Starting in 1996, Alexa Internet has been donating their crawl data to the Internet Archive. Flowing in every day, these data are added to the Wayback Machine after an embargo period.
This is a time to get together and eat and talk , just time for our friends. There is no format, dues, agenda etc., We can meet anytime or place we decide, picnic pot luck, local food, anything we want to, even invite speakers. But for now please show up, eat and talk to like minded friends. No need to RSVP just stop by and eat.
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
Trana if you like.
One of my friends put a note on his Facebook page today with a link to a Grand Forks Herald story in which North Dakota Republican Congressional Candidate Rick Berg says we should begin drilling for oil under Theodore Roosevelt National Park. He said “and now for an incredibly stupid idea . . . “ Boy was he right. Let me reprint the first few paragraphs from the Herald’s story:
Drilling for oil underneath western North Dakota’s Theodore Roosevelt National Park and other federal lands nationwide could be a way to ensure Social Security funding for the long haul, Republican U.S. House challenger Rick Berg said.
During a meeting with The Forum’s editorial board Wednesday, Berg discussed his ideas for how to make the Social Security system viable for future generations. He said one option is drilling for oil and other mineral resources on federal government land.
“There’s a huge opportunity right now to take those mineral assets that are on the federal government’s balance sheet and shift them to Social Security,” Berg told the editorial board.
He said the national economy also needs to improve so more Americans will have jobs and pay into the system.
Money gained from more drilling on federal land would amount to “billions of dollars” from North Dakota resources alone, Berg said. He did not have specific data available on Wednesday.
The federal government already allows drilling on some public land, including the national grasslands in western North Dakota.
But drilling is banned in national parks with only a few exceptions — and Theodore Roosevelt National Park isn’t among them, park Superintendent Valerie Naylor said.
“Drilling is not allowed in national parks, as a general rule,” she said. “It’s important that we preserve the land for future generations.”
But Berg said he would include national parks — and specifically, Theodore Roosevelt National Park — when discussing areas of untapped mineral resources the U.S. government could use.
I’m disappointed in Rick on this one. He shows a basic lack of understanding of a very important part of North Dakota here.
There are a million acres of federally-owned national grasslands in western North Dakota’s badlands. Virtually all of it is open to drilling for oil. The federal government already rakes in millions and millions of dollars annually from leasing it to the oil companies. It rakes in millions and millions more, and will get to the billions Rick is talking about, in royalty payments from the oil the oil companies are taking out. That has been going on for years, since oil was first discovered in 1954 in western North Dakota.
Thanks to the efforts over many years of one of our state’s most conservative and irascible Congressmen ever, William Lemke, we managed, in 1947, to set aside about 70,000 acres—just a couple of per cent of our state’s spectacular Bad Lands—as a National Park honoring Theodore Roosevelt.
As a National Park, it enjoys the protection from development that has turned, not just the million acres of federal land out west, but the several million acres of private and state land as well, into one of the country’s major oil fields. Theodore Roosevelt National Park is a tiny island in a sea of scoria roads and sand colored tanks.
So Rick, listen up: Not only is the National Park sacrosanct, but it is insignificant compared to the million acres of federally-owned land alreadybeing drilled. This is not news to most North Dakotans, and you, of all people, should know better. The federal government is already reaping huge royalty and leasing checks from its federal lands in western North Dakota.
If what you meant to tell the Forum editorial board is you want to shift that revenue away from helping to finance general government and put it into Social Security, then tell us what taxes you want to increase to replace that revenue. But keep your drilling rigs away from the National Park. Good God, man, are you that desperate? That greedy? Is nothing sacred? Drill, baby, drill. National Parks be damned. That thinking makes me sad. And angry.
It appears the Flag's website has been scrubbed of all references to Scott Hennen. Scott Hennen's own website (if he owned it) also appears to be scrubbed of all refeences to Scott Hennen.
I know what you're saying: "So what?"
Yeah, good point.
But maybe it's a sign the Flag is cleaning out all the venom spewing racists, teabaggers and other uninformed hate-mongers.
Worse things could happen.
[UPDATE: The For'em has an updated story you can read by clicking here. Apparently the station's other owners or board voted to can Hennen.]
Here's what FreedomWorks said about the Hoeven endorsement.
Today, fiscal conservative and "Champion of Freedom" John Hoeven joins an impressive list of candidates endorsed by FreedomWorks PAC as part of the Take America Back in 2010 campaign. Hoeven is a hard worker and a respected Governor since 2000, now running for Senate in North Dakota. He earned the "Champion of Freedom" endorsement from FreedomWorks PAC for his leadership in the advancement of a common-sense, limited government agenda.
