Thursday, 21 February 2013

After the Rhetoric

So after all of the rhetoric we find out that the Congress supports the war in Iraq. They realize that we have no choice but to win. FromFox News.

WASHINGTON - The House on Friday overwhelmingly rejected calls for an immediate troop withdrawal from Iraq, a vote engineered by Republicans that was intended to fail. Democrats derided the vote as a political stunt. 

"Our troops have become the enemy. We need to change direction in Iraq," said Rep. John Murtha of Pennsylvania, a Democratic hawk whose call a day earlier for pulling out troops sparked a nasty, personal debate over the war.

The House voted 403-3 to reject a nonbinding resolution offered by the GOP calling for the military to pull out of Iraq.

So Democrats like Murtha can play politics with the war. But when it comes to a vote they realize that American's will never tolerate anything more than their rhetoric.

It reminds me of just last year. The ELECTION was pretty much a referendum on the war. GWB won with the largest vote total in history. He received the largest majority in 16 years. Things have not changed that much in a year.

Thursday, 2 August 2012

North Dakota

North Dakota  is a state located in the Midwestern region of the United States, along the Canadian border. The state is bordered by Manitoba and Saskatchewan to the north, Minnesota to the east, South Dakota to the south and Montana to the west. North Dakota is the 19th most extensive, but the 3rd least populous and the 4th least densely populated of the 50 United States. North Dakota was created from the northern portion of the Dakota Territory and admitted to the Union on November 2, 1889, simultaneously with South Dakota.

The state capitol is located in Bismarck and the largest city is Fargo. The primary public universities are located in Grand Forks and Fargo. The U.S. Air Force operates air bases at Minot AFB and Grand Forks AFB.

For more than a decade, the state has had a strong economy, with unemployment lower than the national average, job and population growth, and low housing vacancies. Much of the growth has been based on development of the Bakken oil shale fields in the western part of the state, but it has also had growth in the technology and service sectors. Flooding in June 2011 has caused extensive damage to Minot and threatened Bismarck, the capital city.

Tuesday, 5 April 2005

Just a few notes on where Sen. Conrad is getting his money from

As of March 3, 2005...
Only about 2% of individual contributions of over $200 to Sen. Conrad come from North Dakotans. North Dakotans have only contributed $9,100 while Californians have given him $46,650. I'm not sure what this means but between now and the election I will be periodically researching and sharing the figures I find about the sources of Sen. Conrad's money.

Judicial Nominations Part II

I've been sent a couple good comments about my previous post that I'd like to address for everyone.

Anonymous said, "This looks like a poor survey. "Qalified Judge?" It's the senate's job to determine if they are qualified. You can get the responses you want, if you ask the questions the right way."

To that I would say...

The question is how many senators have to determine the qualification of nominees. And I do know that people can rig polls. The AARP has been doing it with social security.

Anonymous said, "Duty to vote? was an alternative response, "expected to block the nomination of a judge that they feel is not qualified?"

To that I would say...

Yes, they have a duty to vote. Let them vote. Why filibuster? If the Dems feel the judges aren't qualified, then vote against them. ELECTIONS MATTER!

Anonymous said, "Appy existing law? President Bush was looking for a judge to create law when he signed the Terri Shaivo bill."

To that I would say...

President was not looking for a judge to create law. He signed a law that allowed for the federal courts to look at the issue. When the federal court upheld the state court he let it be.

Anonymous said, "Politics out of the confirmation process? Well then you certainly couldn't have a politically elected president nominate or politically elected senators confirm judgeships. Or does this mean that you certainly wouldn't criticise Conrad for actions on judicial nominations because it's a nonpartisan action?

To that I would say...

President Bush is not acting as a partisan. He simply wants judges to use US law and US history and the US Constitution and the US Declaration of Independence to determine the constitutionality of laws. He doesn't want judges WHO ARE NOT ACCOUNTABLE to legislate from the bench, using laws from FOREIGN countries. Here is how screwed up it has gotten... (correct me if I'm wrong)... but we cannot execute minors for murder because they don't know what they're doing, but the courts have also ruled that minors are smart enough to get abortions without hearing any information if they don't want any... like I said correct me if I'm wrong. Also, the senate GOPers feel the same way. The only people who can make laws, according to our Constitution is the LEGISLATIVE branch... but then again... maybe the French constitution says something else.

