1. Rally at North Dakota State University
Grand Ballroom in the Student Union
Fargo, North Dakota
Monday, February 4th, 1:00 pm. (Media availability 1:45-2:00pm)
2. Rally at the Elks Lodge
900 S. Washington St.Bismarck, ND 58504
Monday, February 4th, 3:30 pm. (Media availability 4:15-4:40pm)
Thursday, January 31, 2008
"The Fargo Republican" gives an opinion on ND owned refinery
Read what "The Fargo Republican" has to say!: http://fargorepublican.blogspot.com/2008/01/lets-talk-nd-owned-oil-refineries.html
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
Ron Paul to visit Bismarck and Fargo
Ron Paul will be the second Presidential Candidate to visit North Dakota this year. You can see him at Bismarck State College at 9 am or in Fargo at 12:00 Noon at a location yet to be announced.
Monday, January 28, 2008
FISA Fight Continues
One week from today, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) will expire unless Congress passes a new version that President Bush is willing to sign. If it expires, our intelligence gatherers here and abroad will be rendered blind and deaf because the legality of their operations will be put in limbo.
As CIA Director Gen. Michael Hayden said, terrorists are in a Darwinian era: we’re only capturing the dumb ones. If we’re going to catch the smart ones -- and thwart their plans -- we need more and better intelligence. Why, then, are the Democrats insisting on hobbling intelligence gathering by insisting on a more restrictive FISA?
FISA -- which dates back to the Carter administration -- is a law that is supposed to govern how intelligence agencies collect data on foreign agents in the United States. Though the President has Constitutional authority to do this outside of the framework of FISA, President Bush chose last year to submit the National Security Agency’s terrorist surveillance program to FISA limitations when the existence of the highly classified program was leaked to and published by the New York Times.
Last May, the FISA court issued a secret decision that imposed new limitations on gathering foreign intelligence that caused a crisis for NSA, CIA and the other intelligence agencies. In one reported incident, the new restrictions caused a nine-hour delay in gathering intelligence essential to an ongoing combat mission to rescue three kidnapped American soldiers in Iraq.
As a result of the FISA court’s action, the Director of National Intelligence, Adm. Mike McConnell, came to the Senate Intelligence committee leaders -- Sens. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) and Christopher Bond (R-Mo) -- in June and asked for urgent action to remedy the problem.
Congress procrastinated until the eve of the August recess when -- despite the outcries of the liberal media (the New York Times, again, and others) -- it passed a fix to the problem with a six-month sunset provision built in. Democrats were forced to accept the short-term extension because they wouldn’t agree to a provision that would give telecommunications companies immunity from civil lawsuits based on their good-faith cooperation with the government.
With the expiration date closing in, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) finally began floor action on the FISA bill. But he and the other liberals are trying to wheedle another short-term extension without the telecom immunity the intelligence community wants and needs. Both McConnells -- Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky) and Director of National Intelligence Adm. Mike McConnell -- have rejected the idea. Reid, as of last night, seemed ready to play that game out all too long.
Reid's inability to get agreement among the Dems he supposedly leads frustrated the entire Senate last night. First, Reid threatened that FISA would be allowed to expire, trying desperately to get a short-term extension. When Minority Leader McConnell blocked the move and filed a cloture motion, Reid was forced to schedule the vote on cloture for Monday afternoon.
Earlier this week, Sen. Bond told me in an interview that, “Congress has had six months to act. To stall legislation needed to help our intelligence community prevent attacks and protect American lives is not only irresponsible, it’s dangerous.” He added, “Failure to act could leave our country deaf and dumb, handcuffing our intelligence operators who are fighting to protect American families in the war against Islamic extremism.”
The fate of the Senate bill may depend on the New York Times editorial page.
Reid usually defers to the Times’ judgment. In an August 3 press conference, as the Senate was about to pass the FISA revision, Reid was asked if he thought the Bush administration was stampeding Congress into acting too quickly, Reid literally pulled that day’s lead New York Times editorial on the subject (titled, “Stampeding Congress Again”) and displayed it to the television cameras saying, “Here’s my answer.” Yesterday’s Senate votes were conducted without that sort of guidance. If the New York Times comes out against the bill again this morning, Reid will probably follow its orders.
The House bill would be a disaster for intelligence agencies. It would -- for the first time in American history -- impose a requirement to obtain a FISA court warrant to intercept communications of persons reasonably believed to be overseas. And (in another blatantly unconstitutional provision) military intelligence gathering would be subjected to FISA court proceedings.
Think about that. Put yourself in the boots of a SEAL platoon leader trying to determine if you’re walking into an al-Queda ambush. You probably need -- right now, not ten hours from now -- intelligence about a bunch of guys sitting two kilometers over some hill in Afghanistan. If any of them may be in contact with anyone in the United States, you have to get a warrant from the FISA court to listen in on his cell phone.
