# Letter: Natural heritage is at risk



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

http://www.inforum.com/event/article/id ... sher_ID/1/

Hats off to Senator Axness of Fargo. High time someone spoke up for North Dakota instead of caving into the money.


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

http://www.inforum.com/event/article/id ... p/Opinion/

You should read this one also Dick :beer:


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> SCR 4027 was proposed to the North Dakota Senate by a team of Democrats just before crossover as an attempt to answer that question, but it fell short. It fell short because it forgot about the people. It forgot about farmers and ranchers, who have been responsible for conserving our state's lands for generations.


It's desturbing reading deception like this. As a young man growing up on a farm I understood that wildlife flourished in spite of me, not because of me. The fields I fallowed with an old tractor once provided habitat for many more species than the stray grouse in a corn row. Also more species in the hay fields than the pocket gophers who's mounds broke the wooden sweep rake teeth I bucked hay with. This was the farm my grandfather homesteaded that had once been home to bison, and elk. Now it was dirt and much of that was blowing away as evidenced by the gravel hill tops. My family made their living from the land, but we didn't expect everyone to agree with everything we did, and we understood that as we used the land we eliminated it's ability to support native wildlife. We tried to use our land as wise as possible and the land that was rocky was not farmed it was grazed. 
North Dakota has a variety of people from many walks of life, but our state still has a single minded will. We have physcally responsible people in our legislature, but it's weighed so heavily with agriclture interests that many of our people are ignored. That single mindset is played upon by those who would destroy free lance hunting for their own monatary benefit. Make no mistake many work towards ending hunting as we know it today. Still others see no value in land that will not raise wheat or corn. If there is a chance for the average North Dakotan to leave a hunting legacy to their grandchildren they better wake up. We are at a point of no return. If the current trend continues teach the next generation to knit because 99 percent will not be able to afford pay hunting. 
With the oil revenue coming into the state is it to much to ask 5% for the outdoor people including hunters?  Five percent think about that. Many want you to think of it in terms of dollars which is significant, but it should be. However, lets keep the true perspective of how these special interests are willing to share that revenue. Who will have the lions share? I don't know, that is a question. I would like to know because I would like to compare all of the other special interests with the North Dakotans who camp, bird watch, hike, hunt etc. We see people refer to wildlife as a special interest, but in truth every group who gets a penny has their special interests. Agriculture is no different because it like all the rest is a special interest and have those people who constantly try to protect that special interest. The North Dakota Farm Bureau is a special intererest and anyone who is a guide, outfitter, farmer, teacher, or anyone recieving any money is a special interest. Farming and ranching is our largest special interest. 
Wake up sportsmen and smell the coffee. Our time is short if we are to have much of anything left in North Dakota. We have the least federal land of any state in this nation so we are in the greatest danger of loosing an American heritage. Please take this serious.


----------



## AdamFisk (Jan 30, 2005)

g/o said:


> http://www.inforum.com/event/article/id/393191/group/Opinion/
> 
> You should read this one also Dick :beer:


Really?

REALLY?????

Plots acres are decreasing, CRP acres are decreasing, sloughs are getting burned and worked under, and shelter belts as well, more drain tile, oil boom, etc etc etc etc etc etc etc...

But it's OK, farmers and ranchers have been conserving our states land for generations.....LMFAO!!!!!


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

Plains wrote,



> Our time is short if we are to have much of anything left in North Dakota. We have the least federal land of any state in this nation so we are in the greatest danger of loosing an American heritage. Please take this serious.


Bruce, did you just now finally admit what this is all about? Take money away from the ND General Treasury and divert it to the purpose of giving it to non-governmental non-profits such as Ducks Unlimited who would then use the taxpayers money to purchase real property. A non-profit cannot hold onto real property for more (I believe) three years at which time they would then turn it over to whom? More than likely they would turn it over to the Department of the Interior. Creating more federal land.

Now there is the real crisis, the cliff. Let's ask the people point blank, how many acres should we concede back to the fed/gov?

Bruce, this is serious. LET'S LEAVE PRIVATE LANDS IN PRIVATE HANDS

Senator Jessica Unruh is new to the Senate. North Dakota got another good one.


