texting and response, have become formidable. Some of its tools used constantly by OBAMA and others, and the news media are:

1.The "Bandwagon, aka "the Black-Bus";

2.Repetition- The theory that if you repeat something enough, people will eventually believe it.

3.Confidence- giving the impression of "knowing what he’s talking about.

4. Earnestness and sincerity-Non-critical thinkers are swayed by appearances, but stand firm against cold equations such as truth; ie, 4$ taxes-5$ government should equal--1$ even in government spending. (Just heard OBAMA say that America has "lost their ambition and imagination" which cuts to the core of Critical thinking and what I am writing right now; that "Imaginary" thinking is NOT the same as CREATIVE thinking.

One CANNOT get a patent on a figment of even the wildest imaginary art form simply because it does not produce anything of value. Creativity, turned into working models can and do get a patent. One can produce, but only in highly imaginary novels such as 1984, Atlas Shrugged, Animal Farm, the truth about the irrationality of many of the theories about producers and consumers. Creation of a business climate in which critical, creative producers are taxed, regulated, or ridiculed out of existence, has always been, both in theory and reality, both in history and imaginative works of critical writers, abysmal failures. But how many schools or colleges use these land-mark books?

Citizen of ND since 1953, Ruben has BS and BA degrees from Dickinson State University, MA in English from University of Kansas, and was a Mandan High School teacher for 20 years, College faculty member at Dickinson State, Bismarck State, and the University of Mary. Married to wife Lois since 1958 with 5 children.

I had an eye opening experience a while ago as I took U.S. 85 up to Watford City. This was a nostalgic trip for me because when I drove water truck for Missouri Basin, I served wells in the Keane area which is east of Watford City. There is virtually a new city on the south side of Watford. From there, ND Highway 23 will take you to New Town, and I averaged about 45 mph. They had one of those speed signs as I came into town in my caravan and I was going 16 mph. Normally, I am speeding on those things. I averaged about 25 mph up to Stanley, but there was road construction as there always seems to be. The trucks were stacked up as we waited for the lone stop light to let us all make a left hand turn. They just put up a new stop light at the entrance to Tioga, I can’t imagine trying to make that turn without one. I talked to a man from the volunteer fire department, and he said they used to put out a lot of fires, now they do a lot of "jaws of life." I have yet to make the full circle from Watford City to New Town to Stanley to Williston and back to Watford. It would be interesting if all of our elected state officials and legislators would make that drive themselves. That way, they could see that this oil booms is about government getting out ahead of the infrastructure bottleneck and making the western part of the state a safe place to live and work.

Our continuing look at the US Constitution takes us to Article 1, Section 5, Clauses 3 and 4: "Each House shall keep a Journal of its proceedings, and from time to time publish the same, excepting such parts as may in their judgment require secrecy; and the yeas and nays of the members of either house on any question shall, at the desire of one fifth of those present, be entered on the Journal." Clause 4: "Neither House, during the session of Congress, shall, without the consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor to any other place than that in which the two houses shall be sitting."

The Congressional Record is the name of the publication that each house produces about what is said and done on the floor of each house. In the North Dakota legislature, all votes on bills are recorded but in Congress, many are not. We have to vote yes or no on each bill while a congressman may vote present. This is the 112th term of Congress, and after Jan. 3rd it is the 2nd session. Houses of Congress can’t recess for more than three days without permission from the other house, and they must meet at the same place, which is Washington, DC.

The President of the week is number five, James Monroe whose career paralleled Jefferson’s and Madison’s. He grew up in Virginia and fought in the Revolutionary War with the 3rd Virginia Regiment where he was wounded at the Battle of Trenton. He also fought at the Battles of Brandywine, Germantown, Monmouth, and endured the winter at Valley Forge. He served as a Minister to France where he secured the release of Thomas Paine from a French prison. Monroe also brokered the deal where we gave France $15 million for the Louisiana Territory.

Monroe became Secretary of State under President James Madison and simultaneously held the office of Sec. of War in the defense of Baltimore in the War of 1812. He was elected President in 1816, and ushered in the "Era of Good Feeling" where he had no opposition in the 1820 election. He established 49 degrees north as our northern boundary and imitating Washington, made a grand tour of the nation. He helped create a colony of freed slaves in West Africa called Liberia, whose capital is named Monrovia, after him. In 1823, he fashioned a document called the Monroe Doctrine which kept Europeans from colonizing the Western Hemisphere. He was truly a remarkable man.