It all boils down to this: the House bill will cause the deaths of Americans on the battlefield. When the Senate bill passes -- which is likely Monday afternoon -- the House will be left with less than a week to conference its bill with the Senate and agree to a version that the president will sign.
President Bush has indicated he will veto a bill that doesn’t include the telecom immunity provision. Other aspects of the House bill will also result in a veto. And if the law expires, much of our intelligence gathering -- essential to saving American lives, and not only in combat -- will stop.
Will the Democrats be so cavalier with American lives? Read the next few days of the New York Times editorials for the answer.
- Jed Babbin, Human Events Editor
As CIA Director Gen. Michael Hayden said, terrorists are in a Darwinian era: we’re only capturing the dumb ones. If we’re going to catch the smart ones -- and thwart their plans -- we need more and better intelligence. Why, then, are the Democrats insisting on hobbling intelligence gathering by insisting on a more restrictive FISA?
FISA -- which dates back to the Carter administration -- is a law that is supposed to govern how intelligence agencies collect data on foreign agents in the United States. Though the President has Constitutional authority to do this outside of the framework of FISA, President Bush chose last year to submit the National Security Agency’s terrorist surveillance program to FISA limitations when the existence of the highly classified program was leaked to and published by the New York Times.
Last May, the FISA court issued a secret decision that imposed new limitations on gathering foreign intelligence that caused a crisis for NSA, CIA and the other intelligence agencies. In one reported incident, the new restrictions caused a nine-hour delay in gathering intelligence essential to an ongoing combat mission to rescue three kidnapped American soldiers in Iraq.
As a result of the FISA court’s action, the Director of National Intelligence, Adm. Mike McConnell, came to the Senate Intelligence committee leaders -- Sens. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) and Christopher Bond (R-Mo) -- in June and asked for urgent action to remedy the problem.
Congress procrastinated until the eve of the August recess when -- despite the outcries of the liberal media (the New York Times, again, and others) -- it passed a fix to the problem with a six-month sunset provision built in. Democrats were forced to accept the short-term extension because they wouldn’t agree to a provision that would give telecommunications companies immunity from civil lawsuits based on their good-faith cooperation with the government.
With the expiration date closing in, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) finally began floor action on the FISA bill. But he and the other liberals are trying to wheedle another short-term extension without the telecom immunity the intelligence community wants and needs. Both McConnells -- Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky) and Director of National Intelligence Adm. Mike McConnell -- have rejected the idea. Reid, as of last night, seemed ready to play that game out all too long.
Reid's inability to get agreement among the Dems he supposedly leads frustrated the entire Senate last night. First, Reid threatened that FISA would be allowed to expire, trying desperately to get a short-term extension. When Minority Leader McConnell blocked the move and filed a cloture motion, Reid was forced to schedule the vote on cloture for Monday afternoon.
Earlier this week, Sen. Bond told me in an interview that, “Congress has had six months to act. To stall legislation needed to help our intelligence community prevent attacks and protect American lives is not only irresponsible, it’s dangerous.” He added, “Failure to act could leave our country deaf and dumb, handcuffing our intelligence operators who are fighting to protect American families in the war against Islamic extremism.”
The fate of the Senate bill may depend on the New York Times editorial page.
Reid usually defers to the Times’ judgment. In an August 3 press conference, as the Senate was about to pass the FISA revision, Reid was asked if he thought the Bush administration was stampeding Congress into acting too quickly, Reid literally pulled that day’s lead New York Times editorial on the subject (titled, “Stampeding Congress Again”) and displayed it to the television cameras saying, “Here’s my answer.” Yesterday’s Senate votes were conducted without that sort of guidance. If the New York Times comes out against the bill again this morning, Reid will probably follow its orders.
The House bill would be a disaster for intelligence agencies. It would -- for the first time in American history -- impose a requirement to obtain a FISA court warrant to intercept communications of persons reasonably believed to be overseas. And (in another blatantly unconstitutional provision) military intelligence gathering would be subjected to FISA court proceedings.
Think about that. Put yourself in the boots of a SEAL platoon leader trying to determine if you’re walking into an al-Queda ambush. You probably need -- right now, not ten hours from now -- intelligence about a bunch of guys sitting two kilometers over some hill in Afghanistan. If any of them may be in contact with anyone in the United States, you have to get a warrant from the FISA court to listen in on his cell phone.
It all boils down to this: the House bill will cause the deaths of Americans on the battlefield. When the Senate bill passes -- which is likely Monday afternoon -- the House will be left with less than a week to conference its bill with the Senate and agree to a version that the president will sign.
President Bush has indicated he will veto a bill that doesn’t include the telecom immunity provision. Other aspects of the House bill will also result in a veto. And if the law expires, much of our intelligence gathering -- essential to saving American lives, and not only in combat -- will stop.
