Dakota Beacon

I’m always amazed by the birds at my feeders in February. Only the toughest survive the North Dakota winter.

My father-in-law once pointed out to me the obvious. Birds, like other wildlife and even livestock, will survive the North Dakota winter if they have food and a place to escape the wind. The temperature may fall below zero and the wind-chill drop to minus twenty or thirty degrees, but every morning, as the sun rises, the birds are busy with breakfast at my feeders.

The Common Redpoll, a member of the finch family, typically nests in the tundra of northern Canada. Their idea of flying south for the winter is to migrate to southern Canada and North Dakota where they spend the winter. This gives a whole new meaning to the term “snowbird.”

Joe Sobran "had a capacious, Renaissance mind, as anyone who delves into this brilliant collection of essays will see. There is ample balm for the soul here from his keen moral sense, and wit and entertainment of a high order for the mind, all delivered with impeccable style. One need not agree with all of it - Joe would probably be disappointed if you did - but who would not be better for having read it?"

Is the current path in U.S. foreign policy set to produce a succession of international disasters? In this interesting article, Dr. Earl Tilford examines U.S. foreign policy from Vietnam to Benghazi and argues that the country is at an important crossroad. Tilford suggests that any wrong decision could be very costly and that the “world needs clear, strong leadership only the United States can provide.” 

 Justice Scalia's views on same-sex marriage, were based on his views on how to interpret the American Constitution. He subscribed to originalism, the doctrine that the meaning of the Constitution is fixed and that the courts' responsibility is to understand what the Founding Fathers intended. Same-sex marriage was not one of the freedoms that they wished to bequeath to future generations.


Unfortunately, Scalia was on the losing side in the decisions which led to same-sex marriage. However, many of his crisp and acerbic dissents will eventually be seen as prophetic. Here are a few nuggety paragraphs.

ND STANDS OUT; OVERWHELMING SUPPORT; “WHAT HAPPENED TO ND DEMOCRATS?”; THE DICKINSON REGIONAL AIRPORT; GUESS WHO?; WHAT’S THIS?; FORMER SEN. KENT CONRAD; BAILING OUT; SUSPICIONS AT SPIRIT LAKE; ADDICTED BABIES; POOR PROGRESS; DAKTOIDS

Calling the Court a “threat to American democracy,” Justice Scalia wrote in his Obergefell dissent, “[I]t is not of special importance to me what the law says about marriage. It is of overwhelming importance, however, who it is that rules me. Today’s decree says that my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court.” We won’t talk the court out of its power-mad, usurpative bent. Only power negates power. It’s time to stop acting like impotent fools and start showing the Court how impotent it really is. 

Why work? As a society we’ve finally arrived at the glory of a one party system -- the Government Party – replete with the Democrat wing and the Republican wing.

The decision whether or not to work is not a matter of ethics or conscience. It’s a matter of complying with the established norm, a culture built by generations of politicians.

Over the years our politicians created a wonderful “no work” environment of entitlements, grants, giveaways and assorted benefits. In exchange for their largess, voters retained their politicians in office for life. What a deal!

MOOD RESET; “IT’S PRETTY DISMAL”; UND AT A CRITICAL STAGE; OUG BURGUM; MAJOR OBSTACLE?; WEALTH MAKES IT POSSIBLE; EMERGING STORIES; GO FIGURE; ETREADED MAN CAMP; DALE LENNON; QUADRUPLETS; MINNESOTA MUSLIMS; DAKTOIDS

The biochemistry is way over my head, but the complexity is clear. The idea that this came about by accident requires powers of belief beyond mine, and the idea that it functions flawlessly for seventy years is more so. Ask a biochemist whether he can construct this system in the laboratory. Ask him whether he can construct any system of similar complexity that will work, maintaining itself, for seventy years.

From all of which I conclude that we are more puzzled than we believe we are. These thoughts will not be well-received by those more inclined to protect the paradigm than to examine it. Oh well.

Arguably the president of the United States has the toughest job in the world. So, why would anyone want to become president? To help celebrate Presidents’ Day, author and presidential scholar Dr. Gary Scott Smith examines the office of chief executive from George Washington to the 2016 campaign and illustrates how important it is for Americans to “carefully examine the qualifications and character of those who seek the presidency.”

The debt is so large currently that if the entire wealth of the upper 50% of income earners were confiscated and applied to the national debt the debt still could not be paid. The 20th century is littered with the carcasses of nations who tried this approach and failed. It is a shame we don’t have the old Soviet Union around to hold up to millenials as an example of failure. Must the United States become the next botched experiment?