In his service as Governor of North Dakota, John Hoeven enacted crucial reforms and incentives which led to a balanced state budget, 40,000 new jobs...
[ ]
Keeping consistent with his limited-government principles, John Hoeven opposed the trillion dollar Obama stimulus bill...
If you aren't laughing yet, you haven't been paying attention...
Hoeven... the "fiscal conservative"?!?
Ha!!!
This, from ultra-right-wing blog RedState.com a couple years ago..
Two term Republican John Hoeven is running for a third term. Under his watch, state government spending has increased over 50% in four legislative sessions, including at 25% increase in one legislative session in 2007. He recently proposed a $300 million increase in state education spending, a 59% increase over 2007’s $650 million appropriation (which itself was a 25% increase over 2005).
If Hoeven's a fiscal conservative, I'm North Dakota's Republican Party National Committeeman.
You can call me "Curly."
You have to wonder whether the FreedomWorks corporate masters know anything about John Hoeven. Do they know just a few years ago this "fiscal conservative" was a socialist banker before becoming Governor? Do they know this "champion of freedom" professed his undying love to the Democratic Party they spit venom at every day? Do they know Hoeven -- who "opposed" the stimulus -- has sought at least $650 million in federal stimulus money?
$650,000,000 in stimulus sought by Hoeven?!?! And he opposed it?!?
I'd hate to see how much money he'd have grovelled for had he supported the stimulus.
Do they know Hoeven is an empty suit with skeletons in his cabinet?
To paraphrase something a friend -- who probably would prefer to remain unnamed -- said to me earlier today: "I'll believe John Hoeven is a 'fiscal conservative' when he admits in public that he opposes a flood diversion project for Fargo." I'll admit he'd be a good Senator when he admits he'd be leaving North Dakota's executive branch in the hands of the man responsible for all the problems at the North Dakota State Investment Board.
If Hoeven had any integrity, he'd reject the endorsement.
According to the most optimistic census figures, North Dakota has gained about 5,000 new residents since the year 2000. At the same time, the latest data showed the state had lost 6,000 jobs in roughly that same time period.
John Hoeven -- on the front page of his campaign web page -- takes credit for creating 40,000 new jobs during that period of time. As Senator Tracy Potter pointed out back in May...
The bottom line is this: the highest estimate for population growth in Hoeven's term is 5,000 and 6,000 more people are unemployed. So if any jobs were created they were for people who already had jobs. North Dakota leads the nation in the number of people who need two or three jobs to make ends meet. That's the success Hoeven's ads are so proud of.
As Potter points out, North Dakota leads the nation (along with Nebraska) with the highest percentage of people forced to work multiple jobs just to make ends meet. Almost one out of every ten North Dakotan works at least two jobs. (Source)
Hoeven takes credit for 40,000 non-existent, phantom jobs. What about Secretary of State Al Jaeger?!? How many phantom businesses has HE created?
Good question.
According to his brand-new website, Jaeger takes credit for lots of new businesses these phantom workers all must work at. Here's what he says:
* Over 15,000 North Dakota businesses exist today, organized with structures made available in bills written by my office and passed through bipartisan support.
Researching this issue thoroughly and writing a treatise about it is probably a bigger job than I'm willing to take on right now for this blog. I'll try to give a nutshell, though, with some help from LLC-reporter.com, and looking at some of the legislative history...
The limited liability firm is a triumph of comparative law in action. The origin of this relatively new institution is generally attributed to the German law of 1892, authorizing the Gesellschaft mit beschrnkter Haftung...
[ ]
In 1977, Wyoming became the first American state to enact a true LLC act modeled after the 1892 German GmbH Code and the Panamanian LLC. The Wyoming LLC Act permits the formation of LLCs organized for any lawful purpose execpt the business of banking and insurance. Wyo Stat §17-15-103. In addition to limited liability, the Wyoming Act has the same four basic characteristics of the European and Latin American codes that distinguished this entity.
At the time North Dakota was considering enacting a Limited Liability Company law, besides Wyoming, seventeen (17) states had adopted LLC legislation, including Arizona, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, Nevada, Oklahoma, Texas, Utah, Virginia and West Virginia. Besides North Dakota, fourteen (14) other states were in the process of considering similar legislation. (Source) It's not like this legislation was Al Jaeger's idea.