Will the Democrats be so cavalier with American lives? Read the next few days of the New York Times editorials for the answer.
- Jed Babbin, Human Events Editor
Where's your refund?
Because of the Congress' late fix to the alternative minimum tax, millions of Americans will have to wait for their income tax refund this year. Here is one reason why:
Last December we witnessed a rare event as Charles Schumer, Democrat Senator from New York and Charlie Rangel, Democrat Representative from New York both actively supported the discontinuance of the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT). Hard to believe that two Tax and Spend Democrats would want to cut a tax, especially dyed-in- the- wool taxers like these two.
A little background on the AMT: during the 1960’s a few wealthy people were able to avoid paying any federal income tax due to high allowable deductions; this was unacceptable to Democrats so Congress in 1969 passed the AMT to extract a tax payment from the “wealthy.” Over the years this tax went on auto-pilot and had no indexing for inflation; gradually more and more people got caught in this AMT that was meant for rich people.
However, there’s always a however, New York City is one of the high income parts of the country and as incomes rose since the 60’s, the AMT began to catch more and more of these “wealthy” people. The past couple of years thousands of not-so-wealthy people got caught up in AMT and taxpayer unrest began to mount. Interestingly, it didn’t really bother congress one bit, they happily spent the money. That’s when Schumer and Rangel started to get serious heat from their voters in New York City--voters, good Democrats who like tax and spend policies, suddenly found themselves paying federal taxes under AMT, and they did not like it.
When it comes to taxes versus votes there is no contest in the analysis of Schumer and Rangel. Taxes that cost them votes are clearly unfair; the taxes must go. As we saw this past December, the two Charlies played Santa Claus. Their voters got a package containing an AMT “free pass.”
Hal Neff Bismarck
Last December we witnessed a rare event as Charles Schumer, Democrat Senator from New York and Charlie Rangel, Democrat Representative from New York both actively supported the discontinuance of the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT). Hard to believe that two Tax and Spend Democrats would want to cut a tax, especially dyed-in- the- wool taxers like these two.
A little background on the AMT: during the 1960’s a few wealthy people were able to avoid paying any federal income tax due to high allowable deductions; this was unacceptable to Democrats so Congress in 1969 passed the AMT to extract a tax payment from the “wealthy.” Over the years this tax went on auto-pilot and had no indexing for inflation; gradually more and more people got caught in this AMT that was meant for rich people.
However, there’s always a however, New York City is one of the high income parts of the country and as incomes rose since the 60’s, the AMT began to catch more and more of these “wealthy” people. The past couple of years thousands of not-so-wealthy people got caught up in AMT and taxpayer unrest began to mount. Interestingly, it didn’t really bother congress one bit, they happily spent the money. That’s when Schumer and Rangel started to get serious heat from their voters in New York City--voters, good Democrats who like tax and spend policies, suddenly found themselves paying federal taxes under AMT, and they did not like it.
When it comes to taxes versus votes there is no contest in the analysis of Schumer and Rangel. Taxes that cost them votes are clearly unfair; the taxes must go. As we saw this past December, the two Charlies played Santa Claus. Their voters got a package containing an AMT “free pass.”
Hal Neff Bismarck
Sunday, January 27, 2008
Housing news from CNNMoney.com
Bismarck, N.D.
Key stat: Over the past 12 months, the median home price in Bismarck jumped 15.3%, to lead the nation.
It was a big gain, according to the National Association of Realtors, but it brought the median house price there to only $161,600. No high-priced markets grew nearly as fast. Among high-priced cities, the San Jose, Calif. metro area, where the median price rose to $852,500, recorded the highest percentage increase at 9.4%.
Key stat: Over the past 12 months, the median home price in Bismarck jumped 15.3%, to lead the nation.
It was a big gain, according to the National Association of Realtors, but it brought the median house price there to only $161,600. No high-priced markets grew nearly as fast. Among high-priced cities, the San Jose, Calif. metro area, where the median price rose to $852,500, recorded the highest percentage increase at 9.4%.
Friday, January 18, 2008
Get Involved
I have had the opportunity to hear Governor John Hoeven speak twice in the past 5 days and each time I was impressed by his passion for our great state of North Dakota. He spoke from the heart, with no notes, and stressed the importance of becoming involved in the political process.
As you're reading this, you are probably thinking: "I'm already involved", and you would be right, to a point. Being involved can mean a lot of things:
- Get informed: reading blogs, magazine articles or candidate profiles, watching the news
- Volunteer: stuff envelopes for campaigns, make phone calls, go door to door
- Talk to people: reach out to those who are independent or undecided and point them toward sources where they can find the truth. Write a letter to the editor or call a radio talk show.
These are just a few ideas I came up with and I'm sure you can think of more. As the Presidential Caucus draws near, I challenge each of you to bring a friend that wasn't planning on participating. Show them how much fun and educational the political process can be.