 Soaking the rich in a liberal socialist way is certainly not the solution and it does have unintended consequences.

 A solution becomes less probable as fewer people carry the greater burden. First, with more people receiving federal dollars, there is slim chance anyone will voluntarily relinquish their “take.” Second, it is foolish to think Congress will voluntarily give up the most powerful tool they possess – the power to dole out money to constituents and districts thus giving them the power to influence votes.

 As fewer and fewer people carry more and more of he burden, reality will force a correction. Those few who carry the greatest burden will eventually manage to escape. The rest will have to suffer through the correction. Even now demographics argue that a reality check will come sooner than later.

NEW REALITY; A WEEK OF FUN; HERE WE GO!; HOW WILL THIS WORK?; CIRCUMSPECT; JENNIFER PUHL; SARAH VOGEL; “THAT’S THE DELTA SPIRIT”; TALE OF TWO REFUGEE GROUPS; SOMALI IN ST. CLOUD; DAKTOIDS

There are many admirable analysts commenting on military matters these days. Two individuals are a cut above. One is Lieutenant Colonel Ralph Peters and the other is Victor Davis Hanson.

If a lay person paid attention to these two men they would gain more than an adequate ability to assess contemporary military policy.

Perhaps it was a first: a man winning a debate by not showing up. That’s my take, anyway, that Donald Trump prevailed at Thursday night’s GOP debate. Although, something curious did happen after the event that gives me pause for thought.

Pollster Frank Luntz conducted a focus group, and one question concerned their feelings on Rubio; you know, the guy not only proven via video to be completely dishonest, but who supported a culture-rending scamnesty bill. When after the debate Luntz asked how many in the group had planned on voting for Machiavellian Marco coming into the debate, about three people raised their hands. And after the debate?

Forty to fifty percent of those present did.

Beam me up, Scotty. It just renews my faith in my lack of faith in the average voter. But the explanation probably lies with a study some years back showing that if a person is articulate and eloquent, he’ll sway people regardless of what he actually says. It’s style over substance, and the slick-talking, eye-candy Florida python has the former in abundance.

Having said this, my guess is that Rubio only swayed some undecided low-info voters, and it certainly won’t be enough to change his fortunes. As for the biggest presence on stage Thursday night, it was a man who wasn’t even there.

WELL DRESSED BRESCIANI; DIFFERENT VIEW; ANDRIST SAYS IT’S CONFUSING; FARGO IS DIFFERENT; THE KILBOURNE GROUP; CONTROVERSY OVER TAX BREAKS; GRAND FORKS GHOSTS; THIS IS A BIG-TIME SCIENCE PROJECT; MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS; DOUBLE TROUBLE; CONCORDIA COLLEGE; BLACK LIVES MATTER IN MN; THE MANHATTAN INSTITUTE; DAKTOIDS

“How can it be that the Republican currently garnering a large plurality of support in a crowded but highly qualified field of candidates is the one with the feeblest conservative credentials and some of the most heretical statements and positions?” In this interesting article, Dr. R.B.A. DiMuccio asks this important question and offers data as a possible reason why Donald Trump is still leading—even after National Review came out strongly against him. 

Ever since Donald Trump’s rise to 2016-contender prominence, the rap on him, and perhaps part of his broad appeal, has been that he’s not a conservative. And he’s not — he’s a nationalistic populist. Yet there’s another way to understand The Donald’s professed politics: as that of the first prominent “European-conservative” American presidential candidate. He’s not so much America’s next Ronald Reagan or Barry Goldwater, but her first Marine Le Pen.   

The January 19, 2016 issue of The Week carried a story titled “How an Obscure Adviser to Pat Buchanan Predicted the Wild Trump Campaign in 1996” written by Michael Brendan Doughtery. Doughtery opened with a citation (not an actual quote) credited to Samuel Francis (Buchanan’s adviser) in the 1996 issue of Chronicles.

“[S]ooner or later, as the globalist elites seek to drag the country into conflicts and global commitments, preside over the economic pastoralization of the United States, manage the delegitimization of our own culture, and the dispossession of our own people and disregard or diminish our national interests and national sovereignty a nationalist reaction is almost inevitable and will probably assume populist form when it arrives. The sooner it comes, the better….”

That was the gist of the advice Francis gave Buchanan in his essay “From Household to Nation.” The issue here is not Donald Trump. The issue is the transformation of Middle America and its discontent with its political and bureaucratic overseers, the Ruling Class.