----------



## indsport (Aug 29, 2003)

The only problems with shaug's argument are how incorrect they are. Neither SCR 4207 or either house bill overturned the existing non profit land ownership issue or federal ownership and they both would have had to go through the same process they do now under current law,second, it is not general fund money and third, conveniently ignores the private property rights of a willing seller of leases or real property.


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

indsport wrote,



> The only problems with shaug's argument are how incorrect they are. Neither SCR 4207 or either house bill overturned the existing non profit land ownership issue or federal ownership and they both would have had to go through the same process they do now under current law


Controlled oppostion groups such as DU are already challenging North Dakotas anti-corporate farming law.



> it is not general fund money and third


The money from oil and gas taxes go into the general fund. Simply diverting it away and claiming it is not being directly taken out of the general fund is disingenoius.



> conveniently ignores the private property rights of a willing seller of leases or real property.


Willing seller. It's a theme. At the Capitol in Bismarck debating DU leadership like to say that too.

What most people don't realize is that this oil revenue rip off isn't the first time this has been attenpted. Second verse same as the first. It was called the Conservation and Reinvestment Act of 2000. Keep in mind that Rep. Don Young is a rabid member of Ducks Unlimited in the piece below.

RETURN OF THE CARA MONSTER

By Tom DeWeese
May 8, 2004
NewsWithViews.com

It seems that some elected officials will stoop to any low to force their schemes on the rest of us. A case in point is Congressman Don Young (R ?AK).

For the past five years Don Young has been trying to push through a bill that would establish a massive funding process to lock away millions of acres of private lands across the nation. Property rights advocates have fought a courageous and thus far semi-successful battle to stop those efforts. But Young keeps pushing.

First, in 1999 Young introduced the Conservation and Reinvestment Act (CARA). Opposition to the bill grew quickly as the details of the program became known. The original CARA bill would have established a permanent $1.4 billion annual trust fund that would guarantee huge amounts of money for land acquisition and condemnation of private property in the name of protecting the environment.

Three times Rep. Young and his allies, Rep. Billy Tauzan (R-La) and Senator Frank Murkowski (R-AK), tried to push, bully or sneak CARA passed their respective houses of Congress. By the end of 1999, Young and Murkowski failed to even get their own committees to support the bill. Almost half of the Republicans on the House Resources Committee (which Young chaired) refused their support.

That didn't stop Young, who once was a spokesman for private property rights as he stood against radical environmentalists. By March 2000 in the new 107th Congress Young reintroduced CARA. The spending and pork in the bill had soared to $3 billion annually or ($45 billion over it's proposed 15 year life) in an attempt to play on the greed of other House members. Republican House leadership, uneasy with such a huge spending bill, vowed not to support CARA unless a majority of Republicans co-sponsored it. Young got his majority in May 2000 and CARA finally passed the House.

Just as the fight shifted to the Senate, Young's own state Republican Party of Alaska announced its opposition to the bill. Month by month property rights activists fought in the trenches of every possible hearing, secret meeting or arm-twisting session in the Senate to stop the bill from passing that body.

The battle got intense and even dirty as CARA supporters tried to save the controversial and unpopular bill. Supporters knew an honest, straight-up vote would surely fail. So, as the congressional session came down to the wire before adjournment, they tried a last minute effort to hide it in an appropriations bill where it would automatically pass without debate or vote. The effort failed and CARA was stopped a second time.

A last minute compromise over a lessor bill, dubbed "CARA Lite" was passed instead. While "CARA Lite" appropriated $12 billion over sixyears for land grabs, it did not contain the most dangerous part of CARA ? the permanent trust fund.Not satisfied with that victoory, in the early congressional session of 2001, Young again introduced the original CARA. Again CARA passed the House Resources Committee and headed back down the road to passage. Again it failed.

However, in a dramatic, sneaky midnight play, just hours before Congress adjourned for the Christmas holiday, Young again managed a behind closed doors compromise to pass the American Wildlife Enhancement Act. Named "Son of CARA" by opponents, the bill provided another $600 million in federal funds to pack more private property under federal control. But again, the "Son of CARA" did not have the permanent trust fund provision.

Congressman Young is determined to get that trust fund. So now he's back with yet another version of CARA. Once again Young has teamed up with California Democrat George Miller to introduce the Get Outdoors Act (HR4100). Apparently Young felt his act was getting old, so he's changed the name.