As Governor Hoeven said last night, "Those that participate make the difference."
- Deb Seminary, Communications Director
As you're reading this, you are probably thinking: "I'm already involved", and you would be right, to a point. Being involved can mean a lot of things:
- Get informed: reading blogs, magazine articles or candidate profiles, watching the news
- Volunteer: stuff envelopes for campaigns, make phone calls, go door to door
- Talk to people: reach out to those who are independent or undecided and point them toward sources where they can find the truth. Write a letter to the editor or call a radio talk show.
These are just a few ideas I came up with and I'm sure you can think of more. As the Presidential Caucus draws near, I challenge each of you to bring a friend that wasn't planning on participating. Show them how much fun and educational the political process can be.
As Governor Hoeven said last night, "Those that participate make the difference."
- Deb Seminary, Communications Director
Monday, January 14, 2008
The Democrats' Fairy Tale
From The New York Times
By William Kristol
Op-Ed
January 14, 2008
[O]bama has been pretty consistent in his opposition to the war. But ... Obama's view of the current situation in Iraq is out of touch with reality. In this, however, Obama is at one with Hillary Clinton and the entire leadership of the Democratic Party.
When President Bush announced the surge of troops ... Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and Democratic Congressional leaders predicted failure. Obama ... told Larry King that he didn't believe additional U.S. troops would "make a significant dent in the sectarian violence that's taking place there." Then in April, the Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, asserted that "this war is lost, and this surge is not accomplishing anything." In September, Clinton told Gen. David Petraeus that his claims of progress in Iraq required a "willing suspension of disbelief."
The Democrats were wrong in their assessments of the surge. Attacks per week on American troops are now down about 60 percent from June. Civilian deaths are down approximately 75 percent from a year ago. December 2007 saw the second-lowest number of U.S. troops killed in action since March 2003. ...
Do Obama and Clinton and Reid now acknowledge that they were wrong? Are they willing to say the surge worked?
No. ... When asked recently whether she stood behind her "willing suspension of disbelief" insult to General Petraeus, Clinton said, "That's right."
When Obama was asked in the most recent Democratic presidential debate, "Would you have seen this kind of greater security in Iraq if we had followed your recommendations to pull the troops out last year?" he didn't directly address the question. But he volunteered that ... "We should start negotiating now." ...
Last year's success ... was made possible by confidence among Iraqis that U.S. troops would stay and help protect them ... [W]e have been able to turn around the situation in Iraq. ...
Yesterday, on "Meet the Press," Hillary Clinton claimed that the Iraqis are changing their ways in part because of the Democratic candidates' "commitment to begin withdrawing our troops in January of 2009." So the Democratic Party, having proclaimed that the war is lost and having sought to withdraw U.S. troops, deserves credit for any progress that may have been achieved in Iraq.
That is truly a fairy tale. ...
To View The Entire Article, Please Visit: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/14/opinion/14kristol.html?hp
By William Kristol
Op-Ed
January 14, 2008
[O]bama has been pretty consistent in his opposition to the war. But ... Obama's view of the current situation in Iraq is out of touch with reality. In this, however, Obama is at one with Hillary Clinton and the entire leadership of the Democratic Party.
When President Bush announced the surge of troops ... Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and Democratic Congressional leaders predicted failure. Obama ... told Larry King that he didn't believe additional U.S. troops would "make a significant dent in the sectarian violence that's taking place there." Then in April, the Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, asserted that "this war is lost, and this surge is not accomplishing anything." In September, Clinton told Gen. David Petraeus that his claims of progress in Iraq required a "willing suspension of disbelief."
The Democrats were wrong in their assessments of the surge. Attacks per week on American troops are now down about 60 percent from June. Civilian deaths are down approximately 75 percent from a year ago. December 2007 saw the second-lowest number of U.S. troops killed in action since March 2003. ...
Do Obama and Clinton and Reid now acknowledge that they were wrong? Are they willing to say the surge worked?
No. ... When asked recently whether she stood behind her "willing suspension of disbelief" insult to General Petraeus, Clinton said, "That's right."
When Obama was asked in the most recent Democratic presidential debate, "Would you have seen this kind of greater security in Iraq if we had followed your recommendations to pull the troops out last year?" he didn't directly address the question. But he volunteered that ... "We should start negotiating now." ...
Last year's success ... was made possible by confidence among Iraqis that U.S. troops would stay and help protect them ... [W]e have been able to turn around the situation in Iraq. ...
Yesterday, on "Meet the Press," Hillary Clinton claimed that the Iraqis are changing their ways in part because of the Democratic candidates' "commitment to begin withdrawing our troops in January of 2009." So the Democratic Party, having proclaimed that the war is lost and having sought to withdraw U.S. troops, deserves credit for any progress that may have been achieved in Iraq.