My grandfather served in three wars, World War I, World War II, and the Korean War. Well, he was in the Korean War but he worked for the railroad which was building tracks for the South Koreans. Apparently, on June 24th of 1950, my Grandpa Madsen was out pheasant hunting. He and his friends got lost and drove across the 39th parallel and were captured by the North Koreans. They were held for an hour and then released and allowed to go home. The next day, the entire North Korean army invaded the south and the war was on. I hope Grandpa didn’t say something to get it started. I guess we will never know. Have a good one!

Mike is a New England businessman who is currently a legislator serving in the North Dakota House of Representatives (District 36). He has served in that capacity between 1988-90, and was reelected in 2008 to his current term. He was a National Finalist for the High School Coach of the Year in 2000, leading the New England Tigers to four North Dakota State Class B championships in 1988, 1995, 1996, and 1997. He ended his coaching career with a 47-game winning streak. (A collection of Coach’s writings is available in book form at dakotabooknet.com)

HOW THINGS ARE DONE IN BISMARCK
Public Debate . . . or Back-Room Deals?

A real factor which, for better or worse, must always enter into party endorsements, is that amorphous quality,  “electability”.  Until now the question has been: "Is Paul Sorum 'electable'"?  Now the pertinent question is: 'How 'electable' will Jack Dalrymple be?' 

Sally Morris

The events of the last week serve to illustrate the level to which the American people in general, and the people of North Dakota in particular, have become debased.  Our foreign-born and alien-reared president, Barack Hussein Obama, decided he could dispense with the consent and confirmation of Congress in his appointments, knowing well that they would be rejected by that body.  He assumed the powers of a dictator and – voila! – Mussolini re-incarnate.  While the talking heads commented and fumed, or exhibited shock at this usurpation, those who should be most affronted and also must be held partly responsible for this act of aggression – members of Congress – sat in cabbage-like silence, as if to say, ”Well, that’s how things are done in Washington, you rubes.”

No intention seems manifest to reject and refute Obama’s unconstitutional dictatorship.  We aren’t hearing renewed calls for impeachment.  The reins of power have slipped effortlessly from the people and their representatives quite without question or objection.  America’s epitaph:  “That’s how things are done in Washington.”

A couple of weeks ago, a representative of Rick Berg met with some local tea party activists in order to get feedback.  I was there.  I expressed my acute disappointment that while North Dakota had confidently sent Berg to Washington with a clear mandate, namely to bring our budget under control and cease and desist from more spending and regulation, Berg was found under the petticoats of Speaker John Boehner every time.  “The thing is, Boehner calls them into his office and closes the door and says, ‘What do you need from me to get on board with this?  A balanced budget amendment?  What would you like?”  It works every time.  That’s how things are done in Washington.

Last week the people of North Dakota also got a better look at the man in the Governor’s mansion.  Jack Dalrymple, acting governor, refused to debate his opponent, Paul Sorum.  Sorum has been out in front of the people for over a year seeking the governorship.  Dalrymple finally came out from under the covers late this Fall to announce his candidacy.  We know quite a bit about Sorum.  He and his vision for North Dakota have been an open book.  Voters across the state have eagerly awaited access to Dalyrmple’s views on issues.  But last week we were disabused of the notion that we would be hearing anything prior to his supposedly in-the-bag nomination.  If even then.  The reason he gave is far more illuminating than that debate would have been anyway: “Right now, what I’m seeking is an endorsement by a specific group of delegates, and I intend to go and speak to them directly.”

What is not so well illuminated, however, is just who these specific, special delegates are, why they are so much more important than the citizens of North Dakota, and what their “endorsement” means to the future of the state, should Dalrymple succeed with his plan.  Who will really be running North Dakota under “Governor” Dalrymple?  Is his rejection of a public forum the product of fear or arrogance or something else?
 
A real factor which, for better or worse, must always enter into party endorsements, is that amorphous quality,  “electability”.  Until now the question has been: "Is Paul Sorum 'electable'"?  Now the pertinent question, in view of the refusal of Mr. Dalrymple, together with his ham-handed revelation, is: 'How 'electable' will Jack Dalrymple be?' 

