First time my camera’s been out of the bag in four months

I only took one photo today, and this was it. When I headed out today, it wasn’t with a plan as I usually roll. I just wanted to hang with my boy and poke around to see what the frost was doing. We had a blast, roaming and listening to Ben Shapiro, and this tree caught my eye along the way.

I looked at the date of the last photo on my memory card, and it was from August. I know I did get out once doing a short video experiment with my video rig, but I haven’t had a photography event in a long time. I’ve simply been too busy this year. I don’t see any sign of things letting up any time soon, either… *sigh*

Seems like a reasonable settlement with the government – so guess who’s unhappy

I woke up this morning to find this newly posted Bismarck Tribune article and began to take interest in the situation. I think I recall hearing something about this before, but the resolution is what stood out to me this time.

The article is a little light on a couple of key facts. First, while the description of the land “managed by the BLM” is accurate, it should state that the land consists of a couple of thin strips of land sandwiched directly between the two parcels owned by the private landowner. Not a huge deal, but it does paint a better picture.

The green shaded area is actually two slices of land. Well, the access road and pond cross it. Fair enough. I think the arrangement described in the article is actually reasonable; the idea of locking horns with the BLM is not an experience one would normally desire, yet this outcome seems the most practical and even fair. And it seems prudent that the landowner could be given the option to purchase the land in the future.

So, naturally, someone is unhappy.

The article references “Blogger Jim Fuglie, a frequent visitor to the Badlands” as the one who made a big stink about this in the first place. He thinks that this decision is wrong, and that the landowner should be forced to remove this bridge and build a new one (certainly at great expense). It doesn’t matter that this would – and the BLM agrees about this – create entirely new impacts to this and an additional area of the Little Missouri River and surrounding Badlands.

So that makes sense: here we have a project that had minimal impact, was done carefully, and is actually helping cut down on lots of traffic, and wouldn’t even be an issue except for that little strip of land (the Army Corps of Engineers even granted a permit for the bridge). Riiiiiiiiiiight. Let’s cause more impact, just so we could punish some sinister rich guy. Because, let’s face it, who among us can afford to build his own bridge?

Naturally, the person who comes to such a brilliant conclusion is a prominent Democrat, the second fact that this article stays far from disclosing.

Jim Fuglie has been a director of the Dem-NPL party twice over the years, and he’s a political blogger as far as I recall. If my buddy Rob Port had been quoted in this article, you can bet he’d have been described as “Political Blogger Rob Port” for his Say Anything blog. But Jim Fuglie is just described as some well-meaning wanderer, blogging about who-knows-what, who uncovered this huge injustice with the help of a pixel-peeping friend. I’m not buying it.

Naturally, since there are prominent Democrats involved, there’s hypocrisy. A heaping helping of it.

Fuglie is quoted as saying, “There’s really no reason anyone should be allowed to get away with breaking the law that flagrantly and not pay the price for it.” Okay, I think we can all agree on that. And the landowner is being punished with triple rent and that sort of thing, as both sides work out the details of this infraction.

But what if the landowner was someone who, say, violated the border of the United States, entering our country illegally, also involving a river and federal law? Shouldn’t that person be punished? Not according to the political party which the aggrieved Fuglie has represented for decades. In fact, I’m probably going to be called a Racist™ for even pointing this out. Nay, that person should be greeted with open arms, granted public benefits at the expense of American citizens, and instructed on how to vote Democrat.

This is no surprise, since the Democrat Party epitomizes the “Some are more equal than others” mantra from Orwell’s famous book Animal Farm. And that’s how their ideology works: there is one set of rules for them and the people they favor, and another set for the rest of you idiots who have either the audacity or idiocy to disagree with their enlightened views.

So my takeaway from this article is that we have an example of the federal government actually working with a landowner to resolve a unique issue. Meanwhile, a prominent Democrat operative gets to look like a quasi-hero by doing what liberals do, without his ideology or political interests being identified, and with total hypocrisy when it comes to the rule of law.

The first takeaway is unique and encouraging, while the other is business as usual.