That is truly a fairy tale. ...
To View The Entire Article, Please Visit: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/14/opinion/14kristol.html?hp
Your Tax Dollars at Work
Roads? Bridges? No, not this time. Take a look at the January 11, 2008 issue of the Bismarck Tribune page 8A lower half. “WOPILA, Our Gratitude” with a nice photo of Senator Byron Dorgan, and beside it a smaller photo of Senator Dorgan with UTTC President David Gipp and an unidentified Indian woman in full costume. The purpose of the ad paid for by United Tribes Technical College is a message of profuse thanks for the funding secured by Dorgan for the UTTC. The glowing praise for Dorgan could not be more effusive had it been written by Dorgan’s staff for a political poster. This UTTC paid-for ad is a letter from David Gipp, President of UTTC to Dorgan thanking him for the money and citing him for his accomplishment on behalf of the Tribal people.
This is an abuse of tax money and an outrage! Where does one begin? Let’s start with the use of federal tax dollars to pay for a political ad. There is nothing in this ad that requires it be run as a paid-for public letter or notice. This letter, if it needed to written at all, should have been on one page of letter stationery, signed by Gipp, posted with a 41 cent stamp and sent to Dorgan. Instead the taxpayers paid what? Possibly one thousand seven hundred dollars (per the Tribune). $1700 versus 41 cents.
A second concern and yet more serious. This ad has all the looks of political advocacy for a particular person--a paid political promotion-- for the benefit of Senator Dorgan. It was paid for by UTTC, directly or indirectly, with tax dollars received through a grant obtained by Senator Dorgan. The statement in the letter is very clear about the reason. This is a nice way to pay back a favor--you get some money for us--we’ll run a nice ad giving you all the credit--out of gratitude you will get lots of votes. All paid for by the U.S. taxpayer.
The good senator will protest that he did not solicit this ad. He may well be insulated from the actions that put it into print, but it stretches belief that Pres. Gipp did this as a “surprise” without the knowledge of the Senator or his staff. It will be interesting to hear the Senator’s explanation.
Hal Neff
This is an abuse of tax money and an outrage! Where does one begin? Let’s start with the use of federal tax dollars to pay for a political ad. There is nothing in this ad that requires it be run as a paid-for public letter or notice. This letter, if it needed to written at all, should have been on one page of letter stationery, signed by Gipp, posted with a 41 cent stamp and sent to Dorgan. Instead the taxpayers paid what? Possibly one thousand seven hundred dollars (per the Tribune). $1700 versus 41 cents.
A second concern and yet more serious. This ad has all the looks of political advocacy for a particular person--a paid political promotion-- for the benefit of Senator Dorgan. It was paid for by UTTC, directly or indirectly, with tax dollars received through a grant obtained by Senator Dorgan. The statement in the letter is very clear about the reason. This is a nice way to pay back a favor--you get some money for us--we’ll run a nice ad giving you all the credit--out of gratitude you will get lots of votes. All paid for by the U.S. taxpayer.
The good senator will protest that he did not solicit this ad. He may well be insulated from the actions that put it into print, but it stretches belief that Pres. Gipp did this as a “surprise” without the knowledge of the Senator or his staff. It will be interesting to hear the Senator’s explanation.
Hal Neff
Tuesday, January 08, 2008
Democrat donations worth another look
I recently took the opportunity to challenge my Democrat counterparts over the
embarrassing revelation that they had solicited and received $10,000 last year from controversial Mississippi trial lawyer Richard “Dickie” Scruggs.
Scruggs is one of the big-money, out-of-state contributors that
bankroll the operations of North Dakota’s Democrats. Scruggs has made hundreds of millions of dollars for himself suing American businessmen and women. But Mr. Scruggs’ run of legal success seems to be screeching to a halt.
He now stands accused of judicial bribery. In fact, just weeks ago the FBI raided the offices of the law firm hired to defend him.
Most politicians are now fleeing Scruggs faster than a North Dakota Pronghorn Antelope. In fact, Bill and Hillary Clinton cancelled a fundraiser recently set for Scruggs’ home.
My own suggestion, was North Dakota Democrats consider donating their Scruggs’ money to a worthy charity.
But what is most remarkable about this episode is not that the North Dakota Democrat Party received money from someone like Dickie Scruggs. To be
fair, something embarrassing can happen to a contributor to any party or candidate, though most would have the good sense to return the money ASAP. What is remarkable is the pattern of fundraising abuses that seem to plague North Dakota Democrats.
It is this pattern of behavior that should concern North Dakotans. Something is seriously wrong with how North Dakota Democrats have come to operate in the
field of political fundraising. Consider the growing list of Democrat finance fiascos:
In 2006, the North Dakota Democrat Party forfeited $44,000 in illegal corporate
contributions after being roundly criticized for flouting the state’s campaign finance laws.