He's also changed his reasons as to why America needs to lock away millions of acres of its landscape. The reason used to be the worn out and misleading excuse of conservation and protection of the environment, but a clever guy like Young can read the papers like the rest of us. And he knows that Americans are now less interested in the environment and are more concerned with health care; specifically OBESITY!

Believe it or not, Young and Miller are trying to convince Congress that locking away millions of acres of land will provide space for fat people to "get outdoors" (get it) and solve the obesity problem.

As the bill was introduced at a news conference, Miller and Young came armed with stacks of statistics on obesity to make their case. "Obesity is a public health crisis of the first order, " said Miller, "And the Get Outdoors Act is a sensible way to help mitigate that public health crisis." Young and Miller comically try to justify this massive spending bill by saying, "The $3.125 billion annual spending resulting from the Get Outdoors Act is about 3% of the annual healthcare costs associated with obesity related illness."

What they didn't mention was the fact that the government already controls millions of open space, which if obesity must be addressed in this manner, could already be used without grabbing even more. They didn't mention it because their premise is absolutely stupid.

A good question to ask is how Young and Miller expect to get Americans away from in front their televisions and computers to actually get them out doors? Pass a law?

As Chuck Cushman of the American Land Rights Association points out, "they could buy 15 million really good treadmills for that kind of money and really help folks fighting obesity." Even better, as Brian Kennedy, spokesman for the House Resources Committee said, "It would cost the American taxpayer less to get a membership at Gold's Gym and actually work out than acquire millions of acres of land in the name of health."

But Young and Miller really seem to have their hearts set on confiscation of private property instead. The two representatives were aided in their absurd argument by Alan Front, senior vice president of the Trust for Public Land, when he said "Our open space is shrinking and our waist lines are growing." Cute sound bite, but it makes no sense whatsoever.

What does make sense is that Front and all of the usual land-grabbing suspects were on hand to give support to the Get Outdoors Act (GO). Groups which never cared a whit about obesity before are now backing the bill. They include The Nature Conservancy, Trust for Public Land, the Izaak Walton League of America, the National Parks and Conservation Association, National Wildlife Federation, the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies and several others who have been the leaders in pushing for federal land grabs. Now suddenly they are backing a bill about fixing obesity.

What do these land grabbers know that Young and Miller aren't telling the rest of us? It's obvious they know that the Get Outdoors Act is really CARA hiding under a paper bag like the old Gong Show's Unknown Comic, so you and I don't recognize it. Young says the Get Outdoors Act is not CARA.

Well, let's just see, shall we? With GO, Rep. Young finally would get his permanent trust fund. Only this time, instead of a measly $45 billion, the ante is increased to $58 billion over 18 years. Establishing the trust fund would mean setting up a permanent entitlement like Social Security. That means it would be funded automatically, no matter what happens to the economy. It wouldn't be affected by tax cutting policies. It couldn't be reduced. It would sit outside the federal budget like a big fat blob. Funding the Get Outdoors Act would take precedence over military spending or medical care.

The GO Act claims that funding for the trust fund would come from offshore drilling fees that the government collects from private companies. Young claims that the money is already being collected and so the $45 billion would not result in new taxes for Americans. That kind of accounting is typical of someone who has been on Capitol Hill way too long. True, the money is already being collected ? and it's already being spent to support otther programs ? which aren't going to go away just because Doon Young has other ideas for the money. To keep funding those programs government will have to raise taxes.

And what will the Get Outdoors Act actually do? It will provide billions of dollars over 18 years to condemn private land and put it into the hands of the government to be turned into wilderness. And don't forget, every acre of private land that is taken out of productive use reduces the tax roles that will have to be made up by the remaining taxpayers.

It will pour millions of dollars into the coffers of environmental groups that will use the money to promote more land control policies, sue individual land owners and businesses.

The GO Act will encourage the designation of new United Nations Biosphere Reserves and World Heritage Sites, threatening American Sovereignty over our own land. Incredibly, Don Young was the author of the American Land Sovereignty Protection Act that was designed to reign in UN Heritage Sites.

