Cold Hard Cashner

Iowa Caucus Wrap Up

2012-01-07T16:23:00.003-06:00

Well, the 2012 Iowa Caucus is over and the national media have now vacated the state faster than a class of graduates. Officially Mitt Romney won with 30,015 votes(24.6%), narrowly edging out Rick Santorum who had 30,007 votes (24.5%). There's some questions about some of the vote counts so I think you could call it a tie. Ron Paul came in third with 26,219 votes (or 21.4% of the total).

Those were the three coveted "tickets out of Iowa" with the remaining candidates divvying up the electoral crumbs. Michele Bachmann, who beat Dr. Paul in a squeaker at the Ames Straw Poll this summer, dropped out after her poor showing in the caucus.

While I was definitely a little disappointed that Paul didn't come in first, Reason magazine editor Matt Welch gives seven reasons why Paulistas like myself should take heart. Among them:

Paul more than doubled his vote over 2008, while Mitt Romney's stayed exactly the same. Seriously, Romney got 30,000 votes (25 percent of the total) in 2008, then 30,000 votes (25 percent of the total) in 2012. Paul vaulted from 10 percent to 21, from 12,000 votes to 26,000. His message of freedom, limited government, attacking the Federal Reserve, and ending wars foreign and domestic is undeniably on the grow.

Paul's delegate- and caucus-focused strategy means that he will likely punch above his electoral weight. The campaign focused not just on doing well at the caucus, but making sure Paul-friendly humans get nominated as county delegates, so that when the 25-delegate pie is eventually divvied up Dr. No will get more than projected.

Barring an unexpected and popular new Republican entrant, Paul is virtually guaranteed of making the Final Four once more. Last time around, Paul finished fifth in Iowa and fifth in New Hampshire, on the way to an overall fourth-place showing in the delegate count. This time Paul finished third in Iowa, and is polling at second in New Hampshire.

Ron Paul, and more importantly his ideas, are in it for the long haul. Other candidates will run out of money; Ron Paul won't. Most politicians see their business in primarily transactional terms of winning, losing, and influencing legislation; Paul sees his as proselytizing for freedom. "Where we are very successful," he said his speech last night, "is re-introducing some ideas the Republicans needed for a long time, and that is the conviction that freedom is popular."

Okay, I feel a little better.

When I was watching some evaluation of Ron Paul's performance a pundit on TV said that Paul did well in college towns because college campuses were rife with "isolationists" against the wars. While it may have happened, I personally couldn't recall a single instance of any talking head in the media leveling the dreaded term "isolationist" against Cindy Sheehan or the myriad of anti-war protesters when Bush was in office. But now that Obama is commander-in-chief and Ron Paul is the "peace candidate," suddenly anti-war college students are now "isolationist." My compliments to the media; you never cease to amaze.

Iowa Gun Owners on Iowa Caucus

2012-01-02T19:17:00.001-06:00

I received the following from Iowa Gun Owners:

Iowa Gun Owners wants to inform you about where the candidates stand on your gun rights.

First some good news:

Congresswoman Michele Bachmann and Congressman Ron Paul (in alphabetical order), were the two candidates to complete the survey 100% in favor of your gun rights. This means that, amongst other things, they’ve pledged to:

• Repeal any legislation that would re-institute the so called “Assault Weapons Ban.”

• Repeal the 1993 Brady Bill which allows the government to track what guns you purchase, setting the stage for a national gun registry.

• Repeal legislation that bans guns on school zones, which leaves tens of millions of school children virtually defenseless as their teachers can’t carry a gun.

• Stop any attempts to pass a UN Small Arms Treaty.

Congressman Ron Paul has recently introduced legislation to deal with some of the issues mentioned here – thus putting his money where his mouth is.

These are the candidates that are not afraid of the anti-gun special interest groups, their pals in the media, and their friends in Congress. No one else has the record and the survey results that Congresswoman Bachmann and Congressman Paul.

But that’s where the good news ends.

We should mention that Senator Santorum has completed the survey as well. On his second attempt he answered the questions correct. However Senator Santorum has a history of anti-gun votes during his time in the US Senate - and it took a lot of activism on your part to get a signed survey.

Santorum voted for the NICS compliance act, mandating that you alert the federal government in nearly every case where you buy a firearm. That’s the last thing gun owners want – their government knowing that they are a gun owner.

Santorum also voted to mandate trigger locks on all new guns being sold. As Iowa Gun Owners documented recently, this has led to horrific murders in cases where victims couldn’t unlock their guns in time.

Yet Santorum refuses to apologize for these votes. His poor initial survey response, combined with his history of anti-gun votes leave us very concerned about his willingness to fight for gun owners should he be the GOP nominee or the President someday.