In 2005, Democrat US Senator Byron Dorgan became ensnared in the Jack Abramoff influence peddling scandal. Dorgan was pressured to return $67,000
dollars in Abramoff-tainted contributions. As reported by the Associated Press, the issue was intertwined with his 2003 involvement with a
Massachusetts Indian Tribe seeking federal recognition, and a 2001 fundraiser he hosted in a sports arena skybox with Abramoff ties.
But it does not stop there. An analysis of the North Dakota Democrats most recent year end finance report reveals a list of bizarre fundraising choices: $10,000 from a New Jersey rice trader who was deeply involved with disgraced former US Senator Robert Torricelli.
$10,000 over the last two election cycles from a political action committee organized to advance “bisexual rights,” among other things. $10,000 from the head of the Clinton-cozy satellite company that was forced to pay $14 million in fines for passing sensitive missile technology to communist China. $10,000 from a liberal Hollywood insider, received on election day.
Well over $100,000 from asbestos trial lawyers around the country.
In light of all this, it pays to remember that the current North Dakota Democrat Party Chairman, David Strauss, played a key role in a major
national scandal. Strauss was Al Gore’s deputy chief of staff who helped arrange and later attended the now infamous Buddhist Temple Fundraiser. It would appear the experience did little to chasten Mr. Strauss’ fundraising ethic.
Any objective review of campaign finance records on file with the Secretary of State’s office would conclude that the state’s Democrats have become a subsidiary of some very questionable out-of-state interests. By comparison, North Dakota Republicans tend to be funded to a greater extent by smaller, North Dakota donors.
From Scruggs to Strauss, Dorgan to Abramoff, bisexual rights activists to asbestos litigators, the story of the North Dakota Democrats and their
reckless fundraising is an ongoing saga. As we enter another election year these are things worthy of voters’ consideration. On one hand, you will have Republican candidates supported mainly by actual North Dakotans. On the Democrat side, candidates will be brought to you largely by a collection of big money donors who neither live here, nor share our values.
The difference could not be more stark.
- Gary Emineth, State Chairman
embarrassing revelation that they had solicited and received $10,000 last year from controversial Mississippi trial lawyer Richard “Dickie” Scruggs.
Scruggs is one of the big-money, out-of-state contributors that
bankroll the operations of North Dakota’s Democrats. Scruggs has made hundreds of millions of dollars for himself suing American businessmen and women. But Mr. Scruggs’ run of legal success seems to be screeching to a halt.
He now stands accused of judicial bribery. In fact, just weeks ago the FBI raided the offices of the law firm hired to defend him.
Most politicians are now fleeing Scruggs faster than a North Dakota Pronghorn Antelope. In fact, Bill and Hillary Clinton cancelled a fundraiser recently set for Scruggs’ home.
My own suggestion, was North Dakota Democrats consider donating their Scruggs’ money to a worthy charity.
But what is most remarkable about this episode is not that the North Dakota Democrat Party received money from someone like Dickie Scruggs. To be
fair, something embarrassing can happen to a contributor to any party or candidate, though most would have the good sense to return the money ASAP. What is remarkable is the pattern of fundraising abuses that seem to plague North Dakota Democrats.
It is this pattern of behavior that should concern North Dakotans. Something is seriously wrong with how North Dakota Democrats have come to operate in the
field of political fundraising. Consider the growing list of Democrat finance fiascos:
In 2006, the North Dakota Democrat Party forfeited $44,000 in illegal corporate
contributions after being roundly criticized for flouting the state’s campaign finance laws.
In 2005, Democrat US Senator Byron Dorgan became ensnared in the Jack Abramoff influence peddling scandal. Dorgan was pressured to return $67,000
dollars in Abramoff-tainted contributions. As reported by the Associated Press, the issue was intertwined with his 2003 involvement with a
Massachusetts Indian Tribe seeking federal recognition, and a 2001 fundraiser he hosted in a sports arena skybox with Abramoff ties.
But it does not stop there. An analysis of the North Dakota Democrats most recent year end finance report reveals a list of bizarre fundraising choices: $10,000 from a New Jersey rice trader who was deeply involved with disgraced former US Senator Robert Torricelli.
$10,000 over the last two election cycles from a political action committee organized to advance “bisexual rights,” among other things. $10,000 from the head of the Clinton-cozy satellite company that was forced to pay $14 million in fines for passing sensitive missile technology to communist China. $10,000 from a liberal Hollywood insider, received on election day.
Well over $100,000 from asbestos trial lawyers around the country.
In light of all this, it pays to remember that the current North Dakota Democrat Party Chairman, David Strauss, played a key role in a major
national scandal. Strauss was Al Gore’s deputy chief of staff who helped arrange and later attended the now infamous Buddhist Temple Fundraiser. It would appear the experience did little to chasten Mr. Strauss’ fundraising ethic.
