Dakota Beacon

Alcohol consumption during the Holiday Season climbs precipitously from Thanksgiving through New Years. Office parties, house parties, bars and lounges afford ample opportunity to imbibe.

Consequently, Christmas and New Years brings the best of times -- and the worst of times. Family and friends gather for fun and to socialize -- and drink. People visit and exchange gifts -- and drink. Folks ring out the old year and ring in the new -- and drink. Throughout mankind’s history, consuming adult beverages became integral to celebrations.

Whether celebrating events, enhancing the warmth of fellowship or just escaping the daily routine, the net effect is the same. A drink or two instills euphoria and release, a sense of soft giddiness and exhilaration. More alcohol eventually gives way to lowered inhibitions which, in turn, affect good judgment and prudent behavior.

Aside from a hangover, most consumers of alcohol exhibit no physiological harm from their drinking. These folks ingest the alcohol and process it quite normally. After a few drinks their body reacts to the alcohol and begins to shut down. Some feel sleepy; others feel tipsy, dizzy or even ill. Enough is enough and they stop drinking.

Some drinkers fare poorly. Come New Years Day more than a few people stare through bleary eyes at the carnage they created while others pick their way through the wreckage of screwed up lives. Gilt-driven New Years resolutions might go something like this. Reminder to self: Go easy on the booze in 2012.

There are an unfortunate few, roughly ten percent of the drinking population, who cannot process ethyl alcohol normally. These folks become candidates for alcoholism. For them, a greater quantity of alcohol is required to achieve a “buzz.” Beware the person who challenges to “drink everyone under the table.”

The Holidays hold in store a variety of pageants. Intended as a joyous time, the Holidays become hell-on-earth for those enmeshed in the life of an alcohol abuser. This is the drama of the co-dependent in relation to the drinker. All who know and associate with these people can see what is happening even if the participants cannot. It is a dangerous drama and the more closely intertwined the participants on stage, the more they risk harm emotionally or even physically.

As this drama plays out, it becomes an ugly dance between the alcohol abuser and the co-dependent people surrounding him or her. The actors are real people speaking their lines on cue as if scripted. Each person portrays their own relational struggle with the heavy drinker.

While the alcohol abuser practices the fine art of denial, those people closest learn to survive by employing their own form of denial. Just as the alcohol abuser denies their problem, so too, the co-dependent denies their own problems with the abuser. They seek protection by not risking a rupture in their dysfunctional (or, as they see it, “normal”) relationship with the heavy drinker.

I once discussed the issue of drinking with a young pastor full of wisdom beyond his years. His comment made a lot of sense. “Drinking may not be prohibited legally or morally,” he said, “but consuming alcohol has never made an individual a better person.”

Where there is help there is hope for both the alcohol abuser and the co-dependent. Help is readily available to anyone willing to acknowledge they have a drinking problem -- or to any person willing to acknowledge they have a problem with an abusive drinker close to them. Any doctor, pastor or social worker can assist in finding the right help. Just ask.

Just ask? That may be the hardest part of getting help. Asking for help presumes a person acknowledges a problem in the first place. Robert Frost’s poem illustrates the struggle to acknowledge:

“Two roads diverged in a wood, and I--

I took the one less traveled by,

And that has make all the difference.”

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

The biased liberal media is working hard pretending to engage in journalism in their efforts to get the most liberal candidate they possibly can selected in the Republican primaries. They have destroyed conservative candidates like Herman Cain (who would have spelled certain doom for the Socialist Democratic Party) with baseless and even racist attacks and have fully vetted all of the leaders in the polls except for Mitt Romney.

The media has investigated the churches of leading Republican candidates. They have even accused Michelle Bachmann of attending a church that is (gasp) protestant. They will investigate Romney’s church should he win the primary. They conveniently ‘forgot’ to investigate President Obama’s church. For all we know Obama had a pastor like Reverend Jeremiah Wright who preaches racism, anti-Semitism, hatred for America and Marxism from the pulpit. Perhaps he had a pastor that yelled “God <bleep> America” from the pulpit as he and his congregation celebrated the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

With the exception of Romney, they have fully vetted the associations of the leading Republican candidates. They have yet to do this for President Obama. For all we know President Obama has associated radical domestic terrorist leaders and communists like William Ayers.

Even though the media never vetted candidate Obama on foreign policy, we do want them to vet the Republican candidates on this. We don’t want a President who would use his influence or even military force to overthrow brutal secular dictatorships in countries like Libya and Egypt in favor of even more bloody and oppressive radical Islamic dictatorships. We don’t want a president who would remain silent as the people of Iran rise up to protest their bloody Islamic oppressors (before being rounded up and executed).

Thankfully no Republican candidates have made racist statements like “Typical White Person” or have committed gaffs like saying that there are 57 US states or have pronounced “corpsman” as “corpse-man”. That would be reported.

It is time for people to realize that the mainstream media and the Socialist Democratic Party are one. If the media reported the truth about Democrats, they would be unelectable.

Well folks, the notorious year 2012 A.D. has arrived—the year the world is supposed to end, according to several sources.  Unlike many end-of-the-world predictions—and there have been many—this “end” has somewhat more authority behind it than usual.

Some say that the fatal year of 2012 is predicted by the ancient Mayan calendar; others reference Hopi Indian predictions.  More seriously, the late Terence McKenna developed a mantic-mathematical time-wave theory of the arrival of the Eschaton (Judgment Day, the End of the World) on December 21 of this coming year—coincident with the Mayan prediction.

A yet more authoritative prediction of The End was made by C. G. Jung, the famous Swiss psychiatrist.  Basing his speculation on the dreams of patients and astrological projections, Jung came up with “around 2010.”

My own speculations, which began around 1986, are based on worldwide events and on the New Testament idea of apocatastasis, or the revelation and restoration of all things at the end of time.  (Until the mid-90s you couldn’t find the word apocatastasis even with an internet search engine.)  Being a more timid sort, I could only conclude that the End would come soon and I thought that 2009-2015 would be a fair guess.

To be accurate, none of these prophets and their prophesies go so far as to say that all human life will be obliterated from the planet—only about 2/3.  All of these prophesies are based on far more extended arguments than are indicated here.

But the purpose of this article is not to cast a pall upon the immediate future, but to offer the fun-loving reader a comprehensive guide to those often (and understandably) overlooked details that make the End-of-the-World experience a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for great fun and for meeting new and interesting people!

Philosophy

More than any other form of celebration, the End of the World Party requires a certain philosophical detachment, both for full freedom of indulgence, and for flexibility in accepting invitations ...

• You should not be bound to any of the doctrinal attitudes and beliefs of the group putting on an end-of-the-world party.  If you are already indoctrinated, this guide is not necessary: you are probably already making your own arrangements.

• You should not believe that the world is really about to come to an end.  This is important, since any suspicion that your hosts are correct in their expectations will tend to cast a shadow over the proceedings and evoke irrelevant notions about correct party behavior.  We want you, the apocalyptic party connoisseur, to enjoy yourself.  Leave your End-of-the-World cares at home.

[Note: Of course, these days we cannot completely rule out an actual thermonuclear apocalypse.  Under such conditions, adequate notice and—it goes without saying—full-scale partying are out of the question.  A new brochure, “Roasts and Toasts When the Missiles Cross the Coasts,” is in preparation.]