The Republican candidate will be running against a popular Will Rogers-esque writer, well known throughout the state, with whose pronouncement of "shock" at Dalrymple's decison many are already finding themselves in agreement- regardless of party affiliation.  Will the popular cowboy folk icon be opposed on the Republican ticket by an elitist, back-room Progressive who shuns public debate?  Or should he be opposed by a businessman who has been outlining his ideas and philosophy of government for over a year in the public eye?  Now it’s time to decide “How things are done in North Dakota”.

Sally Morris is a member of Americans for Constitutional Government.  She is a member of the Executive Committee of the Valley Tea Party Conservative Coalition, for whose website- vtpcc.com – she blogs regularly.  She has served the Republican Party of Minnesota as a Delegate to the 2010 State Convention and the North Dakota Republican Party as a Precinct Committeeman, State Convention Delegate and Chairman of Convention Committees.

On Thursday, January 4, 2012, President Obama announced a new US military strategy guaranteeing deep cuts in national security. The decision to announce the new strategy personally underscores deep divisions within the Department of Defense.

Military intelligence analysts are quite capable of defining the threat to the United States. The National Intelligence Estimate looks forward 10, 20 and 30 years and is predominantly a military effort executed reasonably well. Setting the policy that protects the nation, on the other hand, is a political function subject to the forces of political self-interest. Planning for national security in a dangerous world leaves little room for error.

Over the decades military planners consistently emphasized to congress that to make America 100% secure would be unaffordable. Therefore, military planners offered a variety of options proposing something less that 100% security and congress bought the protection they believe Americans were willing to pay for. Quietly, politicians assumed the risk for the shortfall and hoped they were not in office when the shoe fell. That is an oversimplification, but that’s how it works. Less funding means more risk.

My own military background tells me that this administration is toying with national security for short term political gain. That compounds the danger to America from the world in which we live.

Unlike agriculture, education, health care, Social Security, Medicare, energy and other programs not mentioned in the US Constitution, the Constitution specifically addresses provisions for national security in Article I, Section 8, Clauses 11 through 16 and Article II, Section 2, Clause 1. National defense is paramount. Without securing the United States, all other federal provisions mean nothing.

We’ve repeatedly seen the “drawdown mentality” on parade throughout the 20th Century. Following every war, hot or cold, the US, in most cases, shrank its military to the point of virtual ineffectiveness. Following every drawdown, like clockwork, a rebuild of our armed forces was necessary to deter and defend against aggression.

Have we learned nothing from a century’s worth of experience? A very plausible argument has been made that the perceived weakness of America may well promulgate the next conflict. Early in our nation’s history the phrase “Don’t Tread on Me” meant something. It gave fair warning to any who would transgress America’s vital interests. Will it hold meaning again?

How much more costly is this seesawing back and forth than it would be to maintain a prudent force to begin with? Excessive drawdown will cost more to restore the armed forces than to have maintained them in the first place. With the United States now broke, restoration of adequate security will happen more slowly if at all.

Senior US military leaders testifying before the Senate Armed Services Committee in late July delivered a stark yet truthful assessment which they are professionally obliged to do on matters of national security. With one voice these military leaders warned that very large cuts in defense spending will, in their words, “break the force.” Our armed forces cannot maintain a forward presence in the world, provide humanitarian disaster relief at home and abroad, conduct training for dozens of allied countries and conduct endless overseas deployments while expecting to retain an all volunteer force in tact. All of this is in addition to the first mission of maintaining a warfighting capability. Impose a trillion dollars of budget cuts and a capable armed force becomes unsustainable.

I’m not given to prognostication. That said, as sure as the sun rises I can foresee in my lifetime (and I’m a sexagenarian) a substantial threat to American national security resulting in a major conflict for which we will be unprepared. Among other things, we may find ourselves reinstating a military draft. The follow-on loss of life and treasure will be far more than if we had maintained a reasonably lean superior military capability.

My generation will be long gone and the next generation will have to learn painful lessons all over again which earlier generations learned for themselves through blood, sweat and tears.

Dennis M. Patrick can be contacted at P. O. Box 337, Stanley, ND 58784 or (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address).