Any objective review of campaign finance records on file with the Secretary of State’s office would conclude that the state’s Democrats have become a subsidiary of some very questionable out-of-state interests. By comparison, North Dakota Republicans tend to be funded to a greater extent by smaller, North Dakota donors.
From Scruggs to Strauss, Dorgan to Abramoff, bisexual rights activists to asbestos litigators, the story of the North Dakota Democrats and their
reckless fundraising is an ongoing saga. As we enter another election year these are things worthy of voters’ consideration. On one hand, you will have Republican candidates supported mainly by actual North Dakotans. On the Democrat side, candidates will be brought to you largely by a collection of big money donors who neither live here, nor share our values.
The difference could not be more stark.
- Gary Emineth, State Chairman
New Hampshire Predictions from the Evans-Novak Political Report
New Hampshire Predictions: Obama Blowout; Romney Rallying
McCain had seemed a clear winner over Romney in New Hampshire with two days left before the Republican voting, but Romney is coming back fast.Obama looks like a winner over Clinton in Tuesday's New Hampshire primary, which will be damaging but not fatal to her Democratic presidential candidacy.Here is our New Hampshire outlook based on a personal reporting trip by Robert Novak:
Republican
Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) had pulled even with front-running former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney prior to the Iowa caucuses and pulled ahead based on Romney's disappointing second-place finish in Iowa.
After Saturday night's ABC debate, Romney, from neighboring Massachusetts, seemed to be in freefall. The other candidates personally dislike him, and they ganged up on him. The only problem for McCain appeared to be that he overplayed his hand in going after Romney with too much vehemence and personal animosity.
But Romney made a remarkable comeback in Sunday night's Fox News debate, dominating his opponents. He capitalized on McCain's weaknesses on tax and immigration policy. We attended a focus group of mainly undecided Republican voters arranged for Fox by pollster Frank Luntz. They entered the room before the debate widely divided and left it after the debate heavily for Romney -- because of the immigration issue.
Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee never was expected to repeat his Iowa win in the less fertile soil of New Hampshire, but his performance in the Fox debate was truly dreadful. The Luntz focus group hated Huckabee's refusal to answer questions about his record.
Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani was not long ago battling Romney for the New Hampshire lead, but he abandoned the state a few weeks back as part of his "big-state" strategy and over the past weekend did little there except participate in the debates. Like McCain, he suffers because of the immigration issue.
If McCain does win in New Hampshire, he will be the new national frontrunner. Romney may be finished, with Giuliani given the best chance of overcoming McCain.
Our shaky New Hampshire projection on election eve:
1st Place: McCain, but vulnerable.2nd Place: Romney, but rallying.3rd Place: Huckabee.4th Place: Giuliani.5th Place: Former Sen. Fred Thompson (Tenn.).
Democratic
The third-place finish in Iowa by Sen. Hillary Clinton (N.Y.) had a negative impact in New Hampshire, where she had been slipping against Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) even before her loss in Iowa. It is beginning to look like a double-digit loss for Clinton.
She was supposed to come out swinging against Obama in New Hampshire, but her boring, pedantic campaign style had not really changed from Iowa. At one rally where we were present, Clinton never mentioned Obama by name and criticized him only once (on healthcare) as "one of my opponents." Former President Bill Clinton, campaigning separately, is sprightlier but no more effective.
In contrast, "Obamamania" reigns supreme -- generating enthusiasm not seen since the 1968 campaign of Robert F. Kennedy. He attracts new voters and generates support across ideological and party lines. In truth, he worries Republicans sick, but for now, he threatens the long, slowly built Clinton campaign.
Former Sen. John Edwards (N.C.), who dwells on finishing ahead of Clinton in Iowa, looks like the odd man out in New Hampshire, with very little interest in him.
Clinton will not drop out after New Hampshire, as has been reported, and she can still stop Obama in the big states. But it will not be easy or automatic.
Our election eve projection for New Hampshire:
1st Place: Obama, going away.2nd Place: Clinton.3rd Place: Edwards.4th Place: New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson
McCain had seemed a clear winner over Romney in New Hampshire with two days left before the Republican voting, but Romney is coming back fast.Obama looks like a winner over Clinton in Tuesday's New Hampshire primary, which will be damaging but not fatal to her Democratic presidential candidacy.Here is our New Hampshire outlook based on a personal reporting trip by Robert Novak:
Republican
Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) had pulled even with front-running former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney prior to the Iowa caucuses and pulled ahead based on Romney's disappointing second-place finish in Iowa.
After Saturday night's ABC debate, Romney, from neighboring Massachusetts, seemed to be in freefall. The other candidates personally dislike him, and they ganged up on him. The only problem for McCain appeared to be that he overplayed his hand in going after Romney with too much vehemence and personal animosity.
