Dakota Beacon

"I have favored at this point in time a smaller package more capable of getting bipartisan support," he said. "It looks like they're making an effort to put in Republican ideas, but I'm not sure that the package is smaller or will be any more capable of getting bipartisan support."

 

Things are definitely brightening in The United States of America, particularly here in North Dakota.  Byron Dorgan has decided to “retire” from “fighting” before he is “discharged,” deciding that a “ Political Purple Heart” is better than a “Senatorial Red Badge of Courage.”  He could still, possibly, win a North Dakota “Medal of Honor” by simply, in his final moments “in the arena” using his vote the defeat the enemy of American Freedom which he, and ND’s other two puppets, helped install in the White House.  He should try to get Earl Pomeroy to “see the light” that he saw; get Pomeroy also to see that ND has “weighed ‘him’ in the balance and found ‘him’ wanting.” The “tea-tide” is sweeping across America; the political hot-air balloons are being punctured, the “political wolf-skins” are being either voluntarily shed, or involuntarily shredded, exposing the political lemmings within.

When young learners are permitted, in education, to be free to ‘search out the truth,” unhindered by government, teachers, professors, grades, or curricula, then they can be the “hope of the future.”  And that is happening in America.  

Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand is sweeping the colleges and universities again, as it did 50 years ago.  Sarah Palin’s “Going Rogue” has out-sold even Byron Dorgan’s Dakota Dime novel.  Incoming freshmen at the best colleges and universities are astute, sharp, truth-seekers, understanding math far better than political snake-charmers dream that they do.  They see the “hand-writing on the wall” and see that they are all “CO-SIGNERS of this monstrous debt that these “altruistic sleight-of-hand political “prima donnas” are “sharing” with them.  Governments, by definition, do not “create” wealth; they can only “print” the paper symbols of it.  All government dollars come from taxes or wealth created by producers-workers, who work either with their muscles or brains, or both.  Except in Congress and the Whitehouse, where it’s neither!

For example, Lois and I were in Bentonville, Arkansas in 1959, when Sam Walton was still working for Ben Franklin.  Now Walmart employs 2 million workers.  That’s how jobs are created.  

Young  thinkers, creators, dreamers, seekers, builders, can develop their dream only in a free society in which all men can live together in peace, BECAUSE no one in it believes that anyone in it is “entitled” to the rewards of another person’s labor, merely because the producer has a surplus and the non-producer has a lack! In a “free” country, any citizen can voluntarily share his goods with anyone he so chooses, but he can not be “forced” to do so.  

Sir Byron Dorgan could be a “TRUE KNIGHT” if he would send his “War-Chest” millions (which he no longer needs since he has fled from the battlefield), to either Haiti to help the homeless, or to Kenya, Africa, to build a better “hut” for the President’s brother, since the President obviously is not “his brother’s keeper.”  But Lord Byron could be, could he not?  Why use the young people’s future earnings, rather than Byron’s lobbyist LOOT?  

By the way, how many millions of taxes do you think Sam Walton, Wal-mart, Sam’s Club, sales tax, employee income tax, stockholder’s capital gains tax, etc., etc., has paid since he started???

And these creative producers are the very ones that these political drones not only castigate constantly, while leeching off of them at the same time, yet do everything within their power to destroy them.  THEN WHAT?  Read history. Planned or unplanned famines which are used to selectively remove unwanted consumers (sharers); and breed “civil wars” which are generally only lawless bands of killers, looting (usually with the consent of “government) and  “dividing the spoil” among themselves, until they also die, since no one is producing.  Even fat politicians can not stay alive on a diet of $1000.00 bills, as can not a poor, fat-free tax-payer on an unlimited amount of food stamps. Some one must have an incentive to produce food. Hunger pangs, drooling lips (even with lip-stick), whining, hope, altruism, DO NOT create food.  Or heat in the winter.  Or shelter from the elements.

Going back to the “Tea-tide” sweeping this land.  It’s probably a bit early to make predictions, but it certainly looks like the Congressional bottom feeders are dropping out of the races, and the surface skaters are being swept away by the fresh air of the voter awakening.  Let’s hope that even the quitters in Congress will seek, with their yet powerful vote, to right the wrongs they have done.  Above all, they should have the integrity to act in a way that their followers cannot blame them for all the wrongs done in the last two decades, as President Obama has done to the Democrats that controlled Congress for 4 of the 8 Bush years.  The media is now trying to destroy Sarah Palin by saying that her husband influenced her decisions when she was governor.  Hillary Clinton wrote the entire first Health Bill.

I want to close again with the statement that United States Senators are to represent, not their state only, but the entire entity known as The United States of America and the Republic for which IT stands.  Our two stooges have constantly put North Dakota “pork” before the survival of the Republic.  This was, of course, a result of North Dakotans who had themselves allowed their moral and ethical standards of honesty and integrity to be swayed by the unearned rewards and voted , not their conscience but their desire, which rapidly became irreversible, as it always does.

It is very hard to condemn corrupt, unprincipled Congresspersons, the President and his Czars, with one’s own belly stuffed with “pork.”  But like the greedy politicians who killed the goose that laid the golden eggs, our present Pied Piper and his herd of pork-fed lemmings has, it appears, cannibalized their own larder—the Pigs of Animal Farm,-- and all that’s left of that wonderful SWINE that kept every re-election pork barrel full, is Swine flu fright, and a slick looking, genuflecting piece of Head-cheese masquerading as an American Eagle.

But even our own Deficit Hawk, Kent Conrad has finally seen the light, though dimly, of the truth of the Obama  “Pandora’s Box”. Camelot finally died with the election of Scott Brown.  It died when Sir Ted missed the bridge, but his political clone/drones propped him up for years, like El Cid’s friends did him, but El Cid’s cause was noble and so was he, but Ted was, even then, an already lost cause.  