Choosing the Right Party to Attend

There are probably 8 to 10 million end-of-the-worlders in this country alone who will be putting on hundreds, if not thousands, of Big Farewell events.  It will be up to the smart partier to use his time wisely—but not too much of it—to pick and choose only those parties that are to his or her tastes and that present the best opportunities for that Final Fling.

Few of these End-of-the-World gatherings are likely to be organized by traditional religious groups.  Most will be sponsored by UFO buffs, occultists, and a motley assortment of sects and cults.  Many of these groups will be concerned about potential advantages to be gained by putting on airs of strict moral behavior—no drinking, drugs, illicit sex, or sin in general.  Avoiding these gatherings should be no problem, however.

The wise party-goer should seek:

• gatherings arranged by secular believers, whose belief in the End derives from—at most—mild hysteria bolstered by pseudoscientific “evidence”) or

• those gatherings of a peculiar sort where the belief is held that God saves sinners; therefore, sin like hell!

The Well-Dressed Apocalyptic Partier

Since End-of-the-World parties will be going on everywhere, from the most posh settings to remote wildernesses, the professional partier will have collected a suitable and fashionable wardrobe to meet all occasions.

Travel

If you take public transportation to the party, do not indicate to anyone that you bought a round-trip ticket. 

Party Behavior

At those parties that are worth going to, behavioral restrictions, in the ordinary sense, will be at a minimum.  This does not mean you can say or do just anything.  The party is not merely the host's responsibility; it is yours as well.  There are several things you can do or say, even at the End of the World, that can really put a damper on the proceedings.  Remember—the people present do not believe that they have much time.  They can't go home, and other suitable parties might be many miles away.  Your contribution to party spirit is vital as never before.  A few comments are now in order, which will provide you, the apocalyptic sybarite, with a sense of the Do’s and Don'ts to make this the best party ever!

Don't’s

• Do not wear a watch.

• Do not dwell on current economic, social, or political conditions.  They are irrelevant, and may very well leave your companions bored and listless.

• Any reference to the future, at least on this plane of existence, will mark you as a party-crasher and someone to be avoided, if not tossed out the door.

• Excessive baggage, including toiletries, may also betray you.  This rule may vary from party to party.  Some affairs—and this is a real plus!—may start days or even weeks before the End.  Be prepared, but not too prepared.

• Discussion of contraceptive concerns, chronic medical complaints, or your child's future is also off limits. Do not slip up and express concern over a possible hangover or if you will be able to get to work on time the next morning.

7

Do’s

• Nostalgia will be popular worldwide.  You might get up a game of Trivial Pursuit during breaks in the action.  Pick your best subjects and bone up in advance.  Poignant reminiscences of the good old days are definitely in order.

• Be generous.  Indicate that you have liquidated all your assets just so that you can “do it right.”

• Stay alert.  If you hear anyone voice a doubt about the imminent End, do your best to quell that doubt.  You will be amply repaid with grateful attention for the effort, and the party will retain its sparkle.  Remember: you have the supreme advantage—you know that the world will not end.

[Note—if the world does not end on schedule for any particular group, chances are a new date will be set, and the party will be repeated. This may happen three or four times before they give up.]

We now bid you bonne apocalypse.  A smorgasbord of irresponsible delights will await you.  Time is short, but adequate. The preparations you make now will give you untold returns in partying pleasure.  Remember: PARTY AS IF THERE WERE NO TOMORROW!

“The sky was all purple, there

were people runnin’ everywhere.

Tryin’ to run from the

destruction and you know

I didn't even care. …

2012 one, two, … party over

oops out of time

So tonight I'm gonna party

like it’s 2003 + 9”

—Apologies to Prince

I’ve been accused of being a guy who marches to his own drum. My wife has often been stumped by the question, ?And what does your husband do?  Knowing full well they are inquiring about my line of work, she has either responded with, “That’s a good question!”, or tossed it to others who know me as, How would you answer that question?

This happened recently at a gathering she attended without me.  A friend of ours quickly offered, “Oh Gary”   He’s an entrepreneur!” Frankly, I like that answer because it doesn’t tie me down to any  particular activity or job which defines me!

Which brings me to my choice for this month’s Voice of Freedom, Martin Luther.  Notice I didn’t give him a title or job description or even an accompanying adjective.  To me, Luther is a Voice of Freedom more because of who he was (or is in the annals of history) than because of what he did.  Regardless of where you stand with Luther’s legacy I hope you will hear me out.

For the record, I’m not Lutheran nor do I claim expertise in Luther’s theology.  What I do know from my rather cursory study of medieval history is that he stands tall in a major paradigm shift in the idea of individual conscience and the relationship of conscience to personal freedom.

What intrigues me about the whole story of Luther’s break with the Roman Catholic Church is that he never intended for it to happen.  He did not set out to change the world or even reform the Church.  He was a man who was listening to the voice of his conscience which ultimately set him on a crash course with the “estahlishment.”

Born to merchant class parents in a changing Germany shortly after the invention of the printing press at a time when hard-working peasants began to rise from the hopeless state of their forebearers young  Martin showed great promise as a university student (receiving a  Bachelors degree in one year and a Master’s Degree three years  later!)  He then entered Law school at his Father’s request until he came face to face with his true destiny.
After a close call with death in a severe thunderstorm (which revealed his deep fear of God’s judgment), he vowed to enter the monastery and devote his life to the service of God and the Church. Choosing theology as a pursuit and donning a monk’s habit put him at odds with his family and did nothing to quiet his restless heart.  He was plagued with guilt which drove him to asceticism and near insanity. He literally wrestled with the devil to find inner peace.

In other words, even the rigorous routine of piety and religious exercises did not help.  He found no rest until he opened the New Testament on the advice of his mentor, Johann Staupitz.  There in the letter of Paul to the Romans in Chapter 1:17-18, Luther found the truth of the gospel and realized that salvation was a free gift available to all by faith-- from beginning to end.  He experienced the gift of forgiveness by the grace of God through the sacrifice of Christ.

Moving on with renewed energy, he eventually found himself at odds with some questionable practices of the Church.  Times were difficult in Rome.  Many of those in positions of authority were engaged in immoral and corrupt practices.  The Basilica of St. Peter was unfinished and the Church was bankrupt.  Hence the Vatican sanctioned sale of indulgences by one Johann Tetzel to raise money.
Enter Martin Luther, reformer.   As he began to speak out against this approach to gaining favor with God, it became the driving force of his life to pose the question, “How can one receive the grace of God”?

So rather than wringing his hands or hiding behind his priestly office, he wrote a series of grievances which became known as the 95 theses and nailed them to the door of Wittenberg Church where he had served as pastor.
Not to be trite, but the rest is history.?  To take on the entire Roman Church was not his goal?but it happened as a result of his allegiance to a conscience formed by the truth.

To Martin Luther, the truth was a life and death matter and he sincerely believed that the Church had lost its way.   Soon his influence extended outside the local congregation.   Selling a sincere seeker of God an indulgence with the assurance of a shortened time in purgatory was paramount to a crime.  Eventually, the Princes of Saxony took notice and garnered the support of the people to establish the Lutheran Church.

Even after Luther was condemned as a heretic by Pope Leo X and the edict for his ex-communication was signed, I don’t believe he saw himself as a rebel or revolutionary. It wasn’t until he was put on  trial at the Diet of Worms, refusing to recant his claims about the Church while expressing his allegiance to a conscience held captive by the Word of God-- that his destiny became clear to him.