Of course, stating the obvious, to connect with people emotionally you must capitalize on something appealing to them emotionally. Trump’s bold nationalism does this. What do the others offer? Jeb Bush is associated with saying that illegal migration is “an act of love” and John “Can’t do” Kasich with “Think about the [illegals’] families, c’mon, folks!” which might appeal to illegal migrants if they could speak English. And none of the others will even support suspending Muslim immigration — despite deep and widespread fear of Muslim terrorism — which certainly will appeal to Da’esh (ISIS).

It’s as if Trump is courting Lady America with wine, roses and his alpha-male persona, while the Establishment candidates are lead-tongued nerds promising a tent with NSA surveillance, a bowl of soup and squatters on a burnt-out lawn.

HIGH HOPES; KEEP QUIET; GRAND FORKS NEEDS THE BODIES; SU PRESIDENT DEAN BRESCIANI; NEW FACE; FROWNING FACE; HAPPIER FACE; REGROUPING; THE FARM ECONOMY; BETTER THAN NO PUBLICITY; NINE DRUG OVERDOSES; HOW BLACK IS F-M?; DAKTOIDS

When taking steps to become healthy many people may be focusing on the wrong objective: becoming thin. In this interesting article, Dr. Joseph Horton shares a personal example of how the expectation that exercise will result in massive weight loss and a buff body often fails to materialize. Horton encourages us to “practice a healthful lifestyle for the many benefits beyond elusive buffness.” 

"He's running his country and at least he's a leader, unlike what we have in this country," Trump said Friday morning on MSNBC. "I think our country does plenty of killing also." 

Trump says he's "evolving".  Sounds more like "revolving" . . . 

New York City values are going through the roof. And it’s not just real estate. A prime story the last many days has been the GOP debate dust-up between Donald Trump and Senator Ted Cruz. After the senator impugned “New York values” in an effort to call into question the businessman’s conservative bona fides, Trump responded with an impassioned defense of New Yorkers’ character. Trump won the exchange on style with rhetorical effectiveness, but, frankly, Cruz was right on substance.

This is not a commentary on whether Trump exemplifies NY values. In fact, I love most of what The Donald is saying; furthermore, while I have great respect for Cruz, the fact that no other candidate Thursday night could join Trump in supporting a halt to Muslim immigration — a common-sense measure — calls their qualifications for the presidency into question. But this isn’t a commentary on that, either, or on NY values, although I will touch on them. This article is about something far deeper.

The Ruling Class accumulates power by redistributing other people’s wealth. Power derives from public office because it is from there that elected officials distribute the “bacon” as it were back to their constituents from whom the money was confiscated as taxes in the first place. Money becomes an aphrodisiac administered by Senators and Representatives to the public so they can show love and be loved in return.

Senator John Hoeven and Representative Kevin Cramer have been co-opted into the Ruling Class. They are not conservative – except in their rhetoric at election time. Evidence? The Heritage Foundation has tracked their voting records at around 50% conservative. Together with Senator Heidi Heitkamp, Hoeven and Cramer have become part of the Ruling Class. They are more prone to “reach across the aisle” in a gesture of “bipartisanship” in order to “get things done” rather than to resolve hard issues.

DOUG BURGUM; THE STATE’S TALLEST BUILDING; THE BLACK BUILDING; THE HERD ROLLS TO VICTORY; FOLLOW THE BOUNCING FOOTBALL; TSK, TSK!; DUELING LETTERS; THE FOURTH LEG UND'S AERISOACE ORIGRAN; THE ND WAY OF DEATH; DICKINSON STATE UNIVERSITY: A MENTALLY ILL CRIMINAL; SOMALI IN GRAND FORKS;  BRADY MARTZ; HMM! WHAT DOES THAT MEAN?; VIKING FANS; DAKTOIDS

For the first time in the organization’s 100-year history, Planned Parenthood has endorsed a candidate in a presidential primary. Earlier this week, Cecile Richards—president of Planned Parenthood—enthusiastically announced that the organization is backing Hillary Clinton’s bid for the nomination. In this must-read article, Dr. Paul Kengor examines the history of the organization and asks if Clinton is willing to repudiate Planned Parenthood’s “highly questionable and objectionable history.”  

Various national polls reveal that a significant percentage of evangelical Christians support Donald Trump’s bid for the Republican nomination. In this interesting article, presidential scholar Dr. Gary Scott Smith examines possible reasons why Trump is polling so high among some evangelicals. Smith writes, “Given Trump’s beliefs, lifestyle, crude language, and some of his positions on issues, this is baffling.”

The year 2016 is going to be a long year. This will be the year of wall-to-wall all the time politics. As the saying goes, “If you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em” – sort of. Here is some comic relief.