Why North Dakota can’t afford to vote Democrat, not even for dog catcher

north_dakota_wayIt’s that time again, when Democrats don folksy apparel and adopt phrases like “The North Dakota Way” and “working with both parties”. Don’t fall for it. Don’t vote Democrat, not even for dog catcher.

Even Senators Conrad and Dorgan (now retired after decades of damage) started small. Decades later they were North Dakotans on paper only, maintaining shoebox apartments in Bismarck to stay eligible for reelection. Their final legacy: casting deciding votes for Obamacare, legislation wildly unpopular with North Dakota voters, then retiring to multimillion dollar East Coast homes near their lobbyist cronies. Was that the “North Dakota Way”?

Then we elected the “Independent Voice™” for North Dakota, Heidi Heitkamp, who has since voted with her Democrat Party puppet masters 97% of the time according to Congressional Quarterly. We should have seen that one coming.

Democrats never actually campaign on what they stand for. Where are the campaign ads saying they support Obamacare, amnesty for illegals, the right to abortion, or gun control legislation? The ads promising to punish big corporations and advance the homosexual/transgender agenda? Conspicuously absent, but Democrats are beholden to people who want these things because their votes are guaranteed. Deception and feel-good rhetoric are required to get yours. Guess who they’ll serve.

The deal-breaker issue for me will always be religious liberty.  The candidates at the top of the Democrat ticket are hostile toward people of non-Muslim faith, no matter what they say.  At best, they claim to support your “right to worship”, which slyly confines religious liberty to your church building or (for now) your home.

Find an issue that’s popular in North Dakota, and Democrats are on the wrong side of it. Compare their campaign marketing to their behavior once elected. A Democrat elected to local office this year could cast the deciding vote for disastrous federal regulation in twenty years. We can’t afford to advance their dangerous ideology based on platitudes and deception.

Gonna try not to be a part of the scheme

peaceful_protest

I’m trying to refrain from posting any further comments on the tantrum south of town. Why?

Although they’re engaged in illegal activity down there and the whole thing seems to be pressure-cooking toward violence, it is presently a war being waged primarily on social media (this weekend’s violence notwithstanding). I’m not going to feed the drama.

I try to avoid friends who treat social media like their diary and act out their own personal online soap opera. Likewise with this situation.

Meanwhile, this nonsense has very real consequences. My law enforcement family and friends are subject to very real threats, stoked by online hyperbole and lies. They and their families have had to change their names on social media due to stalking and threats from the “peaceful protesters”. I’ve seen Photoshopped imagery and reckless, incendiary online accusations against authorities which even Snopes has discredited with a mocking tone. As a result of this online campaign, the possibility of further and greater violence continues to increase.

I’m convinced that this whole thing is being orchestrated by professionals who know exactly what they’re doing, and I’m not going to be a tool for it by hurling things back and forth in this arena.

Fargo Forum group attempts to whitewash sexual activist ban

forum_whitewash1Boy, the sexual activists were angry once sanity prevailed and SB2279 was defeated in the House.  Their social media was replete with f-bombs and the like, and the Fargo Forum group was ready to hop into the action with its inflammatory front page attempting to “shame” legislators who did the right thing.  Well, it didn’t end there.

Apparently a coffee shop in Fargo decided to have its own tantrum and ban legislators who voted against SB2279.  The ironic part is that the same legislators who were banned totally agree with the shop’s right to deny service to whoever they want!  That kinda took the wind out of the sails of the movement and proved the point the opponents of SB2279 are trying to make, so the activists had to do a “we were just kidding” backpedal job.  The Forum was more than happy to oblige.  Too bad for them there’s that Internet.

forum_whitewash2Here’s the original article from April 3rd at 6:48pm.  The link is here.  If they remove it or rewrite it, the PDF is here.  Note that while the idea is referred to as absurd, only to make opposition to SB2279 seem similarly so, there is no mention that the ban is a joke or “mockingly declared”.  The article claims:

Effective immediately, if you’re among those who voted against Senate Bill 2279 you’ll be shut out completely from the Red Raven.