Sandy Tabor, at the time the legislation was enacted, was the Executive Director of the State Bar Association. She testified before the Senate Judiciary legislative committee about the bill. In her testimony, she listed the bar association groups involved in drafting the legislation. Here's what the minutes from the meeting say:
Sandy Tabor, Executive Director, State Bar Association, testified that the State Bar Assoc. supports the bill and that several members representing different sections of the association were involved in the drafting -- the groups are the business incorporation section, the taxaction section, and the real property, probate and trust section. The CPAs and representatives of the Secretary of State's Office and the Tax Commissioner's office were represented on the committee that drafted the bill. The drafting took over a year. It's based on the Minnesota statute.
Al Jaeger testified on the bill before the Senate Appropriations Committee. He said, "this bill came from the State Bar Association" and that "this bill is not sponsored by [my office]". He did not include it in his office's requested appropriation for that reason. (Source) It appears he didn't want the $20,000 computer system or software upgrade attributed to him in his proposed budget. But input obviously was needed from his office to make sure implementation of the legislation didn't cause major problems in his office.
So now, on his website, Jaeger takes credit for 15,000 new businesses in North Dakota, noting that the legislation was a bill "written in [his] office."
He might get away with saying he was involved in helping the State Bar Association tweek Minnesota's legislation (which was based on other states' legislation) to make it work in North Dakota, but to claim the bill was "written in my office"?!?
That's a stretch.
John Hoeven put all the oil in the ground in Western North Dakota and created 40,000 phantom jobs, and Al Jaeger dreamed up the Limited Liability Company and Limited Liability Partnerships.
It's almost enough to make you wonder what else they're fibbing about.
So if you google "Al Jaeger" today you'll notice that the seventh result is Al Jaeger's brand spanking new campaign website. He apparently hasn't had one before. 2010 is his first try at this whole "internets" thing. Makes you feel confident in his ability to maintain the Secretary of State's website doesn't it? Anyways, that's not what popped out at me. This was, from his issues page.
All candidates and parties can expect fairness.
Recent news about a candidate being left off a ballot shows the need for extraordinary accuracy. Unfortunately, mistakes happen in every business, organization or government. That is why my staff and I have put many policies and safeguards in place that make mistakes of this nature extremely rare and provide a level of accuracy most businesses strive to reach.
Ok, so Rick Berg is apparently not the only Republican in need of a new advertising consultant. Let me rephrase this for Dave Weiler's campaign and you tell me what you think:
All spouses and women can expect fairness
Recent reports of me abusing my wife show the need for greater respect for women in this state. Unfortunately, mistakes happen in any marrriage. I consider myself a champion of the women's movement and work hard to ensure that policies and safeguards are in place to provide a level of equality in my marriage that most disfunctional families strive to reach.
Way to remind visitors to your site of one of your most egregious faults!
This morning the North Dakota Supreme Court rejected WalMart's petition to get the North Dakota Supreme Court to force Secretary of State Al Jaeger to put their defective initiated measure petition on North Dakota's November ballot.
It's a fairly simple case, really. The astro-turf group called "North Dakotans for Lower Prescription Prices" had not complied with our state constitutional requirements for getting an initiated measure on the ballot. Specifically...
Because the Sponsoring Committee failed to comply with the mandatory constitutional requirement that circulated petitions contain the sponsors' names and addresses, the Secretary of State correctly determined that the petitions submitted to him in this case were insufficient.
The astro-turf group was asking the Supreme Court to step in and force Al Jaeger to accept the defective petition. The Court declined to do so.
It's a no-brainer, really.
What's interesting about this case -- if anything -- is that counsel for the astro-turf group is Dan Traynor, of Devils Lake, a former North Dakota Republican Party Chairman. Now I am the last person you'd ever hear suggesting the legal argument of a client reflects the personal opinion of the lawyer, but this one is kind of interesting. We always hear Republicans arguing that Democrats want a constitution to be a "living document" that's "flexible" and "evolving." Democrats are always accused of wanting and seeking "activist judges" who are okay operating outside the four corners of a constitution. Democrats are accused of wanting judge to be "empathetic" or "sympathetic" to the plight of people who appear before courts. (Those are all ridiculous points, by the way.)
But here we have the former chairman of the North Dakota Republican Party asking the court to be activist; asking them to ignore his client's failure to operate within the four corners of the constitution. Asking the court to be flexible. Requesting that they be "activists." Asking the court to be compassionate and sympathetic to the plight of the doofuses who couldn't figure out how to follow the constitution.
No offense to Dan -- who I know and like -- but I think that's kind of amusing.