The bill will greatly enhance the chances for more roadless area lockups that have been used to destroy the timber industry and in some cases shut down whole communities. Once roads have been closed property owners have found they have no way to get to their own house.

The Get Outdoors Act will allow environmental groups to actively look for endangered species on private land. It provides $60 million a year to train an army of investigators who will trespass on private land to locate and police endangered species. Once found, the land will become unusable by the private owners, effectively locking it away from private use.

The Get Outdoors act is a disaster to private property owners and to the American economy. Young argues that there are protections for private property. It's a tired old lie. The "willing sellers provisions are always put into such land grabs and everybody in Congress sits back satisfied that all is well. Only they aren't there to see the carnage that takes place to produce a "willing seller." It's a little like watching a hot dog being made. You don't want to know.

Green groups armed with federal funds from bills like the GO Act, intimidate and threaten property owners until they can't take it any more. When they finally give up and sell for 25 cents on the dollar they are called willing sellers. Does anyone see these people trying to sell their land before the greens and feds come marching in. Of course not. They aren't willing sellers ? they are victims.

The Get Outdoors Act is CARA. It is a massive land grab. It is a massive burden to tax payers. Its pretense of caring about obesity and public health is a lie. Issues come and issues go, but Congressmen with hair-brained ideas seem to plague us forever.


----------



## indsport (Aug 29, 2003)

Pay attention readers: see how the opposition frames its arguments and tries to divert your attention rather than sticking to the topic.

"Controlled oppostion groups such as DU are already challenging North Dakotas anti-corporate farming law."

Diversionary tactic. None of the bills challenged the farming law.

Willing seller. It's a theme. At the Capitol in Bismarck debating DU leadership like to say that too.

Diversion again by pointing to the opposition rather than logically refuting whether a willing seller has any private property rights.

The trouble with our opposition is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so.
(to paraphrase a president who was correct on this issue)


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

indsport wrote,



> "Controlled oppostion groups such as DU are already challenging North Dakotas anti-corporate farming law."
> 
> Diversionary tactic. None of the bills challenged the farming law.


You are correct indsport. None of the Bills challenged the anti-corporate farming law, just not yet. First get the funding and then let all the dust settle. Let a couple years pass then get the anti-corporate farming law abolished like they did in Nebraska.

Maybe here in ND, ducks unlimited, the wildlife society, the wildlife federation, pheasants forever, the nature conservancy etc. would like to trade their non-profit, non-governmental, corporate status in exchange?


----------



## indsport (Aug 29, 2003)

I suspect that the groups you list want the same ability as they do in all the other 49 states for land ownership.


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

How much federal land is enough? I believe it is important that we put a number on it.

indsport, what figure do you think it should be?

Keep in mind that we the people view private real property as that which we control the economic activity and the means of production.


----------



## indsport (Aug 29, 2003)

How much federal land is enough? I believe it is important that we put a number on it.

That is neither the correct question or the objective and it never was about federal land. As a noted politician would say, there they go again. To answer your question, It is rather how much we the people of North Dakota want land that is not agriculture, or developed for oil, to enjoy for other purposes (as well as where and how to pay for it) as well as having a common bond with the private landowner for access to the landowner's property (and not for me to decide). As noted in other posts, living in North Dakota is quite different than any other state. We have less true public land (e.g. parks) owned by the government (e.g. federal, state. local) than almost every other state. All we ask is that the "public" get a chance to express their preferences for the future of North Dakota. The singular question is Does a private landowner have the right to dispose his or her property without restriction by law? The answer is clear in North Dakota law. A resounding NO that is in opposition to the benefits enjoyed by landowners of the other 49 states and any citizen of the US (other than a North Dakota citizen). What is it about the common law in effect in the other 49 states that private property owner''s rights shall not be infringed by the US or state constitutions that you do not understand? (and lastly, why do you keep changing the subject from non profit, to federal, to state to local)?


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> How much federal land is enough? I believe it is important that we put a number on it.


Not to agree that this means federal land ------- Enough so hunting continues in North Dakota for the common man. Enough so one need not make $100K per year to hunt. Enough so those who worship money can not hold the sportsmen of North Dakota hostage. How much do you think that would be?