Apparently someone realized that this probably wasn’t going to go well, predictably so.  After the news story about the ban aired on the Forum’s TV stations, someone probably figured out that this wouldn’t bode well for the cause, and an article published online shortly thereafter by the Forum group paints the stunt in an entirely different light:

forum_whitewash3Here’s the article from later that evening at 7:31pm.  The link is here.  If they remove it or rewrite it, the PDF is here.  In it, the ban has now become a ‘ban’, and it is being portrayed as something totally different:

  • “mockingly declared”;
  • “satirical”;
  • “a joke”;
  • a “fake embargo”;
  • a “satirical, political statement”

Right.  Kinda of reminds me of that Seinfeld clip where George quits his job in a spectacular fashion, then realizes that he’s made a mistake. Mr. Costanza acts like nothing ever happened, he was “kidding”, and that he can’t believe that anyone would have thought he was being serious:

So, which was it – coordinated media effort to keep the agenda plodding forward, or simply sloppy reporting from a historically biased media source?  Either the Forum group got it wrong in the first report or they had to help whitewash the ban after that report hit the air.  The timeline leads me to believe that this was intentional.  The person interviewed at the coffee shop made no mention of it being anything other than a serious ban in the original article despite being quoted four times.  The attempt to walk it back came later.

The fact of the matter is that the tiny minority of sexually disoriented persons in North Dakota and their vocal activists do not reflect “North Dakota values” as they proclaim, and in fact want a one-way street of discrimination and intimidation of people who don’t think the way they do or condone their choice of behavior or lifestyle.  Too bad.  They can try to have these little temper tantrums and even get left-wing media to amplify their ranting, but that doesn’t change the fact that individual liberty prevailed this time.

Fargo Forum proves that SB2279 was about intimidation

260748399-The-Forum-Friday-April-3-cover-originalThis is the “objective journalism” we get from the birdcage liner known as the Fargo Forum.  It proves what I’ve been saying all along: SB2279 is about intimidation.  Here they attempt to “shame” legislators who voted against this abomination for their vote to uphold religious liberty.

Rep. Boschee also made a veiled threat during the floor debate in the House chamber today, when he pointed toward the homofascist attacks on Indiana and Arkansas in the wake of religious liberty legislation being passed in those states.  He implied that the same sort of thing would befall North Dakota if they didn’t fall into lockstep with the other states currently being bullied and extorted into catering to 2.3% of the US population.

This is the “love” and “equality” you find from the sexually disoriented.  They talk a good game when they emote their way through committee hearings and even floor discussion, but what it comes down to is unparalleled vindictiveness.  That’s what SB2279 was all about.

So, I hopped into Photoshop to correct the cover of the Forum:

260748399-The-Forum-Friday-April-3-cover-accurateSB2279 had so many problems simply in its mechanics or lack thereof, but the “big picture” really is that this legislation has a well-documented track record as a blunt instrument used to persecute persons of faith.  The proponents tried to make it about “housing and employment”, but this legislation is most prominently used to go after Grandma when the convictions of her faith lead her to decline providing flowers for a homosexual “wedding”.

Stay classy, Fargo Forum.  No wonder you’re a dying breed.

Tribune article features quote highlighting one-way liberal “logic”

tribune_012215Tinfoil-hat liberal groups are active as ever in North Dakota, and they were in full batscat-crazy mode this week at a hearing for modifying the state’s legal levels of TENORM (technologically enhanced, naturally occurring radioactive materials if I remember correctly).  At the forefront is the Dakota Resource Council.  One of their minions made a comment that caught my eye immediately.  According to the Tribune:

Kathryn Hilton, of DRC, challenged the Argonne study because it used computer models instead of testing radioactivity levels from affected sites.

Well, now…wait a minute.  Someone should point out to Ms. Hilton that, according to her fellow advocates, computer models are gospel.  That’s what they’ve been insisting for twenty years or more in order to advance us toward global socialism (the only purported cure for global cooling warming climate change).