Voters are awakening to the truth that honest, hard-working, God-fearing, family supporting Americans are generous supporters of all true disasters, whether international, national, community, or individual, and will always make the best, most honest, most ethical, most moral, most “American” public servants.  These “wanna-be-dictators” and “big-brothers” and  “Nurse Rachets” should take this “tea-tide” to heart, BECAUSE THE AMERICAN VOTER ALREADY HAS!!  Especially the young voters! And once they have seen the hand-writing on the wall” and “heard the Siren’s Song” on the tele-prompter, and felt the “Iron Heel” of the jack-boots of the Army of appointed Gestapo Czars, they will shout a GREAT BIG, “NO!” at election time.  They already have done that.  And that is America’s best Change and only Hope!

Once again: READ AYN RAND’S ATLAS SHRUGGED which is back on the best-seller list! This year it will sell more than 300,000 copies!  1,000 pages long, and written 50 years ago. It is still the best 2010 description and comparison of the Obama decent into the socialistic maelstrom which Ayn Rand understood so well, having been born and schooled as an engineer (not a political scientist-whatever that is) in Soviet Russia. She chose  “Constitutional Republic” where everyone is free to create wealth and keep it rather than a “Dictatorial Demoncracy-yes, that’s spelled correctly” which loots, through taxes, mandates, and out-right theft, the wealth of the producers and shares (what’s left after they satisfy their greeed) the remainder with the non-producing parasites.  By the way, these 300,000 Atlas Shrugged copies are bought by readers who study them, believe them and take action to uphold the philosophy they enshrine. Dorgan’s books, Obama’s books, Clinton’s books, and maybe even some of Sarah Palin’s books, on the other hand, are purchased by the authors, and then autographed and either sold or handed out at “Fund-raising rallies.”       

Jennifer Burns, assistant professor of history at the University of Virginia, says; “Many readers are turning to Rand to understand our past—but she may be a better guide to our future.” Bis/Trib 12/14/2009 Dear reader: She is the guide to America’s future! To all the students who remember me as their teacher in Mandan High School, Regent High School, Goodrich High School, Linton High School, Century High School,(summer) U of Mary, Bismarck Junior College, Dickinson State University, University of Kansas, Valley Falls High School, Kansas , Elmira College, New York (French Institute)  please read this book now! Study it with your friends! Compare and contrast it, not with what you hear from the media, from your professors, from your “peer-reviewed sources, or smell from the cesspool of the political world, but “reason” with YOUR mind concerning what YOUR eyes see in the world you are living in. Don’t let fantasy and rhetoric blind your reason or logic.Believe what your reasoning mind tells you to be in fact the true nature of reality. And don’t settle for less than the best!

Do not become satisfied with being a second-handed looter. Emerson said: “Welcome forever more to both God and man is the self-helping man.  Our love goes out to him BECAUSE he does not need it.” By the way, only “THOSE” are worthy of your love. Other wise how do you know whether they “need” and therefore will merely use you, or if they don’t “need” you , and therefore can actually “love” you, meaning too “give” love honestly and self-lessly? That’s also why so many marriages fail.  We’re kind of taught that we are incomplete as individual men and women, and when two halves combine, a complete is made. You know, two halves, sometimes one is referred to as “the better” half, or my “better half.”  Not so, my friend: A true marriage is when two complete individuals meet, fall in love, not because they lacked something the other had, but because each respected and loved the other precisely because neither needed the other to be complete.  When to halves combine, one “complete” is formed.  

When two complete individuals combine, something is formed that never existed before, and probably never will again.The same holds true in the relationship with one’s country.  I love my country, precisely because she allows me to freely love her.  And my country loves me by ensuring that freedom to me in spite of the desires and wants of the other “free” citizens. Only then are you worthy of love, just like Emerson said.  

Remember always, Rand would say, that the value you would and do trade your time and life for, by that same value system, you have placed your value on your own life.  If you give your life to save an endangered prairie dog, then you have given your life the value of a prairie dog.  That is the common sense, logical Emersonian conclusion.  Read ATLAS SHRUGGED!!!!!!Now!!!!!Read it twice!!! Get your friends to read it!!! Think about it!!

ACT ON IT!!!!Live its truths!!   I just hear that President Obama has declared war or “OBESITY”.  All he has to do is keep up with the direction his “share the wealth/fat/pork” nightmare is going, and the “obesity” problem will take care of itself. It always has in these collective, utopian, socialistic, Woodstock-type communes.  When’s the last, or first time, that you saw an “Obese” socialistic hippy?  Even Karl Marx could not, or rather chose not, to work enough to feed his own starving children. Read “Brave New World” by Obama, excuse me, by Huxley.

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

In a recent conversation, Candidate Paul Sorum speculated on this remarkable concept:  “I strongly feel that I have an excellent chance of winning the election.  It is a fact that 40% of North Dakota voters are truly independent.  Recent polls and recent elections indicate that independent voters overwhelmingly vote for the most conservative candidate.  Now, should Jon Hoeven be the Republican nominee, North Dakota Democrats will run the most conservative candidate they can field – one distinctly to the right of Hoeven, which won’t be that hard to find, given his liberal views.  They understand that voters will go with the more conservative candidate.  However, if I am the Republican nominee this won’t work for the simple reason that I am a true Conservative!”

We were on the phone with Senate candidate Paul Sorum on February 23; he covered a wide range of issues.

“I was born in Fargo, ND, and I grew up in the Fargo-Moorhead area.  My father ran an engineering firm in Fargo for a number of years and my mother taught math and computer science at Fargo South High School.”  After graduating from Moorhead High, Sorum went to NDSU, where he attended for five years, earning Bachelor’s degrees in Science and Architecture.  He also earned a Master’s degree in Architecture at Ohio State, where he also studied computer science. 

He and his wife Heather, whom he met at NDSU, have four children.  “The oldest and youngest are girls and the middle two are boys.”

Of his political mentors, Sorum cites “first and foremost”, Ronald Reagan.  Difficulty in finding employment at home following graduation led Paul and his new bride to Los Angeles, where he taught at the University of Southern California.  The day after leaving office, Reagan turned up in church – right behind the Sorums.  Most Sundays after services, Paul had the opportunity to visit with the former president, an experience which led him later in life to read more about Reagan, his articles, speeches and biographies. 