There are a couple of subjects that are overlapping, so my answer must overlap also. Since habitat and wildlife are being adversely affected by oil production isn't it right that they be compensated? Landowners who have oil on their land are being compensated in cash. I don't think they need more compensation. I think counties need money from the oil revenue, I think the state needs money for roads, I think things affected need compensation. To think otherwise is placing the value of money above all else. Money is not the singular measure of the quality of life.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

Hey g/o, glad to see you're up and at 'em again. Must be the nice the nice spring weather, kind of like Pennsylvania's Punxsutawney Phil. Actually the Fargo Forum has been running multiple editorials for the Outdoor Heritage position. Of course big money opposes it.

Here's a piece that is not an editorial:



> Go to theprairieblog.areavoices.com and get the news on a drilling permit request that will put at least four wells immediately adjacent to the Elkhorn Ranch fence line. The Industrial Commission will hold a hearing at 9AM on Thursday March 28 in Bismarck at which they will, of course, unanimously grant the permits. The company is so assured of getting the permit they have already put stakes in the groundmarking where the drill pad will go. It will be immediately adjacent to the parking area and will probably block the road and access to the Elkhorn site itself. The permit request was buried on page 22 of a 24 page agenda and does not even mention the Elkhorn- only the land coordinates. They obviously expected nobody would notice until it was too late. Fortunately there actually are people who read such arcane material and can translate the bureaucratese. Neither the state or the oil company bothered to even inform the National Park Service. Even worse- Jack Dalrymple apparently owns stock in ExxonMobil the parent company of XTO, the company requesting the permit. Does anybody believe he will recuse himself from the decision? This permit if granted will destroy, repeat, destroy one of the most important and
> most historic sites in North Dakota. The wells will be only a couple hundred yards from the actual house site where Theodore Roosevelt lived. Do the citizens of North Dakota want this? NO! Please plan on attending the hearing and let Jack Dalrymple, Wayne Stenjhem, Doug Goehring and Lynn Helms know that this is just going too far. The hearing will be at the Oil and Gas Division Headquarters at 1000 E. Calgary Ave. in Bismarck at 9 AM on Thursday March 28th. It is not at the capital building. They are even trying to hide the meeting.


Everybody knows the "hearing process" is fair and balanced, right? Right. So g/o I'll bet you a sarsaparilla in a dirty glass how this vote will go. When ND wants to sell tourism they dig up Teddy and wave him in the air. But when they want real money they just punch in oil wells at his ranch.


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

> Everybody knows the "hearing process" is fair and balanced, right? Right. So g/o I'll bet you a sarsaparilla in a dirty glass how this vote will go. When ND wants to sell tourism they dig up Teddy and wave him in the air. But when they want real money they just punch in oil wells at his ranch.


I'll take thats bet, first off they are not planning on drilling on Teddy's "Elkhorn Ranch". When the dust settles they will not be drilling next to the parking lot either. However will they drill on the land they have leased I would hope so.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

Ok, I'll find some dirty glasses and sarsaparilla and hold them in the escrow account....

Here is another Forum editorial calling for stewardship of our Outdoor Heritage:

http://www.inforum.com/event/article/id ... p/Opinion/


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Dick I have some comments for you about that article. As you may be aware of I have been involved with research that has studied carbon sequestration.



> Moreover, studies show that grassland soil captures carbon better than cropland.


Carbon is stored when plants take it from the atmosphere and grow. Some of that growth is in the roots. When those roots decay underground the carbon is captured and held. When a plow breaks that ground all the carbon those prairie plants store is released. So they grow a crop that doesn't really save anything and release more pollution than a small town in a year.



> groundwater levels are plummeting


That's true. I monitored 78 wells from 18 feet to 410 feet deep from 1978 to 1995. Other people took over after that and still monitor those wells. Corn irrigation may be part of the problem, but drain and tile are by far the greatest threat to our aquifers.



> Congress passed the Renewable Fuel Standard in 2005, anticipating that there would be considerable production of cellulosic ethanol made from switch grass


Yes, that particular grass is _Panicum virgatum_, and is many times more efficient than corn. The inefficiency in corn ethanol is not at the plants it's in the production of corn. Many ag interests don't want you to understand that.



> harming millions of people in poor countries who rely heavily on U.S. corn exports.