The only way one can “prove” that American SUVs are causing global cooling warming climate change is by programming computer models to say so.  That assumption is “baked in” when the simulations and models are first constructed.  That’s how scientists can be so confounded at the lack of warming which their models predictably foretold, yet bears no correlation to the actual data.

In other words – no, in Kathryn Hilton’s words, computer models are not the same as actual observations and data…two things that don’t bear out the AGW (American-made Global Warming) theory.  Yes, theory.

Just this week I was engaged in a discussion where it was pointed out that none of these liberal positions have a leg to stand on in that they have to constantly violate their own precepts in order to adapt their “logic” to fit the premise of the day.  If the liberal mind was made into a city, it’d be an impossible place to navigate since there would be no two-way streets.  This single quote, while largely unnoticed, is a perfect example.

Holy cow – I just got my mind changed to vote NO on Measure 7

Measure 7 is something that has come up on the ballot before in North Dakota: removing the requirement that all pharmacies must be owned by a licensed pharmacist.  This time it seems like it may really have some momentum.  I just got my mind blown in such a way that I have switched from a lifelong YES vote on this to a sound NO.  Why?  The answer will blow you away.

First, let me say that I believe that anyone who wants to operate a business in North Dakota should be able to do so.  I’ve always believed that, and it’s been the core principle behind my opposition to North Dakota’s pharmacy laws.  I’ve voted in favor of changing this every time it’s come up on the ballot.  This time around, however, I was wavering a bit, and I don’t know why. Something just didn’t seem quite right.  More on that later.

I’d classify most pro-Measure 7 folks in three broad categories:

  • Those who believe in freedom to open and operate a business, no matter who you are (this was me);
  • Those who believe that all medications are going to become cheaper because of more competition;
  • Those who stand to profit from the measure.

Like I said, in principle I would have voted yes simply because of the first item.  I’m not so sure that prices will come down as the second group of people believe.  But the third one is the one that didn’t make sense until today.

CVS operates pharmacies in the state.  White Drug does, too.  I bought most of my Atari cartridges and lots of my Star Wars action figures in an Osco.  So what gives?  Why do the “big box” stores claim they can’t operate here?  The answer is so simple and so complicated at the same time that it would never have occurred to me until Matt Evans wrote about it on my friend Rob’s blog.

In that article, Matt pulls back the curtain and reveals that there is no free market in this matter.  The big box stores negotiate with insurance companies for the ability to get certain medications covered, with state regulations giving them the muscle.  This artificially distorts the market, obviously.

So what happens if Measure 7 passes?  The “big box” stores go straight to the insurance companies, negotiate the same thing with them as they do in other states, and the next time you want to get your prescription covered you find out that it won’t be – unless you go to Big Box Pharmacy.

Naturally this stinks for a number of folks:

  • My favorite pharmacist, who gives GREAT prices and personal service;
  • Senior citizens who are on Medicare Part D and have to abide by it;
  • People who don’t live within 25 miles of Big Box Pharmacy and who’ll have to drive to one to get covered medications.

No wonder the bigs have been pouring millions into this issue: rather than it being a matter of free markets, it’s a matter of rigging the game in their favor!  In the guise of making more free, open competition available to drive prices down for the consumer, it’s actually a way to subvert the free market using the state-regulated insurance industry as a crowbar to leverage things in their favor.

I went from a 100% principled YES in this matter to a 100% NO in a matter of seconds after I read this.  If a YES vote would result in true freedom of competition and no protectionism, I’d cast it…but it would do exactly the opposite.

Make sure you read Matt Evans’ post on Say Anything.  It’s a real eye opener.  Cast your NO vote to stop government-enforced cronyism from coming between you, your pharmacist, and your prescriptions.  Otherwise the next time you want to support your local pharmacist, you may be doing it with your own money instead of the insurance coverage you already paid for.

Why North Dakota can’t afford to vote Democrat – even at the local level

north_dakota_wayIt’s that time again, when Democrats don folksy apparel and adopt phrases like “The North Dakota Way” and “working with both parties”. Don’t fall for it. Don’t vote Democrat, not even for dog catcher.