Monday, 4 April 2005

Judicial Nominations

"A national, scientific survey of 800 registered voters reveals that an overwhelming majority of Americans believe that qualified candidates for our nation’s highest courts deserve and up or down vote in the in the US Senate. The survey further revealed that Americans want partisan politics removed from the judicial confirmation process and that our Judges should focus on applying existing laws and not attempt to make new law in the courtroom."

Highlights of the survey include:

* Eighty-two percent of voters agree that "if a nominee for any federal judgeship is well-qualified, he or she deserves an up or down vote on the floor of the Senate.
* By 78 to 12 percent, voters agree that Senators have a constitutional duty to vote on judicial nominations.
* Seventy-five percent of voters agree that "President Bush should keep his promise made during the campaign to nominate a U.S. Supreme Court justice who will apply existing law, not make new law.
* Overall, 67 percent of voters agree we should take politics out of the courts and out of the confirmation process.

Hey Sen. Conrad, Americans will not tolerate any attempts to stop votes on any judicial nominations. This will be a very interesting debate. I have no doubt that Sen. Conrad wants to filibuster, but it might cost him his seat. Make no mistake about it... if he slows down the nomination process I will let everyone know.

The Race Heats Up In MN

Check it out everyone. Excellant blog! Gary, Doug, and First Ringer tackle the 2006 Senate campaign in Minnesota. The Upper Midwest could gain 2 GOP seats in the senate. I'll be checking it out daily.

Farm Subsidy Reform....

The Washington Post ran an article today entitled "In North Dakota, Farmers Wary of Cuts to Subsidies." The Post interviews a farmer, Owen Olson, who farms 1,400 acres near Medina, ND. He is "is among the men and women who sow the seeds, harvest the crops and oppose this year's attempt by President Bush and Congress to cut federal farm assistance. They speak of hardship and fairness while questioning the votes cast for a president who scored big in the Midwest, in part by promising to do well by farmers."

Olson said that if it weren't for the federal government no one would be farming. South Dakota Politics has an interesting take on this. Ken Blanchard doesn't believe that "If this is true, of course, it means that farming in North Dakota represents an economic loss for the nation as a whole. We have farmers in North Dakota not because it pays to farm there; rather, we flood the plains with federal money so there so we will have farmers. Surely there is something wrong with this picture. I don't believe it for a moment." I tend to agree with Ken because according to the Post, "Sparsely populated North Dakota leads the nation in production of durum and spring wheat, barley, lentils, pinto beans, sunflower oil and honey. It produces 95 percent of the country's flaxseed and 90 percent of its canola." North Dakota farmers are the most productive in the world.

The Post then adds, "No one is talking about eliminating federal subsidies, just reducing them. But in North Dakota, where more than three in four farmers receive payments -- the highest percentage of any state -- the proposals working their way through the hearing rooms on Capitol Hill are big news.
Bush proposed cuts of $5.7 billion from agricultural programs over the next 10 years as part of a deficit reduction package. The House Budget Committee set the figure at $5.3 billion, while its Senate counterpart said $2.8 billion should be trimmed.
Exactly how much will be cut and from which programs remain to be determined this summer. Congressional leaders must settle on a target, which can be met in many ways, including by cutting food stamps."

Farmers have many problems. First and foremost is the weather. Rising fuel, seed, chemical, and equipment costs are other big problems.

Blanchard makes another good point. The prices of some of these items could reflect the amount of money the federal government has given to farmers. If people who produce combines know that farmers get so much money from the government they can maybe jack their prices up. I do not know if that's the case, but it seems logical that that could have some affect.

The basic problem with the federal susidy problem is that the money isn't going to the right places. According to the Post, "Farm income has been up the past two years, yet Congress has channeled more than $130 billion in subsidies to farmers in less than a decade. Seventy percent of the cash goes to 10 percent of the producers, particularly cotton and rice farmers in the South."

Further explained... if the gov. gives farmers $10, but $7 go to agribusinesses and large farms, and the federal deficit is at $50... then why not cut farm subsidies from $10 to $8 but give $6 of it to small and medium farms and cap the money going to large farms and agribusiness at $2. The federal budget deficit is down, small and medium farms get more, and large farms and agribusinesses don't get money that they don't need. I know it's not as simple as this, but this is a logical starting point.