As he stood for what he believed, he became a champion of the freedom of the individual to encounter God.  This set him on course to translate the Greek New Testament into German; consequently, ordinary people had the opportunity to seek and find the inner freedom that Luther himself had found in Christ.

As the reformation spread through Europe to England, Scotland and Switzerland, great strides were made toward self-government as philosophers and theologians wrote on the significance of personal conscience in the service of political freedom.   As the resurgence of ancient Greek thought accompanied a renewed interest in the arts and learning, the Renaissance took hold to guide the European continent into the modern age.

Many have alluded to the trend for a major paradigm shift in the history of Christendom every 500 years.  As the 500th anniversary of the Reformation fast approaches in 2017, I see cooperation between Catholics and Protestants growing as both camps see the need to stand in solidarity to protect the things our great country was founded upon.

We are more aware of the dangers which exist as a threat to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness than any generation in history.

    “It is for freedom that Christ has set us free”, wrote the apostle Paul.

    “You will know the truth, and the truth will set you free”, said Jesus Christ.

    “How do I receive the grace of God,” asked Luther.

If we keep these truths at the forefront of our minds and confront the world with the source of what drives us in the pursuit of freedom, I believe there is real hope for the future of our country and the world around us.

When I was in the fourth grade I decided I wanted some new clothes. Since the year was 1968, I had my eye on a pair of flowered bell bottomed pants in the JC Penney catalogue.  Somehow I convinced my mother to let me ride the bus from McKenzie into Bismarck and I came home with the first of many “signature” fashion statements.  Like I said at the beginning,I am a free spirit and it is in the Spirit of freedom I continue today.
Thanks to those who have dared to listen to the Voices of Freedom which have paved the way for us!


Gary Emineth is President and Founder of Freedom Roots

Since 1978, in order to support and promote the consumption of ethanol in the United States, Congress has granted generous tax preferences to ethanol production.   The current tax preference is known as the Volumetric Ethanol Excise Tax Credit (VEETC), which provides a $.45 credit per gallon credit for the blending of ethanol into motor fuel.  This credit is applied against the blenders’ federal excise tax obligation.
Recent studies, however, have shown that the VEETC is extravagantly redundant.  Indeed, the credit is applied on top of a federal mandate that requires by law the use of ethanol in the nation’s motor fuel supply, therefore the benefits from the credit are a windfall to the ethanol industry.  Consider the conclusions of a report commissioned by the Grocery Manufacturers Association, conducted by the firm Advanced Economic Solutions of Omaha.   According to the report:

“… removal of the tax credit would reduce federal tax expenditures by over $6 billion, but would only decrease US ethanol production by three percent. This reflects the redundancy of the tax credits and the federal mandates for incorporation of ethanol into the US fuel supply. The results also suggest that under the baseline scenario $6.95 billion would be spent during 2015 in order to incent an additional .45 billion gallons of production – equal to $15.45 per gallon. …. (Moreover) the $6.95 billion tax expenditure would add only 353 additional ethanol manufacturing jobs – an annual cost of $19.68 million per job”.

That – and the dire need to reduce federal spending - is why Congress is likely to let the excise tax credit expire at the end of this year.  However, the ethanol industry is pushing for a significant part of the tax credit to be extended to be used to fund infrastructure expansion for biofuels.  The rational is that such infrastructure subsidy spending is necessary to scale what the biofuel industry has deemed the blend wall.

The blend wall is a combination of regulatory and physical factors that put a limit on the amount of ethanol that can be absorbed into the nation’s motor fuel supply.  First of all, vehicle engines are meant to run on 10 percent ethanol blends; higher blends could cause engine damage and void manufacturer warranties.  While EPA has proposed raising the allowable blend to 15 percent, there are still large numbers of vehicles and off-road engines that could not use higher ethanol blend fuels.   A complete and expensive revamping of the nation’s auto and light truck fleet would be necessary to create new so called flexible fuel vehicles. 

Moreover, there are storage and delivery issues.  There is a lack of pumps, pipelines, and storage tanks suitable for high ethanol blends – all to be built at a considerable cost.  In 2009, to address the potential need to raise the level of ethanol in gasoline, DOE’s National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) with Underwriters Laboratories (UL) and Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) began testing fuel retail station equipment and materials to determine how the most common equipment in the existing fuel infrastructure would perform with 15 percent ethanol blends.  Late in 2010, UL released the results of their work for NREL and, in March 2011, ORNL released their report.  The results of NREL’s research indicated that 70% of the used equipment tested and 40% of the new equipment tested yielded non-compliant or inconclusive test results.  ORNL’s testing showed that seals and gaskets will be impacted the most by the switch to E15 and may eventually develop leaks. 

That is why the biofuels industry is seeking billions in subsidies to retrofit the nation’s fuel infrastructure.  Consider, the US biofuel supply today is only about 40 percent of the total mandated level of 36 billion gallons to be used by 2022, and we are already experiencing blend wall issues.  Indeed, the US is now exporting ethanol that cannot be absorbed into the US fuel supply, and in the next 10 years the supply of biofuels under the federal mandate will more than double.

Of course, biofuels were mandated back in 2007 as a means to reduce the nation’s reliance on imported oil, establish energy independence, and to be a catalyst to economic growth in the farm belt.  Ironically, though, we are starting to export our domestic biofuels and much of the oil to be displaced by an expanding biofuels supply would otherwise come from North Dakota, where new oil finds since the biofuels mandate was put in place have exceeded expectations.

In 2008, the US Geological Survey conducted an assessment of recoverable oil in North Dakota in the Bakken shale formation (which extends into Montana and Canada), reassessing their original 1995 evaluation and increasing their projection by a factor of 25 fold.  Now with evidence that the formation is even larger, USGS is now conducting yet a third survey this fall.  For a benchmark comparison, by 2015, the Bakken shale formation will provide about 700,000 barrels per day of oil; total U.S. production of ethanol is about 880,000 barrels per day.  By 2015, however, with car fuel efficiency standards and ethanol subsidies and mandates, gasoline demand could begin to incrementally decline. 

Thus, from North Dakota’s perspective, the most critical fuel infrastructure problem is not the lack of blender pumps nor flexible fuel vehicles. It is, however, the lack of infrastructure to ship out the oil and natural gas production in the state that has tripled from 2005 to 2010, has increased another 20 percent this year, and is expected to more than double within five to seven years.  That is why North Dakota crude oil currently trades at a discount to West Texas Intermediate (WTI) crude prices in Cushing, Oklahoma.  The WTI/Cushing price is the benchmark for the petroleum futures contact. 

According to experts, the lack of “take away” capacity (now pegged at 189,000 barrels per day, with a 360,000 barrels per day production) will only get worse as production continues on this pace.  Indeed, North Dakota is the fastest growing oil producing state, and will soon surpass all other states expect for Texas.  North Dakota in 2009 surpassed Lousiana as the nation’s fourth largest oil producing state, and since 2008, North Dakota oil has been shipped by rail to Lousiana to earn a premium price.

From a policy perspective, the question is whether to let market forces dictate the pace of private sector investment in additional infrastructure capacity to move this fungible supply of oil from the US northern plains, or to maintain expensive subsidies to create a market for an additional supply of biofuels that itself is a reaction to federal intervention into the market and that will increasingly displace US domestically produced oil that is trading at a discount to the market.  Subsidies for biofuel infrastructure will only make the investment in North Dakota oil less attractive – and it won’t make US energy independence any more tangible.