Now I'm well aware that you all will call me nuts when you see these predictions, but I honestly think that the predictions currently suggested by most pollsters are too pessimistic for Senate Democrats. The House is a different story, and I'm woefully unprepared at the moment to handicap those races. I do have a decent grasp on the Senate and I am fairly optimistic about Democratic chances there. Here are my caveats before I explain this. This is not at all based on emperical data. This is all gut. Second, I know that these predictions are wildly optimistic. I'm the eternal optimist, but I think it is somewhat warranted in this case here. SO, without further ado, click "Read More " for my ridiculous predictions...
Miller: So defund everything. Get rid of the socialist aspects of government, not just in health care but the other entitlement areas that are driving us into insolvency.
Host: Of course you're going to have a -- you're going to have a president who is going to veto anything if there's a Republican Congress that the Republican Congress tries to enact.
Miller: Well, you got to fund it and the Congress has to have an affirmative vote to do it so that's a good start point.
Host: So starve them -- starve them of the funds, starve the beast, so to speak.
Miller: Absolutely, and have the courage to shut down the government if we have to.
A simple majority can refuse to fund. So, if you have Boehner as speaker and Mitch McConnell as majority leader, all you have to do is not write into the appropriations bill the money.
If the president vetoes the appropriations bills, you repass them.
...
The president has got to make it into a positive political issue to veto the appropriations bills. Remember, the only person who can close the government is the president. If you're prepared to pass the appropriations bills, he has to decide to veto a bill you have passed. And so you simply pass a bill.
These guys really scare me. I'm really afraid about what would happen if the Republicans take over a House of Congress in 2010. Quotes like this are why. Let me explain...
Let me give a brief lesson in the way our government operates fiscally. Each year the president submits a budget to Congress. Budgets typically plan out the next five fiscal years of federal spending. Congress marks up and edits the budget and then passes a joint budget resolution. This budget does not actually spend money. It is not signed by the president, it merely acts as a guide. That budget usually gets passed in the spring, sometime in April. This year we haven't been able to pass one because the Republicans have slowed the Senate down to a crawl, and between the PPACA, Dodd-Frank, and all the other legislation that has taken up the Senate's time, Harry Reid hasnt been able to make room on the Senate Calendar for a budget, so we're operating off of last year's budget. In any case, after the budget gets passed, Congress begins the appropriations process. Appropriations bills are what actually authorize most annual spending for the Federal government. These bills have a deadline. The Federal Government operates-like most other entities-on fiscal years. That fiscal year ends on September 30th each calendar year. If the 13 bills that appropriate money for the fisal year do not get passed, the money being spent is not authorized by law, and the departments, employees, and contracts affected by those bills go unfunded. Often if congress does not make it in time(which is becoming the rule rather than the exception) they pass a continuing resolution, which continues funding the government at current levels until an appropriations bill has passed. These resolutions are used to stave off a shutdown while Congress gets its Act together-literally-and passes its appropriations bills.
So, what are Dick Morris and Erik Erickson suggesting that the GOP does if they manage to wrench the speaker's gavel away from the Democrats? They're suggesting playing a game of chicken with hundreds of thousands of Federal employees. If appropriations bills or continuing resolutions are not enacted on time, all nonessential federal employees are furloughed-sent home temporarily wothout pay, some other essential employees remain working without pay, all federal contracts tied to appropriations go unfunded, and peperwork sits unprocessed. This has happened before, most motably in 1995, when Newt Gingrich was angry because he had to sit in the back of Air Force One.
The Congressional Research Service published a report in 2004 about the effects of Newt's temper tantrum:
The long shutdown that began in December 1995 affected many members of the
public. A few examples, taken from congressional hearings, press and agency accounts,
follow:
Health. New patients were not accepted into clinical research at the
National Institutes of Health (NIH) Clinical Center; the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention ceased disease surveillance (information
about the spread of diseases, such as AIDS and flu, were unavailable);
hotline calls to NIH concerning diseases were not answered; and toxic
waste clean-up work at 609 sites stopped, resulting in 2,400 "Superfund” workers being sent home.
Law Enforcement/Public Safety. Delays occurred in the processing of
alcohol, tobacco, firearms, and explosives applications by the Bureau of
Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms; work on more than 3,500 bankruptcy
cases was suspended; cancellation of the recruitment and testing of
federal law-enforcement officials occurred, including the hiring of 400
border patrol agents; and delinquent child-support cases were suspended.