“I really feel that I’m a ‘Reagan Conservative’, that what motivated him is similar to life experiences I’ve had, to pursue my dream, on a modes scale.  I see that opportunity for other people diminishing significantly, as he did.  I really relate to that.  And I feel that his faith as a Christian was very strong.  I know that from first hand knowledge of him and I feel that those Christian principles were really important in forming great policy for Ronald Reagan.  And I feel those are the same principles our Founders used to create great founding documents that created the freest, most prosperous nation in the history of the world.  We’ve turned our backs on our Judeo-Christian heritage in this country, actually making God illegal in our public buildings.  I feel there needs to be moral discourse in Washington that isn’t happening – at least not with those in power today.”

He also respects our Founding Fathers:  “I look at John Adams and Thomas Jefferson as very different people but complementary personalities and brilliant people.  Jefferson was an architect and I think, as an architect he was a great visionary and John Adams was a man of great intelligence and great courage, with a background in law.

 “I really love my work – it’s been good to us.  It’s a small business, but it’s just been a dream come true, and I feel very strongly that people should be able to pursue their dreams in North Dakota.  It’s very difficult now because the American dream is under attack in Washington.  But we can restore that by simply sending Conservatives to bring North Dakota values back to Washington and Conservative solutions that we know have worked every time they’re tried.”

On the issues:

The most important issues before the Senate today:  “The economy and the very destructive results of the astronomic spending that’s going on.  Only 17% of recent college graduates today can find jobs . . . and these are the very people that the legislators on the Far Left expect to pay back this massive debt.  I just don’t see how that’s going to work.  What we’re finding is that this amount of debt is dealing a crushing blow to our economy, and it’s affecting us right here in North Dakota.  It’s estimated that we’ve lost 5,000 to 8,000 jobs in North Dakota in the last 12 months.  That’s not the fault of our state’s administration, it’s the fault of the White House and the radicals who are pushing this extreme liberal ideology on us.  I call it the “economics of debt, deficit and despair” and it doesn’t have to be this way!  We need to live within our means.”

Property Rights:  “Without strong property rights in this country, we will never again return to prosperity.  Property rights have a very fundamental role in free market economics.  We need to restore a vibrant free market economy – that’s the only way we’ll get out of this recession and begin to repay our nation’s debt. 

“Property rights have been under assault in the last few years and I feel very strongly that we need to pursue tax reform at all levels – at the state level, too.  Basically, if you’re paying very high real estate tax  (an extraordinarily high one is imposed on us here in North Dakota) it really puts into question whether you really own that house.  We have people in Fargo who’ve paid off their house years ago, living on a fixed income, but the astronomical increases in their property taxes threaten whether or not they can actually keep their home as elderly citizens.  It makes no sense to tax people out of their homes.  It doesn’t make any financial sense; it doesn’t make any social sense. 

“And that goes right back to the federal government taking over private businesses.  Those businesses are owned by people and it’s wrong and, frankly, immoral, for the government to claim ownership of private property.  That’s now how our government was intended to operate and it shouldn’t be allowed to operate that way.”

The “General Welfare” clause:  “The ‘general welfare’ clause was intended to be used in relation to the enumerated powers.  They can’t take that alone as permission to invade and dictate any portion of our life.  It only was intended to allow the ability to implement the enumerated powers.  It’s simple and very clean.  Our Framers intended the Constitution to withstand the test of time.  Therefore they allowed two ways for it to be changed.  It can’t be changed by activist judges changing the meaning of words in the Constitution.  There is too much documentation as to what the original intent was.”

The other half of the equation is to control spending.  Otherwise we’re going to go more rapidly into a state where we’re unable to pay our debt.  I call it ‘the fiery cauldron of endless insolvency’.  If we send the wrong person to Congress this year we could end up in this state of endless insolvency, where we become, in effect, a banana republic with a much lower standard of living.  None of us want that.  It’s not necessary.  But if we send a big spending career politician to Congress, we’re guaranteeing that state.”

Immigration:  “First of all we should implement the laws we have on the books.  We can control immigration at the border.  I think also if there is a real need for workers in a certain area we should have a program where we can track people coming into the country to fill those needs.  Why don’t we have a legal process where people who do come to our country to work on a temporary basis pay taxes and contribute to our society and our government as they should?  We should have whatever we need enforcement-wise between Mexico and the United States so that we continue to be a sovereign country.  If we don’t have those borders, we don’t track those people coming in and out, not only do we not have sovereignty, but we also expose our country to dangers such as terrorists crossing the border with illegal weapons – possibly weapons of mass destruction, or letting criminals flow back and forth across the border, doing damage to law-abiding citizens and damaging or stealing property.  We can simply enforce the laws we have.”

Terrorism:  “one of the things people forget very quickly is that after 9-11 every pundit, every ‘expert’ that was on TV said it was inevitable we’d have another major terrorist attack – and it didn’t happen.  I think a lot of things were done correctly to protect our country after 9-11.  Now we’ve changed the course on that.  It really hasn’t been a priority.  We can’t use the term ‘war on terror’.  In fact, we’ve had two or three very distinct terrorist attacks, recently and they haven’t been called ‘terrorist’ although they clearly were radicalized terrorists – they were Islamic Jihadists.  There’s no question about it, based on their actions, what they said during their terrorist acts, and I think they should be called that and they should be tried in a military tribunal, and we should take action to recommit ourselves to the war on terror.  It’s the biggest mistake made by the Obama administration and it’s put us all at risk.”

Bipartisanship:  “We understand that fiscally conservative solutions have worked every time they’re tried.  I don’t think these are bipartisan issues.  They’re ‘up or down’ issues.  When I talk to Democrats – especially those who identify themselves as ‘Blue Dog Democrats’ – they agree with me on these issues.  I don’t think the answers are partisan.  I’m willing to work with anybody who wants to work on programs which put the individual first, their economic well being first.  And that hasn’t been done for a long time.”

Climate Change:  “We can’t pursue things like ‘Cap and Trade’ that really have no benefit but to slow our economy and destroy the potential people have to create new wealth and new jobs in small business. 

“The last few years the biggest downfall of ‘global warming’ is the science itself – it’s proven it doesn’t exist.  The climate has been changing since the beginning of time.  No question about that – but the last 10 – 15 years the temperature, the one thing you can measure, has been slightly decreasing.  I feel the idea that we’re going to creating a huge bureaucracy and pass a massive tax, for the purposes of expanding government isn’t a solution to anything – it’s a problem.  The overall theory of the ‘global warming’ people is, if we can only slow our economy we can save the environment. I say we don’t need a scientific study to understand that’s wrong – it’s the exact opposite of reality.  You go to any third world country where they don’t have much wealth, you’ll find they have the dirtiest environment.  Wealthier countries always have cleaner environments.  Only through prosperity will we be able to better address our environment and how to keep it clean and make it better for individuals.

“The ‘global warming’ discussion is all about collectivism – what we can do to centralize power and money in the hands of a few and control things.  There’s no hope of that to improve our environment –no intent of that to improve our environment.  Nor do I feel Co2 is a poison that needs to be controlled.  It’s an essential nutrient in the food chain.”

Healthcare:  “You can’t have a health care bill that’s 3,000 pages of gibberish that no one understands.  That’s not going to put more money in people’s pockets and make their lives better.”

Although we covered several other topics of great interest, we will have to continue our dialogue another time – but in closing, Paul Sorum reflected:  “I put it this way: the real question of this next election is whether or not we feel that big government spending programs are going to create new wealth.  And I want to remind you that new wealth is the definition of a recovery.  I think there are a lot of things they’re doing that are not in the interest of individuals and they should be stopped.  We should start looking at legislation that only helps the individual and restores freedom and puts our Constitution back as the Supreme Law of the Land, and if we do that we will once again turn this country around and be pursuing freedom and prosperity.”

Sally Morris is a member of Americans for Constitutional Government

Type letters “GLBT” on a web search and here’s an example of what you will find:

“Welcome to GayFriendlyBiz.com. We strive to provide a venue for those of us in the GLBT community to find businesses, resources and services that are friendly to the Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender community. Meaning that are supportive of our issues and our equal rights in all aspects of life, including marriage, employment, housing and all other respects.

Here you can find anything from gay friendly professionals like counselors, attorneys, accountants and doctors to glbt friendly travel resources, like inns, bed & breakfasts, hotels, travel agents and cruises to gay and lesbian friendly resources for weddings, commitment ceremonies or civil unions. You can also find supportive and charitable organizations within our community and religous organizations that are open and affirming.”


“Tolerance” is not Enough

Your first clue upon reading the above website home page introduction should be the misspelling of the word “religious”. The degree of sincerity of religious expression is revealed immediately; it’s not even important enough to spell correctly.

Note that being “friendly” to the GLBT community includes being supportive of their issues, including GLBT “marriage”; that GLBT “weddings” are referenced along with “commitment ceremonies” and “civil unions” as if they were one and the same; and lastly, that to be “supportive” a business must be “open and affirming”. The point here is that just BEING TOLERANT IS NOT ENOUGH, a business must be AFFIRMING to be listed as a “friendly business”! Webster defines “affirm” as “to say positively; declare firmly; assert to be true”. Webster defines “affirmative” as “a word or expression indicating assent or agreement. For GLBT’s, tolerance is not enough, they want us to agree with them, even convert to their lifestyle.

Early Exposure

My first exposure to homosexuality was in high school. As a naive young man, I had no idea of its presence in my life. A star performer on our high school’s hockey team was chumming around with an un-athletic young man of similar short stature. I found it odd that they began to talk to each other and to others with a slight lisp and in a somewhat condescending and sarcastic manner, neither of them having displayed this oral infirmity before. I was always struck by his distant and slightly arrogant demeanor, but attributed it to his “hockey star” persona. I found out recently that the star performer was and is gay. Research and clinical literature demonstrate that same-sex sexual and romantic attractions, feelings, and behaviors are normal and positive variations of human sexuality, regardless of sexual orientation identity. This is also consistent with the animal kingdom.

The Lesbian “Wedding”

A couple years ago, we attended a commitment ceremony in northern California. The beloved daughter of my first cousin was joined together forever with her lesbian soul mate. All four of the “first born” cousins attended; and in a special twist, all four of their “first born” daughters also attended, including the beautiful bride of my first cousin. Unfortunately, the parents of my niece’s soul mate from India did not fly over to attend the ceremony because they did not approve of it. I believe they will live to regret that decision for the remainder of their lives.

Throughout the lavish three-day affair, we were amazed by the unconditional love that was present among us. I’ve never been quite so proud of my family as we offered up tolerance and love in sincere abundance. I can now look back clearly and say that the ceremony and all of the associated events revealed the true grace of God. He loves ALL of His children and wants the best for ALL of them! The bride commented at the reception that she had never previously felt such an abundance of love generated towards her and her “wife”. I tear up even now at the thought of her gracious comment accepting His expression of love through her entire extended family.

When choosing the card, we were careful to select one which did not use the word “wedding” or “married”, our subtle and instructive way of reminding the young couple that we did not confuse “marriage’ of a man and woman at a “wedding” with the commitment they were to make to each other. We did not mean to imply that a wedding is more important than a commitment, just different from one; equal in importance, perhaps, but not the same. Likewise, we were careful to refer to the beautiful “ceremony” or “joining together”, not the beautiful “wedding”.

The young couple has adopted two babies that will be likely showered with love by their parents and grandparents. The jury in my mind is still out concerning GLBT adoption, but we’re talking California here, not your grandmother’s home town.

There were two negative mini-events that marred the occasion. The husband of the bride’s mother’s sister became intoxicated and used the opportunity of an open mike to practice his stand-up comedy routine, which needed a lot of work. The bride diffused the situation by calming walking up to him, giving him a big hug and deftly transferring the mike from his hand to her dad’s, who returned the event to normalcy. The second mini-event was a highly inappropriate speech concerning gay rights that was delivered at the reception by one of the more militant members of the local gay community. My cousin was visibly upset during the diatribe. We heterosexuals just bit our lips and endured.

My fondest memory, as for any wedding, is of the dancing we enjoyed. On the occasion of noticing a lesbian couple next to practicing “dirty dancing”, I spontaneously yelled out, in true North Dakota fashion, “Get a Room”. The couple immediately looked over at me with initial disdain, but, upon seeing the wide grin on my face and my obviously harmless intent, they laughed and accepted the good-natured “jab” as any couple would!

The main point to be made concerning the three-day event is this; if you are asked to attend such an event, do so with all of the unconditional love you can muster, be yourself, and be ready to both learn and teach a little tolerance and love. Your rewards will be many, as were ours!

The Hard Sell

As stated above, for GLBT’s, tolerance is not enough, they want us to agree with them, even convert to their lifestyle. Further, they are promoting their GLBT lifestyles as if by doing so, they can some day convince enough people to embrace it for it to be considered “mainstream”. The combining of gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transsexuals into one group is an obvious attempt to maximize numbers but presents an interesting dichotomy. While the combining of the four groups (really only three groups since transsexuals are an extreme rarity) increases the number, the total is still documented at only about1.51% of the United States population*.

*The National Health and Social Life Survey (NHSLS), published in the book The Social Organization of Sex: Sexual Practices in the United States (1994), by Laumann, Gagnon, Michael and Michaels is referenced. 1.51% of the total U.S. population identifies themselves as gay, lesbian or bisexual, or 4.3 total million Americans. Lesbians make up 0.32% and Gay men make up 0.70%, leaving 0.49% as Bisexual.

A coalition of leading pro-homosexual activist groups recently claimed in a legal brief that 2.8 percent of the male population and 1.4 percent of the female population (4.2% in total) identify themselves as gay, lesbian, or bisexual. In fact, the referenced NHSLS report that was cited in the homosexual groups’ brief refers as well to “the myth of 10 percent,” a historic attempt to make such sexual practices more universally accepted.

So only 1.51% of the population can be substantiated as GLBT, yet 4.2% of the population identify themselves as GLBT, and many GLBT websites insist on the 10% myth. Claims by the GLBT community of numbers higher than can be documented are indicative of their desire that the numbers be large enough to substantiate to the general public what researchers already know, that same-sex sexual and romantic attractions, feelings, and behaviors are normal and positive variations of human sexuality.

The above information is presented to provide some insight as to why the GLBT community seems to be insistent on PROMOTING their “variant” (not deviant) behaviors. They want the percentages (and their self-image) to increase!

LGB Adoption

In the U.S., LGB people can legally adopt in all states except for Florida. There is no scientific basis for concluding that gay and lesbian parents are any less fit or capable than heterosexual parents. Public opinion, however, is another matter. The Australian Family Association (AFA) on November 30, 2009 said that Queensland government plans to allow gay couples to access altruistic surrogacy is not supported by the wider community. A Galaxy Poll commissioned by the association reportedly indicates nine out of ten people believe children should be raised by a mother and father.

A Word to the Wise

GLBT’s should rightly demand their constitutional civil rights as have minorities, women, the disabled, and others. GLBT’s should learn to understand that the majority of Americans do not consider a union between those of the same sex as “marriage”. The Webster definition of marriage is “The state of being married; relation between husband and wife; married life; wedlock; matrimony.” They insult us when they call their lifelong commitments “marriage”. They are a variant portion of the population; as such they should get together and agree to the most appropriate term(s) to employ in describing their lifelong commitments. “Civil union” seems cold and institutional; “commitment ceremony” sounds like a gathering of friends before being locked up. My own favorite is to call it what it is, a “Spiritual Coupling” of two individuals toward mutual lifelong spiritual growth.

GLBT’s should understand that we heterosexuals love them and cherish their varied and numerous contributions to society, as long as they do not “promote” their lifestyles to our children.

While the mental health community has almost uniformly insisted that homosexuality is biological, most Americans are skeptical of this belief. We all know of instances where confused teens are introduced by outside forces to homosexuality as an “easy way out” of the stress of male-female dating and other pressures.

My Personal Beliefs

Some people, whom we call homosexual, are driven to resist nature’s overwhelming hormonal mating signals at puberty.

I believe that no one is born gay. The mere idea that that is possible is a flimsy fabrication of sloppy journalists, lazy therapists, and distracted (by larger issues) geneticists, unwilling to delve deeply and diligently into the human psyche or to prove a definitive genetic connection. I believe that any person, male or female, who cannot feel the sexual allure of the opposite sex, has been traumatized by some early combination of social circumstances.

I also believe that we must all be tolerant and accepting of those who choose this path, but we must draw the line at the promotion of such lifestyles as “mainstream” when we know them to be a variation of the human sexual condition and contrary to our spiritual mandate to procreate. Homosexuality must be tolerated, even embraced, for the diversity it brings. Promotion and marketing of the lifestyle and attempts toward conversion of heterosexuals to increase GLBT numbers, however, is contrary to our values as a Judeo-Christian society.




Lynn Bergman was born and raised in Grand Forks, receiving his Civil Engineering degree from UND. He worked as a municipal engineer in four cities (Grand Forks, Bismarck, Yuma, Arizona, and Colorado Springs, Colorado) over a period of almost 20 years. He then worked for a mining company in North Dakota for another 15 years, retiring in 1998. Development and demonstration of Portland-pozzolan cement and optimally durable concrete has been one of his life’s passions. Political activism is another interest and he is a Director of “Citizens for Responsible Government”, an organization devoted to fiscal responsibility in government. He is President of DuraCement, LLC and is employed part-time by a regional engineering firm.

Our congressional representation has failed North Dakotan citizens regarding health care reform.  Senator Dorgan is a free agent and committed to reconciliation.  Congressman Pomeroy's indecision shows loyalty to this flawed legislation and defies the principles North Dakota citizens expect him to uphold.

Silence now would be a tacit endorsement of Democratic political agenda regarding health care reform.We are ten days from Obama's Easter break deadline of March 18th.

Accordingly, I fully endorse Public Service Commissioner Kevin Cramer to be the Republican candidate for North Dakota's seat in the U.S. House of Representatives and encourage every North Dakota voter to do the same.

Cramer demonstrated leadership and initiative by publicly challenging our current delegation to respect North Dakota citizens and vote Nay on all health care reform legislation now pending on the Senate floor.  By standing -up, Cramer confirmed his vision for limited government influence over our lives.  He also comprehends the economic burden this legislation will inflict upon our federal government and his constituents.

I admire the strong leadership Cramer shows in battling Cap and Trade.  He understands the symbiotic relationship that energy, agriculture, and commerce share in North Dakota, throughout the nation, and around the world.  If energy does not thrive, commerce and agriculture could collapse.  Cramer's business-minded decisions prevent that collapse and help create a regulatory environment that helps North Dakota's energy sector and economy boom.  He will serve North Dakota best in Congress.

In conclusion, I support Cramer without hesitation or qualification in his bid for Congress.  He has consistently shown the will to FIGHT for North Dakota citizens as a public servant.


Respectfully,
Paul Schaffner

1. Email the Congressman by clicking here.
2. And call the Congressman at (202) 225-2611.
   

Earlier I wrote about the new parenting plan for North Dakota and the fact that it is too vague regarding domestic violence.

It has since come to my attention that parents who profess to be atheist are being denied custody because of their beliefs.  Read:

Carson v. Carson, 401 N.W.2d 632, 635–36
(Mich. Ct. App. 1986)   (quoting trial court as opining that it “was a little bit distraught in finding that there was no particular affiliation [held by either parent] with a church,” because “[p]robably 95 percent of the criminals that I see before me come from homes where there’s no . . . established religious affiliation,”

Sharrow v. Davis, Nos. 244043, 245117, 2003 WL 21699876, at *3
(Mich. Ct. App. July 22, 2003) (noting that “[father] never attended church and his older children were not baptized,” that “[father] felt [the children] should experience many religions and choose one when they were older,” and that though “[mother] did not attend church regularly, she attended periodically and would take all of the children with her”);

Goodrich v. Jex, No. 243455, 2003 WL 21362971, at *1
(Mich. Ct. App. June 12, 2003) (noting “that [father] has a greater capacity and willingness to continue to take the parties’ daughters to church and related activities,” and that trial court had been “concerned with [mother’s] belief that her minor daughters are capable of making their own decisions whether to attend church”);

Sims v. Stanfield, No. CA98-1040, 1999 WL 239888, at *3–*4 (Ark. Ct. App. Apr. 21, 1999)
(noting that lower court based award of custody to father partly on father’s having “‘rekindled’ a relationship with his church,” “regularly attend[ing] services,” and providing “a Christian home,” but declining on procedural grounds to review this);

In the case I cited earlier, the father was denied custody even though domestic violence in the mother’s and step-father’s home was proven.  The judge admonished the mother during hearings for not being forthcoming in her testimony.  It was proven that the mother constantly demeans the father and his family.  It was proven that the mother constantly frustrates the father’s visitation.  It was proven that the mother refuses to keep the father appraised regarding the child’s medical care and refuses to give access to medical records.  It was proven that the mother has had several violent relationships with men before finally marrying.  Still, the judge denied the father’s petition for custody.

When all these things are considered, one must wonder what the judge was thinking when he made his determination.  Let’s look at the situation.  Is it advisable to leave a child in a home where domestic violence is present?  Answer:  No.  Is it advisable to leave a child with a parent who is a proven liar?  Answer:  No.  Is it advisable to leave a child in a home where the custodial parent demeans the other parent and tries to alienate the child?  Answer:  No.  Is it advisable to leave a child in a situation where the father is denied visitation other than what is exactly spelled out, even though visitation is to include other liberal and reasonable visitation.  Answer:  No.  Is it advisable to leave the child with a parent who refuses to share medical information regarding the child.  Answer:  No.   Is it advisable to leave a child in an environment where the mother goes from one abusive relationship to another?  Answer:  No

Now the other side.  Is it advisable to award custody of a child to a parent who has never had violence in his home?  Answer:  Yes.  Is it advisable to award custody to a parent who is not a liar?  Answer:  Yes.  It it advisable to award custody to a parent who refuses to hear negative comments about his ex-wife whether or not the child is present and who makes sure the child knows that both parents love her?  Answer:  Yes.  Is it advisable to award custody to a parent who is willing to make sure the child is involved with extended family members on both sides of the relationship?  Answer:  Yes  Is it advisable to award custody to a parent who shares all medical information with the other?  Answer:  Yes.  Is it advisable to award custody to a parent who has had exactly one relationship with another person and married that person.  Answer:  Yes.

The mother in the case does not take the child to church or provide any religious training.  The child’s great-grandmother takes her to church and Sunday School.

The father indicates that he is an atheist.  He does not attend church, however, his wife does and takes the child with her during visitation.

Taking all the facts into consideration what was the judge thinking?  Can it be he made his decision based on the fact that the father professes to be an atheist?  This was the one and only negative fact in the father’s life that came up in the hearings.  If this turns out to be the case his decision should be overturned and the case heard by another judge.  The law says we cannot be discriminated against because of our religion.  I believe that religion is important in a child’s life but, whether atheism is a religion or not it should not ever be used as a reason to deny custody to an otherwise fit and wonderful parent.

So there was President Obama giving his bazillionth speech on health care, droning yet again that “now is the hour when we must seize the moment”, the same moment he’s been seizing every day of the week for the past year, only this time his genius photo-op guys thought it would look good to have him surrounded by men in white coats.

Why is he doing this? Why let “health” “care” “reform” stagger on like the rotting husk in a low-grade creature feature who refuses to stay dead no matter how make stakes you pound through his chest?

Because it’s worth it. Big time. I’ve been saying in this space for two years that the governmentalization of health care is the fastest way to a permanent left-of-center political culture. It redefines the
relationship between the citizen and the state in fundamental ways that make limited government all but impossible. In most of the rest of the western world, there are still nominally “conservative” parties, and they even win elections occasionally, but not to any great effect (Let’s not forget that Jacques Chirac was, in French terms, a “conservative”). The result is a kind of two-party one-party state: Right-of-center
parties will once in a while be in office, but never in power, merely presiding over vast left-wing bureaucracies that cruise on regardless.

Republicans seem to have difficulty grasping this basic dynamic. Less than three months ago, they were stunned at the way the Democrats managed to get 60 senators to vote for the health bill. Then Scott Brown took them back down to 59, and Republicans were again stunned to find the Dems talking about ramming this thing into law through the parliamentary device of “reconciliation”. And, when polls showed an ever larger number of Americans ever more opposed to Obamacare (by margins approaching three-to-one), Republicans were further stunned to discover that, in order to advance “reconciliation”, Democrat reconsiglieres [CORRECT] had apparently been offering (illegally) various cosy Big Government sinecures to swing-state congressmen in order to induce them to climb into the cockpit for the  kamikaze raid to push the bill through.  The Democrats understand that politics is not just about
Tuesday evenings every other November, but about everything else, too.

A year or two back, when the Canadian Islamic Congress attempted to criminalize my writing north of the border by taking me to the Canadian “Human Rights” Commission, a number of outraged American readers wrote to me saying, “You need to start kicking up a fuss about this, Steyn, and then maybe Canadians will get mad and elect a conservative government that will end this nonsense.”

Makes perfect sense. Except that Canada already has a Conservative government under a Conservative Prime Minister, and the very head of the “human rights” commission investigating me was herself the Conservative appointee of a Conservative Minister of Justice. Makes no difference. Once the state swells to a certain size, the people available to fill the ever expanding number of government jobs will be statists – sometimes hardcore Marxist statists, sometimes social-engineering multiculti statists, sometimes fluffily “compassionate” statists, but always statists. The short history of the post-war welfare state is that you don’t need a president-for-life if you’ve got a bureaucracy-for-life: The people can elect “conservatives”, as the Germans have done and the British are about to do, and the left is
mostly relaxed about it because, in all but exceptional cases (Thatcher), they fulfill the same function in the system as the first-year boys at wintry English boarding schools who for tuppence-ha’penny or some such would agree to go and warm the seat in the unheated lavatories until the prefects strolled in and took their rightful place.    

Republicans are good at keeping the seat warm. A bigtime GOP consultant was on TV crowing that Republicans wanted the Dems to pass Obamacare because it’s so unpopular it will guarantee a GOP sweep in November. Okay, then what? You’ll roll it back – like you’ve rolled back all those other unsustainable entitlements premised on cobwebbed actuarial tables from 80 years ago? Like you’ve undone the Federal Department of Education and of Energy and all the other nickel’n’dime novelties of
even a universally reviled one-term loser like Jimmy Carter? Andrew McCarthy concluded a shrewd analysis of the political realities thus:

“Health care is a loser for the Left only if the Right has the steel to undo it. The Left is banking on an absence of steel. Why is that a bad bet?”

Indeed. Look at it from the Dems’ point of view. You pass Obamacare. You lose the 2010 election, which gives the GOP co-ownership of an awkward couple of years. And you come back in 2012 to find your health care apparatus is still in place, a fetid behemoth of toxic pustules oozing all over the basement, and, simply through the natural processes of government, already bigger and more expensive and more bureaucratic than it was when you passed it two years earlier. That’s a huge prize, and well worth a mid-term timeout.

I’ve been bandying comparisons with Britain and France but that hardly begins to convey the scale of it. Obamacare represents the government annexation of “one-sixth of the US economy” - ie, the equivalent of the entire British or French economy, or the entire Indian economy twice over. Nobody has ever attempted this level of centralized planning for an advanced society of 300 million people. Even the control-freaks of the European Union have never tried to impose a unitary “comprehensive” health care system from Galway to Greece.  The Soviet Union did, of course, and we know how that worked out.

This “reform” is not about health care, and certainly not about “controlling costs”. As with Medicare, it “controls” costs by declining to acknowledge them, or pay them.  Dr William Schreiber of North Syracuse, New York, told CNN that he sees 120 patients per week – about 30% on Medicare, 65% on private insurance plans whose payments take into account the Medicare reimbursement rates, and about 5% who do it the old-fashioned way and write a check. He calculates that, under Obamacare, for every $5 he now makes, he’ll get $2 in the future. Which suggests now would be a good time to retrain as a realtor or accountant, or the night clerk at the convenience store. Yet Congresswoman Louise Slaughter (Democrat, New York) justifies her support for Obamacare this way:

“I even had one constituent - you will not believe this, and I know you won’t, but it’s true - her sister died. This poor woman had no dentures. She wore her dead sister’s teeth.”

Is the problem of second-hand teeth a particular problem in this corner of New York? I haven’t noticed an epidemic of ill-fitting dentures on recent visits to the Empire State. George Washington had wooden teeth, but presumably these days the Sierra Club would object to the clear-cutting. Yet, even granting Congresswoman Slaughter the benefit of the doubt, is annexing the equivalent of a G7 economy the solution to what would seem to be the statistically unrepresentative problem of her constituent’s ill-fitting choppers? Is it worth reducing the next generation of Americans to indentured servitude to pay for this poor New Yorker’s dentured servitude?

Yes. Because government health care is not about health care, it’s about government. Once you look at it that way, what the Dems are doing makes perfect sense. For them.   

© Mark Steyn 2010

The truly revolutionary American idea of government as the servant of the people may be fading away. Many of today’s so-called “civil servants” are a protected, privileged class. While Middle America struggles through a difficult recession, a lot of government employees have lived on the gravy train.

Here are some facts to buttress that assertion:

Since the recession began in 2008, a period during which approximately eight million private-sector workers lost their jobs and millions more saw their income decline, the number of federal employees is increasing at a 7 percent per-year rate and their income is holding up quite nicely. According to the Cato Institute, the average federal worker’s pay and benefits now approximates $120,000 per year, or roughly double the compensation of the average private-sector employee. Factor out the lavish government fringe benefits and look at salary only, and the civil servant is still far ahead: $71,197 vs. $49,935.

During this recession, the percentage of federal employees earning annual base salaries above $100,000 increased from 14 to 19 percent. The number of Defense Department employees being paid more than $150,000 per year increased from 1,868 to 10,100. Before, the Department of Transportation had one employee with a salary above $170,000, but now has 1,690.

As a gesture toward fiscal responsibility, President Obama reduced what was supposed to be a 2.4 percent raise in federal salaries this year to 2.0 percent. That still compares quite favorably to the zero-percent cost-of-living increase that Social Security recipients’ have received.

Also on tap are handsome pay raises for the employees of the Federal Housing Administration. The FHA has distinguished itself recently by incurring a loss of $54 billion in a mismanaged home-loan business. And of course we can’t neglect to mention the CEOs of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, who have been cleared to receive as much as $6 million in salary this year while being subsidized to the tune of over $100 billion in monetary transfusions from the Treasury and the Fed.

Other federal agencies may not be losing money by the tens and hundreds of billions of dollars in such an obvious way, but money appropriated for them by Congress still seems to vanish into a black hole. For example, statistics from 2006 showed that if all the federal dollars spent by antipoverty programs had been given directly to Americans below the poverty line, a poor family of four would have received $67,000. The actual aid received by poor Americans is less than half that amount. What explains such glaring inefficiency? Most of those funds are consumed by the cushy pay packages of the army of bureaucrats who administer those programs. And let’s not even get into the Department of Agriculture, which has one bureaucrat for every nine or ten full-time farmers.

The preferential treatment received by government employees was also reflected in how last year’s stimulus money has been spent. According to ProPublica, the District of Columbia received more than four times as much money per capita as the average of the 15 states that received the most money. (Oh, did I mention that members of the Pelosi/Reid Congress voted themselves a 6 percent increase in funds for their staffs and other support?)

It isn’t just the federal government workers who have an unusually lucrative setup. Gov. Christie of New Jersey recently announced his intention to reform the pension plan for the Garden State’s public employees. Consider an incredible fact: According to Christie, a 49-year-old state employee who had contributed $124,000 toward his retirement is eligible to receive $3.3 million in pension payments and another half-million dollars in heath care benefits over the rest of his life; and a retired teacher who had put $62,000 toward her pension and not a penny for health care is scheduled to receive $1.4 million in pensions and $215,000 in health care benefits. Taxpayers pay for this.

This story is repeated over and over in a number of states that now teeter on the brink of bankruptcy due to billions of dollars of obligations to state employees. It’s hard to refer to these people—many of whom, of course, are wonderful, decent human beings—as civil “servants” when their salaries and/or benefits are so much higher than those of the taxpayers who pay for the generous compensation packages of their government “servants.”

Abraham Lincoln’s ideal of government “of the people, by the people, for the people” seems to have become government of the governing elite, by the governing elite, and for the governing elite. The current imbalance can’t continue. Something’s got to give.

— Dr. Mark W. Hendrickson is an adjunct faculty member, economist, and contributing scholar with The Center for Vision & Values at Grove City College.

While China seems to be taking the world lead in another new category every day; there is one category where the United States is catching up to the Chinese; the practice of Sex-Selective Abortion.

In China, and a few other countries, where the number of children per family has been severely limited; and where boys are preferred; girl babies were often killed immediately after birth.  But that changed in the late 1980s, when ultrasound technology made it possible to “select” or rather to “de-select” unwanted babies, the girls, before they were born.. The Chinese it seems took that technology to its extreme; and a recent study found that there are currently 32 MILLION more boys than girls under the age of 20 in China!

A larger study, in 2005, estimated that 90 million women were in fact “missing” in Afghanistan, Bangladesh, China, India, Pakistan, South Korea and Taiwan. “Missing” because they were never born. “Missing” because of sex-selective abortion.

In China alone; the large imbalance of male over female has led to a tremendous increase in many types of crime; including the kidnapping of young women who are then sold as brides; and prostitution that even the Chinese admit has reached epidemic proportions in the cities and towns across that country. We are told that the same problems of increased crime by groups of hungry, angry young men; are also rampant in several other countries where sex-selection abortion is practiced.

The real question; that must be asked; is can this happen in the United States? The answer is, it already is happening here. Immigrants to the United States from those same countries, brought their “boy preference culture” with them; proven, we are told, by a “definite male bias” observed in the 2000 census count of immigrant families from China, Korea and India.  And those infamous, so-called “experts” tell us that the 2010 census count will reinforce that male bias, among immigrants; and in fact, across the entire spectrum of cultures present in America. 

The sad and tragic fact is that sex-selective abortion is being practiced here; albeit quietly.  Doctors report that 25-30% of all abortions performed in the United States are done AFTER AN ULTRA SOUND; AFTER the sex of the baby is determined. Is a “male-bias” at work here too? What do you think?

As the gender gap continues to widen, thanks to sex-selective abortion, women will find the world less and less “female-friendly”; or at least “less female”.  And, fewer girls and women around the world, means a less beautiful world; and it means hungrier, more frustrated and angry young men.

It seems that the total reproductive freedom that pro-abortionists and feminists claim will give women true equality with men; may in fact, have dire, unintended consequences. Once again, our interference with “God’s Plan”; has come back to haunt us.

May God Bless the United States of America.

 I’m Joel Swanson and that is my comment for today.