 

Dave Juday is a commodity market analyst and principal of The Juday Group

Last March, in a strange and confounding reaction to the assassination of Punjab governor Salman Taseer for his attempt to end or at least ameliorate blasphemy laws in Pakistan which call for capital punishment (readers will recall the continuing ordeal of Aasia Bibi), the United Nations Human Rights Council (“UNHRC”) passed a resolution promoted by the Organization of Arab Cooperation (“OIC”), a long cherished goal of the OIC.  The resolution, known as “16/18” calls upon UN member nations to act to curtail speech which constitutes “incitement” to “discrimination, hostility or violence” toward any “religion”.  In other words, the best way to deal with assassinations of moderates is to criminalize the moderates.  This was supposed to be a great victory for freedom of speech because the word “incitement” was used rather than the original, “defamation”.

The OIC has used the United Nations and the European Union as tools for the advancement of their program.  The EU has cooperated wonderfully.  Last week we learned that outspoken critic Elisabeth Sabaditch-Wolf’s conviction of “hate crimes” was upheld by the cooperative judge in her native Austria.  Sabaditch-Wolf’s actual crime was to comment on Mohammed’s “thing for little girls”, in reference to the fact that the founder of Islam married a 6-year-old child and consummated the vows when the child was 9 years old.  No one disputed her facts.  They could not, inasmuch as this fundamental element of Islam is right there in their Holy Book.  Apparently only a Muslim is allowed to speak of this fact in Austria.  That nation is not alone, of course.  We’ve seen the prosecution in the Netherlands of Geert Wilders and over on this side of the pond, Mark Steyn’s prosecution (and that of Maclean's magazine) for being seen to criticize Islam in his best-selling book, America Alone.  There are myriad other cases, of course.  English bobbies took "preventative action", beating up and incarcerating English Defense League members socializing in a pub on Remembrance Day, on spec, for example.

So, in order to address the murder of Punjab moderate Taseer, the OIC appropriated the UNHRC to basically outlaw Taseer’s kind of speech everywhere else besides, which does seem an odd way of reacting to aggression.  One of the OIC’s allies, as we might well expect, was none other than our own Hilary Clinton.  In fact, she hails the wording change from “defamation” to “incitement” as a great breakthrough for “freedom of speech”.  A word to Hilary: the great breakthrough for free speech was in the First Amendment to our Constitution.

The aberration of Anders Breivik in Norway last summer seems to have put “paid” to free speech throughout Europe and much of the rest of the West.  It provided PR to the OIC.  So now Western Civilization exists at the whim of such as Breivik . . . and those who would use him.  The murder of a moderate Pakistani leader by an Islamist fanatic was the impetus for outlawing other dissent to Islam, and a lunatic’s attack gave it that extra push. 

Let’s consider the plans here.  Member nations are called upon to take action against those of their citizens whose speech “incites” hatred or violence, against discrimination or derogatory stereotyping or “stigmatizing” of Muslims.  It calls for an end to profiling.  If you think about it, it basically calls upon the West to institute the kind of blasphemy laws that Taseer was murdered for opposing.  I call that progress. For the OIC.  I suppose an accurate reading of this Resolution would condemn me for repeating the news of Ghulam Qadir, in Pakistan, who, after a quarrel, tied up his 17-year-old wife and chopped off her nose and lips.  I suppose that could incite some feelings of hostility.  Or maybe it would if I also repeated the fact that the police refused to act in the matter until she threatened, from her hospital bed, to immolate herself to achieve justice.  I suppose that could cause trouble if I said it out loud.

The problem with something like this is that it could rest dormant for months or even years before some violent criminal blows up a mall or shoots up a school and, when apprehended, cites my statement of fact as his “incitement”.  So goodbye free speech, for even if I am willing to risk the consequences of state action against me, who would have to courage to put said statement in print?  Not only would they be sued, they would be put on trial for committing a crime.    We’ve witnessed, right here in remote North Dakota, how one of the state’s major newspapers, which shall remain nameless here, deals with the most civil questioning (mine) of unbridled settlement in a community of a foreign population.  Oh, of course, you might not have read about it . . . because it wasn’t printed in the paper.  So, in mere jelly-like fear of the atmosphere of political correctness, my freedom of speech was denied in the only newspaper in the community.  I’d say that was pretty effective.  And that was before any threat of criminalization.

One cannot help but wonder what would happen if one day the local Imam (I imagine we will have one; after all we will have a mosque) were to call on his Islamic followers, as well as the rest of us Infidels, to abuse, let’s say, retailers of alcohol, or purveyors of pork, or, maybe just all Jewish people or all Catholics.  Who would the “criminal” be in this case?  The abuser or the one who spoke out in defense of the abused?  This is a hypothetical question, of course.  And, just to let you know - for the record, I would defend the abused in this case.  The 16/18 Resolution appears not to interest itself in incitement by Muslims against others.  But what about Ghulam Qadir?  If you condemn his act of subduing his woman, apparently acceptable to the police under Pakistani law, you could be considered a criminal under the UNHRC 16/18 Resolution. It would all depend on whether a demented person cited you, not on the truth of what you said. This week we’ve had the story of two little Muslim girls, ages 5 and 9, kidnapped by a Muslim family to be “wed” to their sons, ages 9 and 12.  Dare we say this is “wrong”?  If we do, would it get into print?  It would be taken by the OIC as “defamation”; we would all be at the mercy of a random crazy person who would commit an actual crime and cite our statement of truth as his “incitement”.

And, of course, it would put an end to any discussion of perhaps not assigning Islamist extremists to be Army psychiatrists.   That, of course, would be “profiling” in violation of the Resolution!  According to the UN, far better to have a few dead American infidels than risk an act or statement that could be construed as “derogatory” to Islam!

Is this what we’ve come to?  A former First Lady-cum-Secretary of State applauding this effective effort by the OIC and the UN to make an end run around our Constitution and our First Amendment?  If she’s the genius we’re supposed to think she is, then she’s a top-notch traitor to our country.  But, then, isn’t this what is called for under these resolutions and other business of the UN?  Resolution 16/18 calls upon nations to modify their INTERNAL laws:

The International Islamic News Agency (IINA) reports (1 Aug): "According to informed sources in the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, the two sides, in addition to other European parties, will hold a number of specialized meetings of experts in law and religion in order to finalize the legal aspect on how to better implement the UN Resolution.

"The sources said that the upcoming meetings aim at developing a legal basis for the UN Human Rights Council's resolution which help in enacting domestic laws for the countries involved in the issue, as well as formulating international laws preventing inciting hatred resulting from the continued defamation of religions.”    (author’s emphasis added)

I would suggest that if Mrs. Clinton prefers to enact the resolutions and institute the quasi-government of the United Nations that she should resign her post with the United States government, because she is once again acting against our laws.  Our laws provide for a guarantee of free speech, not only for speech that is popular, but especially for speech that is not.  Or speech that expresses opposition.  So we have this woman working in concert with the OIC and other foreign entities to subvert our domestic laws – the laws we have spilled blood to protect.  Well, whose pay is she in?  I thought she was our paid servant.

This, of course, is part of a continuum of assault on our American law and culture.  Previously we’ve seen her head-to-head with the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which would step in between children and their parents in our communities, the Small Arms Treaty, which would have the UN interfering with our Second Amendment.  There will be no end to this.  And we can’t take our eyes off of her and her lot.  Just last week she and her OIC comrades were meeting to hammer out how the 16/18 Resolution can be put to work here. 