Even Senators Conrad and Dorgan started small. Decades later they were North Dakotans on paper only, maintaining shoebox apartments in Bismarck to stay eligible for reelection. Their final legacy: casting deciding votes for Obamacare, legislation wildly unpopular with North Dakota voters, then retiring to multimillion dollar East Coast homes near their lobbyist cronies. Was that the “North Dakota Way”?

Then we elected the “Independent Voice™” for North Dakota, Heidi Heitkamp, who has since voted with her Democrat Party puppet masters 97% of the time according to Congressional Quarterly. We should have seen that one coming.

Now Erin Oban, wife of the Democrat Party’s executive director, uses similar rhetoric. She doesn’t mention this affiliation; in fact, her website’s devoid of issues entirely. Her opponent’s site has a very clear list of where she stands on important issues and she votes as she promises on these issues.

Democrats never actually campaign on what they stand for. Where are the campaign ads saying they support Obamacare, amnesty for illegals, the right to abortion, or gun control legislation? The ads promising to punish big corporations and advance the homosexual agenda? Conspicuously absent, but Democrats are beholden to people who want these things because their votes are guaranteed. Deception and feel-good rhetoric are required to get yours. Guess who they’ll serve.

Find an issue that’s popular in North Dakota, and Democrats are on the wrong side of it. Compare their campaign marketing to their behavior once elected. A Democrat elected to local office this year could cast the deciding vote for disastrous federal regulation in twenty years. We can’t afford to advance their dangerous ideology based on platitudes and deception.

Heidi Heitkamp for Abortion…so much for the Independent Voice for North Dakota™

heidi4abortionQuick rundown: Democrats want to force Christian employers to pay for abortion and “birth control” drugs that abort a pregnancy.  Many resisted.  The Supreme Court sided with the employers in the “Hobby Lobby” case.  Vowing to proceed with infanticide, Heidi Heitkamp’s party decided to push through a new law to specifically counter that decision.

Guess who voted “Yea” for cloture on this bill?

heidi_adBut wait a minute!  Didn’t the self-proclaimed “Independent Voice™ for North Dakotans” say in her campaign ads, “I’ll only answer to you.”?  Yes, that’s exactly how she ended the ad portrayed above.  That’s how she portrayed herself throughout her campaign: go check out her TV ads for yourself…they’re all online.

North Dakotans oppose abortion.  That’s never been arguable.  We send people to our state legislature who oppose it as well (aside from pockets of Democrat party dominance).  On our behalf they have passed multiple laws and resolutions defending life in the womb, and we continue to re-elect them.  I think it’s pretty clear what the citizens of North Dakota, whom Heidi Heitkamp claims to represent regardless of “partisan politics”, believe on this issue.  Yet she sides with her Democrat cronies consistently.  In fact, she sticks with President Obama 97% of the time, and it’s been documented.

Heidi Heitkamp is a liar.  This prompted me to make  the following graphic a while ago:

heidi-howClick on the image for a full size version.  Download and share!

Back when the “What I really do” meme was big in the net, I was able to come up with this in a matter of minutes; Heidi makes it easy.  It illustrates perfectly how the Independent Voice™ really pulls a fast one on North Dakota.

Fortunately, the Republicans were able to stop the Democrats this time; the pro-abort Dems were unable to get enough votes for cloture on S2578..  They won’t give up, though, and how they’ll be shrieking about “partisan politics” and how they tried in their valiant effort for “reproductive rights™” to raise more liberal campaign donations.  Business as usual.

There are a lot of things Senator Hoeven does that I don’t like, but in this case I think it’s worth a trip to his Facebook page or email inbox to let him know that this was the right stand for North Dakota.

Unfortunately, having a Heitkamp in the Senate means that the Democrats can effectively cancel out Senator Hoeven’s vote any time they want to.  By splitting our vote, they take North Dakota out of play on any given issue.  Think about that if you ever consider casting a vote for a Democrat Senator in a future election, no matter how many starry-eyed promises of independence they make.