But Romney made a remarkable comeback in Sunday night's Fox News debate, dominating his opponents. He capitalized on McCain's weaknesses on tax and immigration policy. We attended a focus group of mainly undecided Republican voters arranged for Fox by pollster Frank Luntz. They entered the room before the debate widely divided and left it after the debate heavily for Romney -- because of the immigration issue.
Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee never was expected to repeat his Iowa win in the less fertile soil of New Hampshire, but his performance in the Fox debate was truly dreadful. The Luntz focus group hated Huckabee's refusal to answer questions about his record.
Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani was not long ago battling Romney for the New Hampshire lead, but he abandoned the state a few weeks back as part of his "big-state" strategy and over the past weekend did little there except participate in the debates. Like McCain, he suffers because of the immigration issue.
If McCain does win in New Hampshire, he will be the new national frontrunner. Romney may be finished, with Giuliani given the best chance of overcoming McCain.
Our shaky New Hampshire projection on election eve:
1st Place: McCain, but vulnerable.2nd Place: Romney, but rallying.3rd Place: Huckabee.4th Place: Giuliani.5th Place: Former Sen. Fred Thompson (Tenn.).
Democratic
The third-place finish in Iowa by Sen. Hillary Clinton (N.Y.) had a negative impact in New Hampshire, where she had been slipping against Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) even before her loss in Iowa. It is beginning to look like a double-digit loss for Clinton.
She was supposed to come out swinging against Obama in New Hampshire, but her boring, pedantic campaign style had not really changed from Iowa. At one rally where we were present, Clinton never mentioned Obama by name and criticized him only once (on healthcare) as "one of my opponents." Former President Bill Clinton, campaigning separately, is sprightlier but no more effective.
In contrast, "Obamamania" reigns supreme -- generating enthusiasm not seen since the 1968 campaign of Robert F. Kennedy. He attracts new voters and generates support across ideological and party lines. In truth, he worries Republicans sick, but for now, he threatens the long, slowly built Clinton campaign.
Former Sen. John Edwards (N.C.), who dwells on finishing ahead of Clinton in Iowa, looks like the odd man out in New Hampshire, with very little interest in him.
Clinton will not drop out after New Hampshire, as has been reported, and she can still stop Obama in the big states. But it will not be easy or automatic.
Our election eve projection for New Hampshire:
1st Place: Obama, going away.2nd Place: Clinton.3rd Place: Edwards.4th Place: New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson
Friday, January 04, 2008
To The National Geographic: regarding the January 2008 article: The Emptied Prairie.
Many of us are disaapointed at the January issue of the National Geographic Magazine article" The Emptied Prairie" showing North Dakota in a series of abandoned farm buildings, schools and cars languishing in an empty, snowy grassland. The article was written by Charles Bowden and there is no way of knowing what objective or agenda he had in mind, but it is clearly single-minded in its theme--this part of the country is dying--no, it's already dead. I sent the following comment to NG at their e-mail address: ngsforum@nationalgeographic.com.
The Emptied Prairie piece in the National Geographic of Jan. 2008 hits one mark and misses so many others--yes, there are lots of ghosts here--farms, small towns, immigrants, and people who passed through. Is our landscape open and nearly devoid of man's work? Yes, some of it is. The stories you missed are those of thousands of immigrants who came here from an oppressed Europe at the turn of the 19th to the 20th century. Some of the poorest of the poor from middle-Europe, Ukraine, Norway and Sweden, all seeking a chance for a better life, not necessarily for themselves, but for their sons and daughters some not yet born. Not told in your story was the success that came out of the first generation's struggle. Their sons and daughters not only survived and prospered, but they became educated and moved into the so-called American Dream--vindicating the hardship and fulfilling the dreams of their grandparents. I am one of those. I've lived and worked in a dozen of our great states, and I have chosen to live here. I am home. The photography of The Emptied Prairie is superb, but you missed the real story.
Hal Neff Bismarck, ND
The Emptied Prairie piece in the National Geographic of Jan. 2008 hits one mark and misses so many others--yes, there are lots of ghosts here--farms, small towns, immigrants, and people who passed through. Is our landscape open and nearly devoid of man's work? Yes, some of it is. The stories you missed are those of thousands of immigrants who came here from an oppressed Europe at the turn of the 19th to the 20th century. Some of the poorest of the poor from middle-Europe, Ukraine, Norway and Sweden, all seeking a chance for a better life, not necessarily for themselves, but for their sons and daughters some not yet born. Not told in your story was the success that came out of the first generation's struggle. Their sons and daughters not only survived and prospered, but they became educated and moved into the so-called American Dream--vindicating the hardship and fulfilling the dreams of their grandparents. I am one of those. I've lived and worked in a dozen of our great states, and I have chosen to live here. I am home. The photography of The Emptied Prairie is superb, but you missed the real story.
Hal Neff Bismarck, ND
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