Very true and one fellow who was on here debated me all of the time telling me that he was feeding the world. Some people care, but ethanol producers are not concerned with the starving poor they are concerned with their wallet and nothing else. When you understand the true nature of corn ethanol it becomes abundantly clear what the real concern is, and that is the dollar.



> We can only hope that the light bulb will turn on for Congress and the White House before the ethanol mandate destroys the American prairie and drives food costs even higher.


There is a reason the steaks I grilled in the past went from $4.50 to $10 a pound. Even though pork has gone up I am eating a lot more of it. As for the prairie we only have a remnant left. One of the old fellows I knew at work compiled the acreage of prairie in North Dakota in 1962 and compared it to 1985. We lost more than 75% in that short time. Then if you stop and think about it very little remained in 1962. Sorry to say, but this may be the last generation of hunters, and we are as to blame as the farmers because we have sucked up the landowner rights line.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

Plainsman, a couple months ago I read an article on water use in the USA. Projected a 40% increased use in potable drinking water by 2017 nationwide. When good water becomes scarce, ND is going to lose access to Missouri River water due to down stream political control. The ND legislature drinks bottled water so that isn't a concern. The major aquifers here are targets already by industry. Look at Spiritwood. We are going to rue the day that water was dumped from wetlands.

The author above covered many topics but one that is ignored is the tragedy of corn based fuel that will be an economic wake-up, that will eventually hit ag country just like the housing bubble. Value is transferred artificially through tax gifts, tariffs, and mandates to corn and thus cropland, inflating those values unreasonably high. When the value flows back the other way, and it will, you're going to hear ag howl like a wounded wolf as prices of corn and land plummet.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Dick have been wondering a long time about the land prices. I will have little sympathy for those who paid twice what land is worth. I think they should be treated like any other business and when the axe falls let them go through bankruptcy like anyone else. Survival of the fittest doesn't mean just brawn for animals or men. If your stupid you will pay the price and those purchasing land right now at inflated prices are stupid. It isn't up to the rest of society that is smart to save fools. It's natures way of telling them maybe they should flip burgers at McDonalds because they are not smart enough to farm.


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

http://bismarcktribune.com/bakken/xto-p ... 963f4.html

I can't wait for Dick to pay up


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Very good news g/o. I don't begrudge the oil company their right to drill, but they can move back just a little bit.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

> Based on public interest, it appears the hearing on the drilling plan scheduled for Thursday would have been packed with park supporters opposed to oil development there.


Gotta love it. I'll go out to the chicken coop and find the drinking glasses for you! I know there is some frozen sarsaparilla some place. This is one of those bets if you lose, you win. It was never a sure thing because of how the Killdeer Mountain site was sold to everyone's loss. Anyway, it shows what citizen involvement can do. We just need need to keep pushing that effort forward. There are a lot of badlands left that need the same protection.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

Another article from the Bismarck Herald: 
http://bismarcktribune.com/bakken/n-d-g ... f887a.html



> The park's Elkhorn Ranch site preserves where Roosevelt built his cattle ranch cabin in 1884 on the Little Missouri River north of Medora. Wells are staked 100 feet from the site boundary and public parking lot there, but XTO spokesman Jeff Neu said there's no official decision on the exact location......Park Superintendent Valerie Naylor calls the possible wells the worst threat to the park in its history.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

Outdoor Heritage. If a picture is worth a thousand words.....









*Hot spots of grassland conversion: This map shows the percentage of existing grasslands that were converted into corn or soybean fields between 2006 and 2011.*

And that compilation doesn't consider CRP going back to other crops either. Which only makes it worse. It is hard to name a ND wildlife species that isn't falling off the table in numbers.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

Drilling.


----------



## People (Jan 17, 2005)

That is the new order of business. Keep exploiting the little man and his lands and make it harder to make a buck. Iowa is a sad place to see. I think this is their motto.

No tree or old farmstead will stand in our way of corn. We will spray fertilizer when and where ever we want. We will also tell you to your face you are crazy when you wear your gas mask because the stuff in the air is the week stuff.
Oh yeah can we have your change so and so and a few others need it for their cancer treatments.

Nagasaki never had a bomb dropped on it. Chuck Norris jumped out of a plane and punched the ground.


----------