This could be a boon to the campaign of Ron Paul, if read correctly as a full-out attack on our freedom in America.  In any case, America must redefine its relationship with the United Nations.  We are a sovereign nation.  We must act in our own national best interests.  We must be guided in this by our own moral courage, borne of our own culture and philosophy.  This means we cannot accede to such plans as the OIC may have for us and the rest of the world to establish their Caliphate.  I believe that the best course to take is for the United States to disavow this and other acts and resolutions endemic to our American freedom and beliefs, end our subsidy of this tool of international conspiracy and deport their headquarters to another country – whoever will take them.  Belgium might be good.  I note that the plan is to end Western culture in that nation.  We should retain only one connection with the UN: our seat on the Security Council.  From that seat a truly American government can still veto insane efforts and folly by the rest.

The time has finally come to call it quits with the dream machine of Eleanor Roosevelt and Joseph Stalin.  It has never been a positive force for the West. It is just another reason for us to take a hard look at who and what we are and what we’ve become and could become.  Personally, I am happy to be a product of Western culture.  It has proven its success.  Only when we waver and try to be like the Third World or the socialist culture do we fail.  Our current national predicament is a testament to the truth of this statement.  We should call upon our leaders to repudiate the UN and its program of undermining our Constitution and support those leaders who do so.

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.

Last month in the Dakota Beacon (Sept. 2011) I wrote an article entitled, “Liberalism, Religion of the Muddle Minded”. I find the subject fascinating and feel I must add to it. How can one essay possibly cover the mysteries and inconsistencies and just plain muddled thinking of the Liberal and Progressive dreamers who seem to have total command of the Democrat Party? I can’t do it in one essay, and here is one of the reasons. A new book just out from author Jeffrey D. Sachs, entitled, “The Price of Civilization” with the subtitle: “Reawakening American Virtue and Prosperity”. If you are wondering what the so-called Progressive agenda is and where it comes from you will find some answers clearly stated in this book. They are clearly stated--I did not say I like them, nor did I say you will like them, but we will see where some of this thinking comes from and the rationale of the Left and Progressives.

A short bio of Jeffrey D. Sachs, per the book jacket: he is the director of the Earth Institute at Columbia University and special advisor to Secretary-General (of the UN) Ban Ki-Moon on the United Nations Millennium Development Goals. He is author of the NY Times bestsellers “The End of Poverty” and “Common Wealth”. In my reading of “The End of Poverty” three or four years ago I recall Sachs proposing that each developed nation invest (give, donate, grant) 7% of their GNP to under-developed countries, especially African nations, to bring them into a higher level of living.

Raising the living standards of half the world’s population is a noble goal, but the “How to do it” part is very troubling. The bulk of the work would be done through the United Nations--does that give one an uneasy feeling as we have watched the U.N. performance over the past 30 years?

Let’s look at “The Price of Civilization” which deals primarily with the United States of America and Sachs view of our nation’s condition as of early 2011. The theme of the book and dominant message is this: The government is the instrument, the channel, the agency, the means, the controller, the commander--the great body that will enable the future that Sachs envisions. He has great faith in government as the vehicle to administer the many and varied programs which he proposes, and as he describes each one there is little doubt that it must be government that does it. Before we pass judgment on that premise let’s look at some of the proposals.

In a chapter The Free-Market Fallacy the issue of “Economic Fairness” is examined. Yes, he is committed to the free market, and quotes Adam Smith and Friedrich Hayek and Paul Samuelson and Milton Friedman in several references. But all this free market should come under the close regulation of government to bring economic fairness in the allocation of income; fairness requires that government redistributes income among the people--taking from the richest and giving to those in need. Further, markets are prone to ups and downs which must be alleviated through government policies; and certain “public goods” (infrastructure, environment, education, research, etc.) must be provided by taking revenue from market activity. This is in addition to the taxing plans now in place.

Sachs advocates the reach of government into “the financial and business sectors through active policies and financial regulations and well-directed monetary and fiscal policies”. These sound like reasonable activities of government as long as there are real limitations and controls. However, as we have seen in recent years, government, as directed by congress and the president, cannot be controlled and it continues to grow more powerful and intrusive and expensive. Many people are very skeptical of our federal government, as it now performs, to meet anything that approaches “well-directed monetary and fiscal policies”. Does “well-directed” fit anything we have seen lately?

Another chapter is devoted to Washington’s Retreat From Public Purpose tells of the reduction in government programs to relieve poverty, reduction of federal money to research, insufficient monies to education, deregulation of some industries, passivity on environmental issues, tax reduction, and more.

In Sachs’ view the Reagan administration reversed the many years of a federal government that provided the public goods that Americans needed to remain globally competitive in a fair and sustainable society. He viewed the period of the mid-1930’s to the mid-1960’s as a time the federal government was a relatively trusted and respected instrument of democratic power. The Roosevelt years are credited with taking the country out of the great depression, guiding us through the World War, Truman gave us the peacetime boom, and then the war on poverty by Johnson. All this to the credit of government. Then came the election of Ronald Reagan who did such economic blunders as reducing taxes, deregulating industries, reducing the funding of social programs, and reining in federal power. Sachs blames the debt and deficit problems of recent years on the tax cuts of Reagan and Bush.

However, in a later chapter, Sachs says, “It is hard to think of a single recent case in which the U.S. government, led by either party, has produced a quantitative assessment of any long-term challenge and then followed through with a considered policy reform based on that assessment”. What is he saying? Our government is incapable of good decision making? Yet he is advocating myriads of programs and spending and regulation, all managed and controlled by a government that he describes as something approaching incompetence?

Along this same line of thinking Sachs views the passage of PPACA (Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act; Obamacare) as an act of duplicity: “The entire health care debate took on a surreal air for the next fifteen months”. The details of the deals with various industry parts would not be revealed (some yet to be revealed) to the public, and in the end the government and PPACA lost the public trust. He is talking about a government we cannot trust.

Professor Sachs takes shots at a lot of issues. Business and corporations have a special place for his criticism and faultfinding. For example: business and corporations make too much profit; too much power in business (lobbying); taxes should be raised on business; more regulation, especially on environmental concerns; they should pay livable wages; they should reduce their energy usage; they should contribute more to the public good (infrastructure, roads, etc.). Some issues are valid and concerns to us as well, but he tips the balance far to the side of government which lacks in public trust even more than business.

There is a chapter devoted to “The Distracted Society” which has much for all of us to think upon. The electronic age we are in allows us to communicate, learn, entertain, and waste time in ways that are unproductive in most part, and certainly destructive to educational development. Much of the emphasis is placed upon commercialization--the selling of products and services by business and corporate interests--to the extreme that it is causing massive consumption of material products and individual debt. Too much slick advertising. Most of the consumer products are coming from overseas producers which contribute to our huge imbalance of trade, and contribute to the loss of production and manufacturing facilities and ultimately the loss of employment and jobs.

In summary and the point of this writing: There are many experts and intellectual minds who are advisors and counselors to the congress and presidents. Some are firmly grounded in their views of the proper role of government, and they have great respect for the constitution and the limits it places on the role of government. We also have those such as Professor Sachs who have visions of great societies where all people are cared for and have a share of the earth’s bounty. This is a worthy vision that may always be before us as a goal. However, to include in that vision a government that has the power to decide social and economic issues described above is very worrisome--perhaps frightening to some. The American people have seen our federal and state governments grow to become maze-like entities that consume ever-growing tax revenues while its rules multiply along with its inefficiency. Our government threatens to become our master. The methods to achieve a better political and economic and social society is in heated debate. There is a role for government which is not in debate by most people. What is in question: can government can be trusted with this grand vision? Can government be the administrator and provider of the solutions?

This is what the Progressive and intellectual minds are thinking; this is where they would take us. The book, “The Price of Civilization” by Jeffrey D. Sachs. A good read for Conservative, Republican and Independent.


Hal is a ND native who grew up near McClusky. Hal and his wife Lois live in Bismarck  and have four children and eight grand children.

The old cycle is complete; a new one begins. “Ring out the old, ring in the new” recalls a tradition celebrated for centuries with the turning of the year.

            I have many favorite poems among them one by Alfred Lord Tennyson. “Ring Out, Wild Bells” is part of a larger work titled “In Memoriam A.H.H.” written in tribute to his dear friend and brother-in-law Arthur Henry Hallam upon his untimely death.

            The poem marks the passing of the year better than any other I know. Tennyson captures the nostalgic passing of the old year together with hope for the future. He says everything that needs to be said. His words are worth sharing as we bid a hearty farewell to 2011 and hail the dawning of 2012.

            Ring out, wild bells, to the wild sky,

                        The flying cloud, the frosty light;

                        The year is dying in the night;

            Ring out, wild bells, and let him die.

            Ring out the old, ring in the new;

                        Ring, happy bells, across the snow;

                        The year is going, let him go;

            Ring out the false, ring in the true.

            Ring out the grief that saps the mind;

                        For those that here we see no more;

                        Ring out the feud of rich and poor;

            Ring in redress to all mankind.

            Ring out a slowly dying cause,

                        And ancient forms of party strife;

                        Ring in the nobler modes of life,

            With sweeter manners, purer laws.

            Ring out the false pride in place and blood,

                        The civic slander and the spite;

                        Ring in the love of truth and right,

            Ring in the common love of good.

            Ring out old shapes of foul disease,

                        Ring out the narrowing lust of gold;

                        Ring out the thousand wars of old,

            Ring in the thousand years of peace.

            Ring in the valiant man and free,

                        The larger heart, the kindlier hand;

                        Ring out the darkness of the land;

            Ring in the Christ that is to be.

            With all the feeling and sentiment this poem conveys, we bid adieu to 2011 with mixed emotions -- joy and happiness.

            We only pass this way once. Here’s our chance to start the new year fresh making each moment count.

            Happy New Year!

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

Jingle Bells, Frosty the Snowman, Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer ring in the ears of shoppers wandering the malls trying to capture the excitement of the season. After building to a crescendo on Christmas Day, after the commotion dies away, what then? There is a bit more to Christmas than the offerings of the commercial world.

The age-old basis for the annual Christmas celebration has only just begun. We’ve occasionally heard the traditional carols throughout the season in malls or through media. Traditional carols, when played at all, are usually the instrumental version expunged of their Christian theme. Too bad.

Some carols dating back several hundred years still present Christ’s message unchanged. They sing of God arriving in human form as in the 18th century Latin hymn “O Come All Ye Faithful.”

“...Word of the Father, now in flesh appearing; O come, let us adore Him,...Christ the Lord.”

Again, in “Hark! the Herald Angels Sing” (Charles Wesley and Felix Mendelsshon):

“Christ, by highest heaven adored; Christ, the ever lasting Lord!

Late in time behold him come, Offspring of the Virgin’s womb.

Veiled in flesh the Godhead see; Hail the incarnate Deity,

Pleased as man with men to dwell, Jesus, our Emmanuel.”

Isaac Watts wrote “Joy to the World” based on Psalm 98 describing the purpose for Jesus’ arrival in Bethlehem:

“No more let sins and sorrow grow, Nor thorns infest the ground;

He comes to make His blessings flow, far as the curse is found.”

According to Scripture, God arranged us body, soul and spirit. Our body we understand through the five senses. Contained within the body, our soul or the volitional and intellectual and emotional part of our make-up we understand psychologically. But, contained within the soul, our spirit or the conscience and intuition and communion part or our nature present the real challenge. Like the Holy of Holies, it is almost inaccessib

Unfortunately for us, we’ve inherited from our forebears a defiant nature. By nature, in body, soul and spirit, we are rebels. Without the spirit reborn, the body and soul can never be reconciled with God. Only the grace and love of God reaching down to a broken and fallen world can restore us. It is His initiative, not ours.

That was the purpose of Jesus’ arrival -- to proclaim reconciliation. “O Little Town of Bethlehem” by Phillips Brooks captures the essence of the message in the last verse.

“O holy Child of Bethlehem, Descend to us, we pray;

”Cast out our sin and enter in -- Be born in us today.

The incarnation of Jesus Christ as a means to redemption is again made clear in “Silent Night, Holy Night” by Joseph Mohr:

“Silent night, holy night, Son of God, love’s pure light

Radiant beams from Thy holy face, With the dawn of redeeming grace,

Jesus, Lord at Thy birth, Jesus, Lord at Thy birth.”

George Frideric Handel’s “Messiah” crowns the message. The entire oratorio is based on Biblical texts and is divided into three parts: the Prophecies and Nativity; the Passion and the Resurrection; and mankind’s hope of his own resurrection. Accompanying the “Hallelujah Chorus” are these words:

“The Kingdom of this world is become the Kingdom of our Lord, and of His Christ;

and He shall reign for ever and ever. Amen!”

God could not have made it any plainer or simpler. Traditional carols proclaim the glad tidings, the good news, to all. A return to the daily grind will never be the same.

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

A few weeks ago I read a column in a local newspaper, which shall remain nameless here, penned by Lloyd Omdahl, wherein he rejoiced in the implementation of the 17th Amendment, which called for the direct election of senators, instead of their appointment by state legislatures.  He lauded this as a great “advancement” in our government.  He further opined that we might one day progress to the point where we could enjoy the direct election of presidents!  With regard to the latter, I can only say, where are you living now, Mr. Omdahl?  There is no better guarantee that North Dakota would be marginalized right out of political existence by such an “advancement”.  Readers of this publication are already well informed on the reason why less populated states must have the Electoral College to keep them in the game.  Without that, our population would not even be a flyspeck in the cosmos.  I don’t wish to dwell on the absurdity of calling for the direct election of our president, but the issue of the US Senate and other Constitutionally prescribed means of government do call for attention.

When the Founders of our nation took their seats in Philadelphia in 1789, it was a sober, intensely dedicated and patriotic gathering.  Many of these men had risked execution as “traitors” for their part in the Revolution, which had ended five or six years prior.  In the meantime the states and the Confederation had struggled mightily with the birthing pains of a new nation, experimenting with various forms of government to cope with previously un-experienced challenges – the frontier, the intrigues of foreign powers on our continent, war debt, lack of universal currency, foreign policy, trade – both inter-state and international.  Were we a new nation or 13 new nations?  What was our name?  Who had the right to form agreements, alliances and treaties?  These were among the many questions facing the Founders. 

But above them all loomed the great question, what would the relationship be among the states and with a national government?  Heretofore the states had existed each as a whole, seeing themselves as independent and with total responsibilities for all of the aspects of nationhood.  Now, facing threats which might cost them their recently won freedom, they feared losing it due to the weakness of their existing agreement, the Articles of Confederation.  So how to resolve the conflicts of nation-states which were jealous of their own independence and yet forge a strong union that could deal with the threats from without and strengthen the whole?  It was no small or easy task, and one that had never really been attempted on this scale before. 

The men who met in Philadelphia to resolve these issues each came with a different concept.  Some wanted no real change from the Confederation while others were thinking in terms of monarchy.  In between, dozens of ideas swirled.  The knottiest problem seemed to be how the states would relate to a national government and how the structure of that government could answer the concerns of each of the states.  The Constitution which emerged at the end of this strenuous exercise provided for the strict enumeration of federal powers, the citizenry unwilling to accept an overbearing or meddling central government. They had just fought a costly war to rid themselves of just this kind of thing.  Yet a weak central government could spell disaster in those dangerous times.  The British were hovering around the Great Lakes and Canada, not ready to let us go yet, the Spanish were down on the Mississippi Delta and Florida, the Indians were on our western frontier and our economy was unraveling, so that our relations with Europe were on edge. 

Clearly the citizens would be served by some entity acting for the whole.  The issue of the rights of the states to a large degree of self-determination and responsibility was brilliantly addressed through the bicameral legislature proposed.  The House of Representatives would represent the citizens as individuals, directly elected by them and directly answerable to them.  However, lest this federal government be overtaken by the most populous centers in New York, Virginia or Pennsylvania at the expense of the more remote, more sparsely populated but equally important regions and frontiers, the states themselves would assert their influence by means of the Senate.  The members of the Senate were to be appointed or elected by the legislatures of the states and answerable to them.  Obviously, the state legislatures must then answer to their constituents – the people in their states.  This created more of a liaison between the individual states and the federal government of which they were a part.  It was this which allowed the Constitution to go forward.  The fears of the states as to their liberty and their citizens’ interests were met and satisfied.  With this construction and the understanding that the states would not be threatened by an over-powerful central authority, the new Constitution was accepted by the final authority, the people.

If we take a look at this and how the principles would apply to our current political ills, we see the genius in the Constitution devised by these insightful, knowledgeable and reflective leaders.  Taking a look at the Legislative Branch’s structure alone, we have a system which is immediately responsive to the private citizen.  His Congressman must answer every two years for his performance and solicit the constituents for their support and renewal.  But the federal government would not overrun the states.  If we think of some of today’s issues we can see why this structure was necessary to national success.

Today we ask why the EPA can come into our state and declare that we must not raise any dust when we harvest our crops.  We have unfunded mandates like No Child Left Behind.  We now have Obamacare.  We have hundreds of federal programs, each with strings attached, busily grinding away at our rights and responsibilities.   Ask yourself if this would be the case if the state legislatures appointed the members of the Senate.  If the senators had to go home to South Carolina, Rhode Island, North Dakota, Idaho, etc., and explain their votes to the state governments, do you think they would support these evils?  But given the impetus of direct election and the desire to appear to be bringing home the bacon to Main Street or to the farm, the plight in which they place the state government is of little or less concern to them.  The Founders had a reason for not choosing direct election of both houses.  One house was to be a lightning rod for the individual citizen and the other a restraint against too much power in Washington. 

All we hear now is how corrupt Washington is, how we don’t trust “beltway” politicians.  We have more control as citizens over the men and women we send to our state legislatures than we do over our senators in Washington.  Then why should we celebrate this “improvement”? 

The 17th Amendment should be repealed.  It tore asunder the fabric of a strong, working Constitution and people who didn’t take the time or trouble to think about consequences or to study the document which guaranteed their liberty and prosperity, thought it “sounded good”.  But it is not the only abuse we’ve seen.  Every time our federal Congress undertakes a new program that is not called for by the carefully considered enumerated powers, we enable another evil to come in.  What are the issues that patriots decry today?  We hear calls for “term limits”, for one.  Why do people – especially Conservatives and Tea Party patriots call for this?  When you ask you will hear that it is because Congress wasn’t supposed to be a career, but a short-term service to the public, that they are in the pay – and  clutches - of lobbyists and special interests and don’t serve us anymore.

If you consider why this is, you will understand clearly that term limits, as proposed by these people, would be a terrible mistake and would not address the problem.  I have said it before, in these pages, that if you don’t like lobbyists standing hat-in-hand outside your Congressman’s door, will you like it better when the lame-duck Congressmen are standing, hat-in-hand outside the lobbyists’ doors?  Because that is where you will find them for the two or six years of their last term.  It will simply be musical chairs in Washington.  If you want “citizen legislators”, who, like Cincinnatus, will serve and then go home and take up the plough share, consider this: if Congress limited its activity to the powers allowed it by the Constitution, the diminished workload would enable these men and women to go home for six or eight months and still get done what they were intended to accomplish. 

If Congress felt we could get along without their telling parents how to feed and educate their children, if they felt that our automobile manufacturers could muddle through without fascist takeovers, if banks and mortgage lenders and holders were given to understand that they would not be bailed out if they are stupid, and for that matter, that the government would not interfere to tell them who they must make loans to, the workload would lighten considerably. 

What if Congress decided to follow the Constitution – what WOULD they be doing in Washington?  Among other things, they would protect our borders, they would administer immigration policies and laws in the interest of the United States of America, rather than in the interests of foreign nations, they – not the Federal Reserve Bank – would be in charge of our currency (like they used to be back when the US was solvent).  They would be deciding when, where and with whom we went to war, not the President on his own, or the UN.  They would have ample time for these abdicated responsibilities if they quit telling us what kind of light bulb to use and overseeing our children’s diets through school lunch, breakfast and dinner programs.  If they did not interfere with our health care they could turn their attention to the things they are mandated to do under our Constitution.  They, not the UN, would be deciding our foreign policy (and, for that matter the UN could get out of our INTERNAL policies as well). 

The next time a well-meaning patriot approaches you with a call for a “balanced budget” amendment, think about the root of the problem, not the band-aid they want to apply.  As written, the current configuration of the balanced budget amendment would compound the ills it purports to address.  It would strip Congress of more of its rights and responsibilities in favor of strengthening the Executive Branch.  Is this what you really want to achieve?  A more powerful Obama, or Bush or Clinton?  Will this restrain spending?  The next time you hear a call for that, ask if they know what the balanced budget amendment provides for.  Ask if what they want is to cut spending.  If they do, the Constitution is where they will find the formula. 

In our society we hear a lot of claptrap about the “political class” or the “political elite”.  I submit that we have always had this, that we will always have this.  Those who want a more “egalitarian” political atmosphere need to simply get off their duffs and become the political “elite”.  They can do this by reading, by learning about their Constitution, by following our history, by researching just what our candidates for office have been up to, by not depending upon Fox News, their local newspapers or Time Magazine, but look for themselves.  Our political class can be as sound and good as we demand.  They can be as base and corrupt as we allow. 

At no time in human history have we seen a constellation of public service so rarified as that which produced our liberty and nationhood.  Who else has a Thomas Jefferson, a George Washington, a John Adams, a Benjamin Franklin, a James Madison?  But note that these men’s names appeared frequently.  They were our generals, our pamphleteers, our colonial state governors, our statesmen, writers, lawyers, business leaders and ambassadors.  Many signed the Declaration of Independence, led the Revolution, wrote and signed the Articles of Confederation and the United States Constitution and many wrote their state constitutions.  They were the “political class:” of their day; the difference is that they were putting country first.  We have always had the “class” who doesn’t bother with politics.  They were too busy with farms or shops or their own world to participate.  Today we have them – they are busy with work, with vacations and hobbies, with family, with sports, with TV.  This won’t change and creating unconstitutional term limits won’t bring them into the game.