Parks/Museums/Monuments. Closure of 368 National Park Service sites (loss of 7 million visitors) occurred, with local communities near
national parks losing an estimated $14.2 million per day in tourism
revenues; and closure of national museums and monuments (estimated
loss of 2 million visitors) occurred.
Visas/Passports. 20,000-30,000 applications by foreigners for visas
went unprocessed each day; 200,000 U.S. applications for passports went
unprocessed; and U.S. tourist industries and airlines sustained millions
of dollars in losses.
American Indian/Other Native Americans. All 13,500 Department of
Interior Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) employees were furloughed;
general assistance payments for basic needs to 53,000 BIA benefit
recipients were delayed; and estimated 25,000 American Indians did not
receive timely payment of oil and gas royalties.
American Veterans. Major curtailment in services, ranging from health
and welfare to finance and travel was experienced.
Federal Contractors. Of $18 billion in Washington area contracts, $3.7 billion (over 20%) were managed by agencies affected by the funding
lapse; the National Institute of Standards, was unable to issue a new standard for lights and lamps, scheduled to be effective January 1, 1996; and employees of federal contractors were furloughed without pay.
Government shutdowns are not a good thing. The report actually misses a couple of important facts that add to the case. The IRS is funded by annual appropriations. If the enforcement division shuts down, the impact in practical terms is hundreds of millions-if not billions in lost revenue, usually from major corporations and billionaires, who evade taxes the most. Tax cheats go off the hook when the federal government shuts down. The things it does mention are important too. National parks shut down, causing maintenance work to go undone, which raises costs when things go back online. The State department stops processing visa applications. FHA mortgages go unapproved. Veterans benefits, including healthcare, do not get processed. We the taxpayer lose money on this deal. We would be on the hook for at least a few billion dollars if the government were to shut down.
So when we talk about shutting down the federal government, I get very concerned. There are people reying on federal money-either through a paycheck or through a benefit payment-that dont get their money, all so we can boost John Boehner's ego. At the beginning of each session of congress, every member takes an oath:
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.
I consider allowing the federal government to be a gross violation of that oath of office. If you are failing to fund the people's business for political gain, you have violated your oath of office.
That's why electing a Republican congress scares the bejeesus out of me.
Someone should ask Rick Berg and John Hoeven what they think about this idea...I'm sure they're all for it.
A little something to brighten every North Dakota Democrats' day:
Democrats in Congress are poised to play a leading role this month in thwarting their party's effort to raise income tax rates on the wealthy.
Tax cuts enacted in 2001 and 2003 expire at the end of this year. President Barack Obama and Democratic congressional leaders have been eager to extend the breaks for individuals who earn less than $200,000 annually and joint filers who make less than $250,000. Those who earn more would pay higher, pre-2001 rates starting next year.
However, a small but growing number of moderate Democrats are balking at boosting taxes on the rich. Many face electorates that recoil at the mention of any tax increase. Some represent areas that are loaded with wealthier taxpayers. Further, some incumbent senators who don't face voters this fall are reluctant to increase taxes on anyone while the economy remains sluggish.
Without their support, the push to raise rates on the rich probably will fail.
[ ]
The bigger problem for Democrats looms in the Senate, where Majority Leader Reid's immediate problem is getting the 60 votes needed to cut off debate on the measure. Democrats control 59 seats, and at least three of them — Bayh, Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Kent Conrad of North Dakota — have signaled that they won't back a permanent repeal of the tax cuts for the wealthy.
From right-wing crack-pot Scott Hennen's agenda (posted on his website), today:
8:30: The House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) joins us for a live, in-studio chat as he visits Fargo to campaign for Rick Berg...
(from Scott Hennen's website)
The House Minority Leader comes to North Dakota, and the Republicans keep it a big secret?
The media doesn't know about it?
Nobody knows about it?
Why would Republicans be so secretive about the highly unpopular, orange-colored leader of the obstructionist wing of the U.S. House of Representatives spending a day in North Dakota?
Is it because Boehner has consistently been against the Farm Bill?
According to the most optimistic census figures, North Dakota has gained about 5,000 new residents since the year 2000. At the same time, the latest data showed the state had lost 6,000 jobs in roughly that same time period. 
This morning the North Dakota Supreme Court rejected WalMart's petition to get the North Dakota Supreme Court to force Secretary of State Al Jaeger to put their defective initiated measure petition on North Dakota's November ballot. 
A little something to brighten every North Dakota Democrats' day: 
From right-wing crack-pot Scott Hennen's agenda (posted on his website), today:
