Dakota Beacon

Investors Business Daily shines a light on The Issa Report, authored by Representative Darrell Issa of California who is the ranking member of U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Oversight and Reform documents how it all happened:

• With an implicit subsidy to American homeowners in the form of reduced mortgage rates, Fannie Mae and its sister government sponsored enterprise, Freddie Mac, squeezed out their competition and cornered the secondary mortgage market. They took advantage of a $2.25 billion line of credit from the U.S. Treasury.

• Congress, by statute, allowed them to operate with much lower capital requirements than private-sector competitors. They “used their congressionally-granted advantages to leverage themselves in excess of 70-to-1.”

• The two GSEs were the only publicly traded corporations exempt from SEC oversight. All their securities carried an implicit AAA rating regardless of the quality of the mortgages.

• The Department of Housing and Urban Development set quotas for GSE investment in affordable housing.

• Encouraged by an inaccurate 1992 Boston Federal Reserve Bank study charging racial discrimination in mortgage lending, the two GSEs were strongly pressured to “lower their underwriting standards, particularly on the size of down payments and the credit quality of borrowers.”

• In 1992, Congress directed HUD to establish multiple quotas requiring mortgage quotes for low-income families.

• In 1995, the Clinton administration issued a National Homeownership Strategy, loosening Fannie and Freddie’s lending standards and insisting that lenders “work collaboratively to reduce homebuyer downpayment requirements.”

• The administration complained that in 1989 only 7% of mortgages had less than a 10% downpayment. By 1994, it wanted that raised to 29%.

• Reduced underwriting standards spread into the entire U.S. mortgage market to those at all income levels.

• A complete decoupling of home prices from Americans’ income fed the growth of the housing bubble as borrowers made smaller down payments and took on higher debt.

• Wall Street firms specializing “in packaging and investing in the lowest-quality tranches of mortgage-backed securities, profited hugely from the increased volume that government affordable lending policies sparked.”

• Wall Street firms, homebuilders and the GSEs used money, power and influence to block attempts at reform. Between 1998 and 2008, Fannie and Freddie spent over $176 million on lobbyists.

• In 2006, Freddie paid the largest fine in Federal Election Commission history for improperly using corporate resources to hold 85 fundraisers for congressmen, raising a total of $1.7 million.

WERE DORGAN, CONRAD AND POMEROY FIGHTING, FIGHTING, FIGHTING, FIGHTING FOR N.D. WHEN ALL THIS WAS GOING ON?

Fannie and Freddie contribution to N.D. politicians

Perhaps that now the public has had a more focused look at Democrat policies, they are starting to understand what the party of the donkey is up to. From Rasmussen Reports:

Voters now trust Republicans more than Democrats on eight out of 10 key electoral issues, including, for the second straight month, the top issue of the economy. They’ve also narrowed the gap on the remaining two issues, the traditionally Democratic strong suits of health care and education.

As a poll is only a “snap-shot” in time, it is impossible to assign significance regarding policy decisions but…..

Fifty-four percent (54%) of all voters say the average congressional Democrat is more liberal than they are, while 36% believe the average Republican congressman is more conservative in comparison to themselves. Just 44% say their own representative in Congress is about the same as them ideologically. Republican candidates lead Democrats for the second straight week in the latest edition of the Generic Congressional Ballot. Support for the GOP remains unchanged this week - at its highest level over the past year, but support for Democrats dropped one point to tie its lowest level in the same time period.

The race is on. Will the American people realize that they have been had by the Obama packaging and marketing team? Will they finally understand that there is a reason why, 20 years after completing an Ivy League education that Obama had no tangible evidence of ability or accomplishment? Or will the producers of America have their wealth confiscated so that the Democrats can buy votes by enlarging the ranks of the crony capitalists and dependency underclass? That is the competition.

Other than claiming to author two autobiographies Obama has not done squat except dazzle with his oratorical theatrics. In a country enthralled with good looking people who are talented at pretending they are someone else, it makes perfect sense. We are on the verge of the jig being up. Stay tuned.

From Brian Maloney of the Radio Equalizer’s summary of the July 11, 2009 Ed (Expletive) Schultz:

CALLER : You know, I listen to you talk about Rush Limbaugh and how awful he is. You’re becoming him, Ed. You’ve got to become ...

SCHULTZ: Now, you’re, you’re, you’re way over the top now. That is a personal shot. I am not a drug addict, you bastard.

CALLER: Sounds like you’re drinking.

SCHULTZ: And how dare you call me that.

CALLER: It sounds like you’re drinking.

SCHULTZ: And how dare you call me that ...

CALLER: I didn’t call you a drug addict ...

SCHULTZ: How dare you, how dare you put me in what that scumbag who is a liar. I’m not a liar. Let me tell you, John, I am not a liar.

CALLER: Oh, I believe that you’re not a liar ...

I do not care much for Ed Schultz’s opinions or analysis, but as a human being it sounds like things are not going well. Keep him in your prayers. And, I truly hope I am wrong about this.

The Statue of Liberty Under Construction - Remarkable Photographs

The New York Public Library has recently unveiled some extraordinary pictures of the Statue of Liberty under construction. Take a trip back in time and see extraordinary behind the scenes images of the creation of this superlative structure.

A giant is formed. The sheer scale of the statue under construction can be seen here, in contrast to the workmen posing woodenly for that fairly new invention, the camera. The more formal name for the statue is Liberty Enlightening the World and it is constructed with sheets of pure copper, even though the picture makes it look something like marble. It is something of a miracle that we now have the finished product standing proudly on Liberty Island. Had it not been for the contributions of ordinary French and Americans then she would never have arisen in the first instance.

Such is the immensity of the statue one can only wonder whether or not the workmen pictured above had any idea which part of the statue they were working on at any one time. The photographer Albert Fernique, who captured these pictures around 1883, must have been in a certain awe at the immensity of the statue and his images capture its sheer scale and size beautifully. The French had decided to give the United States of America something for their centennial independence celebrations that the Americans and the world would never forget. The process of building was painstaking, slow and fraught with financial difficulties. The copper shell was only what the public would see. What lies beneath - both in terms of its structure and the story behind its creation - is almost as startling.

Officials survey the workshop - models of statues can just be seen in the background. While they probably had an idea that their statue would become an icon of freedom the world over, the French politicians of the day had some rather more down to earth reasons for gifting the immense sculpture to the States. French politics. Perhaps for this reason the source of the copper has never been revealed. The rumor had always been that the copper was of Norwegian origin, from a village called Visnes, rather than a French source. In 1985 Bell Labs confirmed that this was fairly likely to be true.

At the time France was in political turmoil and, although at the time under their third republic, many people looked back at the time of Napoleon and the monarchy before that with fondness and wanted its return. The desire for a backwards step to authoritarianism was worrying. French politicians - as wily then as now - saw Lady Liberty as a way, albeit phenomenally huge, to focus the public’s imagination on republicanism as the best way forward. The USA and its centennial of independence from the yolk of England was the perfect focus.

The plaster surface of the left arm and its hand take shape, the skeleton underneath revealed. As there is a deal of work under the carapace, so the French politicians had ulterior motives. Using the USA - which many saw as the ideal of government and populist aspirational politics - the French used the statue as a Trojan Horse in reverse, as it were. Its true purpose, in the eyes of the political gift givers, was to make republicanism the center of political ideology in the minds of the people. How greatly it succeeded can never fully be quantified but the French cannot be faulted for thinking big. It must be said here that the ordinary French, through their substantial buying of lottery tickets (and other fund raising efforts) had a much purer purpose at heart than their politicians.

It must surely have been amazing for the workers to turn up each morning to the sight of a colossal head looking down upon them. The inspiration for the face seems to be the Roman god of the sun, Apollo or his Greek equivalent, Helios. More down to earth sources of inspiration center on the women in the life of the sculptor, Frederic Auguste Bartholdi. It may well have been Isabella Eugenie Boyer, a good looking and well-known figure in Paris at the time. More worrying, some believe the face of the statue actually belongs to Bartholdi’s mother. Bartholdi never revealed the true model of the face, but if this is the case Freud would have had a field day.

Bertholdi made a small scale model first, which is still displayed in the Jardin du Luxembourg in the city of the statue’s original construction, Paris. Before the statue was shipped to America, though, it had to be seen to be tested. If it had not been for money, it may never have landed in the states - particularly in the form we all know. On a visit to Egypt, Bartholdi’s vision of liberty expanded to its present proportions. Had his original idea received financial support, then whatever gift the French gave the Americans for the 1876 centennial could not possibly have been the statue.

Little by little, the statue arises. Bertholdi saw the Suez Canal under construction in the eighteen sixties and was inspired to build a giant figure at its entrance. He drew up plans which bore a remarkable similarity to what now stands on Liberty Island but his ideas were rejected by the Egyptian ruling body of the time because of the financial problems the country was facing at the time. Had the staute been built in Egypt as a lighthouse, the idea would never have been taken up for America. The Statue of Liberty as we know it was in fact used as a lighthouse, from its unveiling in 1886 right until 1902 - the very first in the world to use electricity.

Almost there! There were huge structural issues that had to be addressed in the design and construction of a sculpture of such enormity. Enter a certain Gustave Eiffel, who would later go on to build that eponymous tower which still dominates the skyline of Paris. It was his job (which he delegated to Maurice Koechlin, his favored structural engineer) to ensure that Liberty’s copper sheath could move while still remaining vertical. Koechlin created a huge pylon of wrought iron and the famous skeletal frame to ensure that the statue would not fall down in high winds.

Money was always a problem. The plan had been to get the statue to the US by the fourth of July, 1876. Only the right arm and torch were finished by then. However, as the Americans had taken responsibility for the construction of the pedestal, these pieces of the statue were displayed to the American pubic at the Centennial Exposition (in Philadelphia). Money raised by allowing people to climb this part of the statue (see here) started the funding efforts for the base of the statue. The French did their bit too, showing the head in their own exposition in 1878.

1886 must have been one of those years that people remembered for the rest of their lives. A statue of gigantic proportions, symbolizing the ideas and aspirations of America, was unveiled by President Grover Cleveland at Liberty Island (renamed from Bedloe’s Island or Love Island). In an ironic twist, President Cleveland had vetoed the New York legislature from contributing fifty thousand dollars to help with the building of the statue’s pedestal. Letting bygones be bygones, President Cleveland was more than happy to officiate at the ceremony. This had not been the only problem to face the statue in the years before its final unveiling, of course. From the model stage, above, to its triumphant moment of revelation, the process was fraught with difficulty - mostly of a financial nature. However, thanks to the efforts of both the American and French people we now have a permanent reminder of what we should hold dear - liberty still symbolically steps forth from her shackles to protect, shelter and enlighten.

From over the internet transom…thanks to Greg L.

While the rest of the industrial world, having spent billions subsidizing “Clean” or “Green” energy are backing away and the arising economies of China and India are not interested, America under the leadership of the Democrats charge ahead full throttle to the utopia of a hope and change, fairy dust world of energy. But there are a lot of huge problems. From the July 9th 2009 Wall Street Journal article,

Natural-gas prices have fallen because of greater supply and weaker demand, as U.S. natural-gas production has soared over the past year because of the exploration of new reserves. But the economic slowdown has curtailed gas demand, especially in the industrial sector, and analysts expect prices to stay relatively low for the next few years.

Because gas prices are so volatile, short-term price movements alone don’t make or break long-term investment decisions on projects like power plants. But just as cheap oil in the 1980s helped derail the U.S. clean-energy sector, relatively cheaper fossil fuels undermine investor interest in alternatives.

And that is without the credit crunch, which has been even more of a problem for clean-energy projects than some other sectors.

“Access to capital has been very hard,” said Bracken Hendricks, an energy analyst at the Center for American Progress, a Washington think tank. “It’s just so difficult to build large-scale, capital-intensive projects” when many of the banks that specialized in underwriting clean-energy deals were sideswiped by the financial crisis.

Another problem is electricity transmission. Wind farms and other forms of clean energy are usually located in remote locations and require huge new transmission lines to carry the electricity to cities. Mr. Pickens initially hoped to finance the construction of his own transmission lines but was unable to secure funding.

The sun is shinning, the meadow larks are calling, the ACLU closes it’s doors in N.D., all is right with the world. According to the Bismarck Tribune

FARGO (AP) — The American Civil Liberties Union has closed its North Dakota office.

The organization attributes the closure of the Fargo facility to the poor national economy and to losses major contributors suffered in the Bernard Madoff scandal. The New York financier is serving a 150-year prison term for a giant Ponzi scheme.

State ACLU officials say a board of directors will remain in place in North Dakota and continue the work of former director Jennifer Ring, who lost her job when the office was shuttered.

People seeking to reach the organization now have to call the ACLU’s Minneapolis office, which has dedicated a phone line and a part-time staff member to North Dakota issues.

The ACLU is a national organization that advocates and defends rights and liberties guaranteed by the Constitution.

Oh, No! What of the now unemployed former N.D. Democrat state legislator Jennifer Ring? My money is on her as the next Party Chairwomen of the North Dakota Democrat Party after David Strauss splits. In fact I would expect a ringing endorsement from the Obama administration on that idea (Obama has 82% ACLU Congressional Score Card rating). Keep your eyes peeled on this one.

The last line of the quote, from the Tribune article, likely from an AP author as the article is unattributed, is maybe, a little bit of a stretch. According to the website of Stop the ACLU there are ten reasons for stopping the organization “that advocates and defends rights and liberties”:

#1. The ACLU fufills its agenda using my tax money.

#2. The ACLU supports child porn distribution and child molesters like NAMBLA.

#3. The ACLU Defend the enemies of America.

#4. The ACLU Opposes National Security.

#5. The ACLU is anti-Christian.

#6. The ACLU advocate open borders.

#7. The ACLU are pro-death. Not only is the ACLU Pro-abortion, it’s the ACLU’s top priority.

#8. Their outright hatred of the Boyscouts.

#9. The ACLU does not believe in the Second Amendment.

#10. The ACLU was founded by Communist.

It just goes to show, sometimes if you look hard enough, good things result when very bad things happen. At least, perhaps, Bernie can look back for many years on what little good he did (at least for N.D). On the other hand…...if Jennifer Ring moves to Bismarck to run the N.D. Democrat party…...

Wrong! Wrong! Wrong!

From Stephen W Smith (CBS/AP) - December 26, 2006:

Sen. Joseph Biden, the incoming chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said he will fight President Bush if the administration decides to send more U.S. troops to Iraq.

“I just think it’s the absolute wrong strategy,” Biden said Tuesday of an increase in troops…

In a conference call with reporters, Biden said the purpose of the hearings would be to generate a bipartisan consensus among lawmakers on Iraq and pressure the president to abandon any talk of surging U.S. forces into Baghdad.

“Even with the surge of troops, in a city of 6 million people you’re talking about a ratio that would still be roughly above one to 100,” Biden said. “It’s bound to draw down support that we need in other parts of Iraq, including Anbar province.”

Nothin’ like that HOPE and CHANGE!

Or is that HOP and CHANGE?

Do not laugh. These guys are in charge.

I have an Atmospheric and Oceanic Science degree from the Engineering School of the University of Michigan(1981), with an additional 2 years in Actuarial Science and Math at the University of Detroit. I specialize in analyzing and interpreting data, particularly weather data. Since leaving my position as chief meteorologist at WEHT-TV in Evansville Indiana in 1993, I’ve been a successful full time commodities trader. All of my trading is based on how the weather influences energy and agricultural markets. I use my expertise to accurately predict how the weather will effect things like natural gas demand/use and crop yields.

I’ve studied the science of global warming for the past 15 years, writing numerous articles for our local paper as well as interviews with a local tv station. My belief with regards to mans influence has changed during the last few years based on the latest data and information available. Until the last few years, I suspected that our burning of fossil fuels was a major contributor towards the temperature increases our planet had seen. My position then was that global warming and the increase of carbon dioxide actually had many benefits and that we should not take any actions until more data showed with certainty that we were the source of the warming and it was in fact detrimental overall to our planet and it’s creatures. Points numbered 1,2,3,4,5 and 9 below, all relating to the latest climate change science are responsible for my position change away from humans being mostly responsible for global warming.

Is the debate really over with regards to CO2 and global warming as Al Gore claims? The U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) stated that warming is due primarily to industrial emissions of greenhouse gases. Our EPA recently classified CO2 as pollution and our House of Representatives voted 219-212 to put an expensive tax on carbon.

Is CO2 bad enough to justify spending trillions of dollars in the future to cut back?

Read these scientific facts and see if you agree:

1. There was in fact global warming in the 1980’s and 1990’s. This is the foundation of the AGW (anthropogenic global warming) theory. Problem is that 1998 is when it peaked (from a strong El Nino, a natural phenomena), even while atmospheric CO2 has continued to climb.

2. Maybe not coincidentally, global cooling the past 2 years has occurred in tandem with sunspots suddenly dropping to the lowest count in a century. The link between this solar cycle and temperatures on earth has been known but not completely understood for many years.. The Maunder Minimum (extreme solar inactivity between 1645-1710) and “Little Ice Age” is one example. During the warming of the 80’s and 90’s the sun was very active. In the last 2 years for instance, we’ve been in an historically long solar minimum with the sun having more months that averaged less than 10 sunspots/month during that time then both solar minimums during the 80’s and 90’s combined.

3. Another natural cycle just recently receiving attention from scientists, the PDO (Pacific Decadal Oscillation) which cools and warms the earth in 20-30 year cycles, has flipped from the warm phase to the cool phase.

4. AGW theory (it is just a theory) base’s it’s forecasts on climate model output. The AGW scare started in the 80’s and 90’s when these models were first built. The equations and data fed into the models have nothing to represent changes in the sun’s output (we can’t predict that element) or other natural, impossible to model influences like the PDO. This means the computer is programmed with the initial faulty assumption that increasing CO2 levels is what causes most of global warming. This over sensitivity to greenhouse gas warming (by at least a factor of 4) in the climate models is responsible for the dire predictions AGW alarmists use. Junk in junk out. We can’t forecast next month’s weather let alone next decade.

5. These same climate models have predicted widespread droughts and crop failures. Instead, food production has continued to increase. The world’s #1 corn and soybean production area, the US Cornbelt has gone the longest time in history without a widespread drought (21 years). 6. During all of earth’s past warm periods (before humans) CO2 went up AFTER it got warmer. This contradicts AGW theory which states that CO2 goes up first.

7. The warmer our planet was in the past, the MORE life it supported. Cooling just a few degrees on the other hand would cause worldwide crop losses and starvation. Another Ice Age would cause unimaginable suffering and death. 8. In the 1970’s, after 30 years of global cooling, scientists and the media had us in a global cooling scare. http://denisdutton.com/cooling_world.htm During that period, CO2 was increasing. Impossible with AGW theory.

9. With the recent global cooling, Arctic ice, which was retreating in some well publicized locations has recovered.

10. CO2 is vital to every living organism on this planet.

11. CO2 is used by plants to grow bigger and faster. The increase of CO2 by 50% the past 100 years has contributed towards record crop yields and world food production. National trend line corn yields for instance, have gone from 120 bushels/acre to 155 bushels/acre in the last 18 years. With bountiful harvests like this, we can feed the world’s growing population. The problem is getting the food to them. Studies have shown that plant growth peaks with CO2 levels that are as much as 4 times that of our current 350 ppm(parts per million).

12. Greenhouses use carbon dioxide enrichment generators. Those that make a living growing plants know the benefits of increasing CO2 levels.This includes: shorter growing periods to maturity, improved crop quality and yield, increased leaf size and thickness as well as an increase in numbers and faster flowering per plant.

13. Catalytic converters, which have cut down on car pollution tremendously, reduce the toxicity of emissions from an internal combustion engine. They convert toxic CO to what was always perceived as non polluting CO2.

14. There are billions of cans/bottles of carbonated (CO2) beverages consumed each year. The beverage may be unhealthy but the CO2 won’t hurt you.

For a scientific debate to be over, it means that all the data has been collected, analyzed and interpreted with the result yielding one, single inescapable conclusion. Clearly, these recent political developments have little to do with legit science. In fact, the door was opened for this outcome when a 2007 Supreme Court 5-4 decision (liberal judges all voting for it) forced the EPA to rule that carbon dioxide is pollution.

This comes even as the science from the other side is becoming more compelling and a groundswell of experts in this field are providing more and more convincing evidence that disproves AGW theory.

We should have aggressive policies to conserve natural resources and develop alternative energy sources as well as preserve natural environments and protect all creatures on this planet. Advocates of Cap and Trade want us to think that’s why we should be for it. This bill is the biggest revenue generating proposal of our time which is why politicians are conveniently ignoring the growing evidence against AGW theory from scientists.

The worst part about spending trillions to reduce CO2 is that :

1. It will have very little effect on our climate.

2. It vilifies a beneficial gas, instead of focusing on the many REAL pollutants in the air, water and soil.

3. The money will come from you and me.

4. We will lose many jobs and businesses which go overseas to avoid this huge tax.

We the people of this great country should not have to settle for the lack of intellectual honesty, biased, partisan approach from our elected officials whose tactics include using blatant fact/truth distortion and brainwashing us to accomplish it.

We have a responsibility to expose and defeat policy’s based on lies and corruption, especially those that would create hardship for millions of Americans. Cap and Trade legislation is an example of this. It has a hidden agenda that would result in the discrimination of many people with most of us paying a high price. Hopefully, it will be stopped in the upcoming Senate vote this Fall.

Mike Maguire,

Meteorologist

Evansville Indiana

(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)

Commodity prices, in general, continued to tumble this week.  But what most people don’t know is that it is not a market factor that is causing the tumble, but a government factor lately.  The CFTC wasn’t doing what Senator Dorgan wanted done, so his kind replaced him with a new leader. It’s funny how speculation is called manipulation when the end result is not appealing to your needs.  So, now the new leader at the CFTC says there is a problem with commodities and wants to put limits on how many contracts index funds may own.  How idiotic and un-capitalistic to limit people’s potential to legally profit in this country!  If these people had half a brain and hadn’t spent their whole life in government, they would talk to people in the trenches working in this business. Commodity futures don’t cause problems; they help avert them by seeing an oversupply or a short-fall in a commodity before we run out, thus reducing the chance of running out of that commodity by bringing profitability to the producer with plenty of lead time.

The answer to the new large index funds is very simple.  Bona-fide hedgers and small speculators, whether buyers or sellers, would continue to put up 5% margins on commodities like they have for 150 years and large registered buy only index funds would be allowed to invest in commodities, like they buy stocks, and that is to put up 50% margins.  This means the higher the market goes, the more they have to put up if they want to make continual purchases.  If they feel the market still has value at the elevated rates, they know they have to come up with more money to continue purchasing. They also have to consider the ramifications of buying into commodity futures that require you to liquidate at a finite date.  How can you control something when you are being forced to sell it in the future?

Our Senator Dorgan wants to be a hero and play Robin Hood, when in fact, he is stealing from the agricultural and energy industry of North Dakota every day, as the market liquidates over the past weeks, wondering what is next.  Take a pencil and calculate a $1.00 per bushel lost on wheat alone in North Dakota in total value over the past two weeks, as well as the value lost in oil per day, and you will see our Senator has stolen quite a bit from his constituents. Some may think this is a heartless capitalistic remark.  What the socialists that rebut this are jealous of, is what a waste of profit that many individuals of North Dakota have made from energy and grains that had went on to provide new jobs and a robust economy that is the envy of the nation with an overflowing state coffer.  The socialists would have rather seen higher energy and food prices come from “Cap and Tax” so the government could have made better use of those gains.  Karl Marx must be smiling in his grave, knowing there are people out there still believing in his cause.

Eugene Graner

President

Heartland Investor Services Inc.

Karl Marx and Socialist Everywhere….....

The North Dakota Democrat Party obtains most of their money from out of state. But it is a sad day for one of their top patrons.

The party uses that money to make commercials telling listeners to call “out of state” people who point out the facts that North Dakota Senators Dorgan and Conrad received very large amounts of contributions from Fannie Mae and Freddi Mac and tell those “out of state” folk that that is not how we do politics in North Dakota.

Over 81 percent of contributions to the ND Democrats, of over $200 per year come from out of state. If you ask them how much of the contributions under $200 come from out of state they will likely tell you “most” of those contribution are from North Dakota citizens. If you press them for an exact number the will likely claim to be unable to tell you exactly. But, if you get at least millions of dollars from out of state folks you certainly use some of that money to maintain a database of contributors even if their contributions are less than $200. This is necessary so that those contributors can be mailed solicitations for more contributions. It seems highly likely that a few strokes of the keyboard would answer the question of how much out of state money comes from donors sending less than $200 per year. Would we then find that the North Dakota Democrats are funded, maybe 90, 95 percent or more from non-citizens of ND? Is that how we do politics in North Dakota?

Anyway, a problem has arisen in ND Democrat fund raising. One of their biggest individual donors is in the Federal Slammer. “Dickey” Richard Scruggs, tobacco attorney, major Democrat donor will likely be in jail until 2015 (no known cause/effect correlation to the leaving of the ND party chairman David Strauss).

In light of the departure of Chairman Strauss, perhaps, as did the Biden and McCain campaigns, the North Dakota Democrats should return all of the money Scruggs sent to North Dakota to Scrugg’s poor wife.

Until he gets out of the slammer and starts propping up ND politicians…….Dickey’s wife might need that money.

From the Party website:

ND Democratic-NPL

State Party Headquarters

Location: Kennedy Center

1902 East Divide Avenue

Bismarck, ND 58501

Directions: Corner of 19th Street and Divide Avenue

Phone: 701-255-0460

Fax: 701-255-7823

Email:people@demnpl.com

Office Hours: 8:00 am - 5:00 pm (Monday - Friday)

Michelle Obama has a staff that is paid approximately THREE TIMES as much as Laura Bush’s staff costs. Mrs. Obama’s staff salary (not counting fringe, health care, ….) totals $1,448,500 per year

When Michelle Obama was in France it could be said that she was there on official business as she joined her husband the President at a ceremony honoring the 65th anniversary of the Normandy invasion, but for 6 days her and her daughters stayed on in Paris for personal recreation with a 20 car motorcade that included staff and security personnel. The cost to the American taxpayers is unknown as the White House refuses to divulge any financial information about Michelle and the children’s French vacation at U.S. citizen expense.

A late May 2009 first couple “date” that included dinner out and Broadway show cost the U.S. taxpayers an undetermined amount that no official of the White House would divulge. But, in light of the Air Force One joy ride for pictures of the aircraft over New York City, being documented to cost over $250,000, it is likely the “date” cost much more when you consider NY police security, transporting presidential vehicles, security staff, security staff lodging and expenses. Is it possible that the “date” cost you and I closer to $500,000?

How much did it cost to fly a pizza chef from St. Louis to Washington D.C. for Obama staff pizza?

How much did it cost to fly the Hawaiian chef and 20 hand picked entertainers to D.C. from Hawaii for the Obama’s first ever, White House Luau?

This saving the planet by reducing our carbon foot print does not come cheap. Look how the Obama family struggles to keep the oceans from rising and polar bears from dying!

Senator Byron Dorgan WAS hot on the trail of wasteful government spending:

The existing congressional committees, Dorgan says, “have not had the investigators and the time,” to give this issue the focus it deserves. “So, we have held these hearings, and the waste, the fraud, and the abuse is staggering.”

Sorry, Senator Dorgan was talking about military contract fraud back in May of 2008 when George Bush was President. All of that has come to not much. But the North Dakota Senator apparently has little concern over Michelle or Barack’s rather gigantic carbon footprint and taxpayer funded profligacy.

Why is that?

Was that extremely scary or what? Ready for that in your neighborhood?

What is it about this administration and communist backed would be tyrants?

AP writes that:

WASHINGTON (AP) - U.S. officials say Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton plans to meet ousted Honduran President Manuel Zelaya this week. It would be the highest-level contact the Obama administration has had with Zelaya since he was deposed last week. Zelaya is expected in Washington on Tuesday following an unsuccessful attempt to return to Honduras over the weekend that deepened the country’s political crisis. The State Department says the administration remains committed to seeing a restoration of democratic order in Honduras and deplored the use of force against Zelaya’s supporters.

The reason that Zelaya needs to get the Obama administration’s help in undermining Honduras democracy is sicintly explained by Mary Anastasia O’Grady who writes for the Wall Street Journal that:

Hundreds of emails from Hondurans flooded my in-box last week after I reported on the military’s arrest of President Manuel Zelaya, as ordered by the Supreme Court, and his subsequent banishment from the country. Mr. Zelaya’s violations of the rule of law in recent months were numerous. But the tipping point came 10 days ago, when he led a violent mob that stormed a military base to seize and distribute Venezuelan-printed ballots for an illegal referendum.

The communist leader of Venezuela, Hugo Chavez backed Zelaya, Zelaya’s illegal attempt to circumvent the Honduras constitution, and now finds an ally in Barack Hussein Obama? What is it with President Obama and tyrants? George Bush fought for the spread of true democracy. Does President Obama even support such a concept?