Our Constitution was designed to protect these “busy” citizens from their own sloth by restraining the more-or-less permanent “political class” and allowing access to it for anyone devoted enough to apply.  A return to a strict reading and adherence to our Constitution is the guarantee we are all searching for to solve our financial crisis and ensure our liberty.

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 blogs.

This article is a must read for anyone unsure of the expected extent of the ongoing oil boom in North Dakota. It is available on line at:

http://online.barrons.com/article/SB50001424052748703887004576629292520293646.html#articleTabs_panel_article%3D1

In 1999, EOG Resources, Inc. (EOG), formerly Enron Oil & Gas Company, adopted a new name and declared its independence from Enron Corp. Simultaneously, chairman and Chief Executive Officer Forrest E. Hoglund retired, Mark G. Papa was elected Chairman and Chief Executive Officer and Edmund P. Segner was named President and Chief of Staff of EOG.

Reading history has given Papa not only a better grasp of reality but important lessons in management. He says. “If you have somebody who is an extremely strong personality and who is talented but yet isn’t a team player, probably the best thing to do is help that person to exit the stage.

Mark Papa doesn’t subscribe to the near-religious view, in some prominent quarters, that green energy is the solution to half the country’s problems, if not more. Papa says  “the world will continue to be a fossil-fuel economy for at least the next 40 or 50 years, and all the talk about green power and clean energy is likely to prove just that—just talk.”

West Texas Intermediate, the U.S. benchmark crude, has come under substantial pressure in recent months, falling to $85 a barrel from an April high of $111.93. Brent, however, is trading for almost $110 a barrel, which is more of a global price, Papa notes. The downside risk to prices, he says, is that “we have Global Recession No. 2. But as long as the global economy continues to limp by, the global oil price is going to be in the range of $100 to $110.”

EOG’s success stems in part from superior drilling prospects in places like the Bakken formation in North Dakota and the Eagle Ford Shale in southern Texas, where the company has added substantial acreage.

Papa says he spends 35% to 40% of his time on the road, visiting either division offices or field operations. “I take pride in knowing pretty much every well that we drill,” he says. “I know how it turns out. You can’t really separate yourself from the business.”

EOG was an early player in horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, which involves pumping a pressurized mix of water, sand and chemicals into the ground through a well to create cracks in shale rock. Those cracks, or fissures, enable oil and gas to be extracted. The technology has been around for a long time, but has been put into much greater use in recent years, vastly altering the amount of potential oil and gas in the U.S.

Fracking has come under attack by environmentalists, who contend it poses a serious threat to drinking water in the vicinity of oil and gas wells. Papa says their concerns are “amazingly overblown.” He also contends that the Obama administration has missed an opportunity to “embrace the bounty that the E&P industry has bestowed upon the nation” as a result of fracking. The drilling technique, he says, has lowered energy costs in the U.S. by about $50 billion a year, and created a lot of jobs.

Commentary:

Note that CEO Marl Papa spends over one third of his work time on the road, representing a lot of airplane miles and time away from family. And his visits to active rigs are as dangerous when he visits as they are to the folks that operate them day by day.

I challenge anyone to try to follow Mr. Papa around for a week to realize what his normal functioning stress level is. To those who say such executives do not deserve their earned compensation, I summon the words of Abe Lincoln… “Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt.”

Lastly, as this summary was written, GDP growth in the third quarter of this year was revealed to have been at a 2.5% annual rate, largely dispelling the double dip recession concerns of the last few weeks by various media outlets. So, no one in North Dakota should lose any sleep concerning the prospect for oil revenues in our great state during the next decade and beyond.

© 2011 Lynn A. Bergman

Editor’s note: This article first appeared at The American Spectator today.

Vaclav Havel is dead. Among other forces and powers, he is among the seven individuals most responsible for peacefully ending the Cold War; the great liberators who brought freedom and democracy. They are Ronald Reagan, Pope John Paul II, Mikhail Gorbachev, Boris Yeltsin, Margaret Thatcher, Lech Walesa, and Havel.

With Havel’s death, a majority of these seven are now gone, giving new voice and added meaning to what Chesterton deemed the democracy of the dead.

All waged battle against what Reagan inspiringly called the “Evil Empire,” a brute creation cobbled out of a diabolical ideology that generated the deaths of over 100 million in the last century. At the core of that evil was what Mikhail Gorbachev characterized as a “war on religion,” which, among other forms of malevolence, spawned what Vaclav Havel described as “the communist culture of the lie.” As they engaged the beast, John Paul II admonished all to “Be not afraid.”

Vaclav Havel was unafraid. He and his Charter 77 movement were courageous, willing to go to jail rather than take orders from the devils who installed themselves as dictators from Budapest to Bucharest, from Warsaw to Prague.

As if all of this, unfolding here on earth a short time ago, was not profound enough, I’m suddenly struck at the profundity of Havel passing into the next world alongside Christopher Hitchens, and both shortly before Christmas.

Peter Robinson, who knows about the collapse of communism, having written Ronald Reagan’s Brandenburg Gate speech, interviewed Hitchens for his PBS show “Uncommon Knowledge.” Robinson was troubled by Hitchens’ willingness to concede credit to Havel for the collapse but none to Reagan. He took on Hitchens at that moment, not letting him get away with the slight against Reagan. I wish Vaclav Havel himself would have been there to set Hitchens straight. Havel said of Reagan, ironically at Reagan’s death: “He was a man with firm positions, with which he undoubtedly contributed to the fall of communism.”

Havel had a lot to teach to Hitchens. Hitchens would have listened to Havel.

Indeed, of all people on this planet who God might have chosen to counsel a stunned Hitchens as he sits outside the Pearly Gates shaken in awed confusion, Havel would have been perfect, the one intellectual to merit Hitchens’ intellect and respect. If Hitchens’ un-merry band of atheists will forgive me, the religious romantic in me can’t help but indulge an image of Hitchens sitting there, hunched over, head in hands, only to look up at a smiling Havel and saying, “Fancy that I’d see you here. You just getting here?”

Vaclav Havel was not just a man of politics and intellect, but a man of the arts, theater, literature—and, yes, of God. He exhorted the West and the wider post-modern world to seek “transcendence.” Hitchens might have figured God “the ultimate totalitarian,” but Havel saw God as the solution to totalitarianism, as tyranny’s antidote, as the fountainhead of freedom. This was something Havel deeply admired about America and its roots—its fusion of faith and freedom and the recognition that the latter cannot genuinely exist without the former. “The Declaration of Independence states that the Creator gave man the right to liberty,” Havel concluded in his July 4, 1994 lecture at Philadelphia’s Independence Hall, home of that very sentiment. “It seems man can realize that liberty only if he does not forget the One who endowed him with it.”

Vaclav Havel never forgot that principle nor its Endower. Neither did any of the Cold War seven that laid waste to the Soviet beast. And it was with the power of that conviction that they tapped the ultimate force that resolved the Cold War and won the victory for freedom and good against oppression and evil.

Vaclav Havel now joins the Heavenly majority. May he rest in peace, at last reaching true transcendence.

— Dr. Paul Kengor is professor of political science at Grove City College and executive director of The Center for Vision & Values. His books include "The Crusader: Ronald Reagan and the Fall of Communism" and "Dupes: How America’s Adversaries Have Manipulated Progressives for a Century."