Newt Gingrich refuses to answer our survey, after his staff assured us that we would receive it. Gingrich used the power of his office and Speaker of the House to voice tremendous support for the Brady Bill. He even said that he wants to take away more of your freedoms by mandating that you surrender your thumb print to the government to be able to buy a firearm. Imagine being treated like a common criminal for wanting to exercise a constitutionally guaranteed right!

It’s no surprise then that Newt’s State Chairwoman is none other that House Majority Leader Linda Upmeyer. Upmeyer broke her written promise by working to KILL Constitutional Carry last session in the House.

Mitt Romney also refuses to answer our survey. But this should be no surprise. Romney has loudly proclaimed his support for mandatory waiting periods and mandatory background checks. But far worse, as Governor of Massachusetts, Romney signed into law a PERMAMENT ban on so-called assault weapons.

Romney’s State Chairwoman is Assistant Majority Leader Renee Schulte. Schulte also lied to gun owners in Iowa by voting to kill Constitutional Carry last year in the House after taking gun owners' votes, time and campaign contributions.

Governor Perry and Former Governor Jon Huntsman have also refused our survey.

This has been an exciting process for us at Iowa Gun Owners. One campaign, that has since imploded, threatened IGO with a libel lawsuit for exposing the position of their candidate during the Iowa Straw Poll.

Another campaign’s staff almost attacked IGO staff and volunteers at a Fox News debate back in August because we were informing so many Iowans about the refusal of their candidate to put his views on the 2nd Amendment on paper.

Multiple campaigns have sought out our endorsement, although we can not and do not endorse candidates.

Our ONLY goal at Iowa Gun Owners is to doggedly find out which candidates really support your gun rights. Don’t forget, “everyone” is pro-gun at election time, or so they say.

We’ve learned that during last year’s mid-term elections. Even the worst candidate on the 2nd Amendment claims to support your rights.

That’s why we issue surveys. A survey doesn’t ensure that a politician will stay faithful to his pledge. But a candidate who refuses to go on the record on gun rights is certainly not a candidate who will support your right to keep and bear arms.

Please consider a small contribution to Iowa Gun Owners to help us cover the costs of our survey program. Our mail, email and robocall program was effective at exposing a slew of anti-gun candidates.

But as we approach the 2012 legislative session we need to replenish our coffers to be able to alert gun owners to the threats that will no doubt come out of the General Assembly this session.

Any amount is helpful. If you can donate $50 to help us pay for this program we would be very grateful. If that is too much, consider chipping in just $5 or $10 instead.

We will put it to immediate use.

Also, you should know that Capitol insiders are reporting that some in the GOP establishment are working hard to remove the Constitutional Carry provision to the Iowa GOP Platform.

They are doing this because they know that their party looks bad when their platform professes support for Constitutional Carry - and then their party promptly caves into the anti-gun lobby in Des Moines and votes to KILL Constitutional Carry.

So they want to remove that portion from the platform.

Iowa gun owners who attend the GOP caucus should resist this and instead, offer this plank to strengthen the platform:

"We demand full restoration of 2nd Amendment rights and call for a state law authorizing law-abiding citizens to carry firearms, open or concealed, without a permit, an idea known as Constitutional Carry.

"We call upon the General Assembly to take immediate action on Constitutional Carry so that law abiding gun owners will no longer have to pay outrageous fees for permitting, submit to government mandated training, and have their fingerprints taken in the same manner that a criminal does."

For Freedom,

Aaron Dorr
Exectutive Director

Iowa Ron Paul Update

2011-12-28T23:34:00.001-06:00

Things are looking good for Ron Paul here in Iowa. The "Real Clear Politics Average" of several polls currently shows him in first place among likely voters. State Senator Kent Sorenson, Michele Bachmann’s Iowa campaign chairman, recently defected to Dr. Paul's campaign.

Steve Hoodjer over at Iowa Freedom Report wrote up a nice endorsement of Dr. Paul. "In 30 years in Congress, Dr. Paul has compiled an unprecedented voting record," writes Hoodjer. "With his strict adherence to his oath of office to defend the Constitution, Paul’s votes have set him apart from both Democrats and his fellow Republicans. By standing alone for liberty, sometimes on the losing end of 434-1 votes, Paul has well earned his title as 'the one exception to the gang of 535 on Capitol Hill.'"

He continues: "Of all the votes Paul has taken during his lonely watch as a sentry for freedom, perhaps none was more important than his 'no' to the Iraq War. With the Wilsonians and globalists in firm command of the Republican Party, all lofty conservative goals are now sacrificed to one aim – a constant state of global welfare and global warfare. By daring to challenge the party orthodoxy, Paul re-opened the debate over the proper reach of American foreign policy and introduced truly republican (with a small 'r') ideas into the mainstream[.]

"By operating above the banal traditions of blind partisanship, Ron Paul has united under the libertarian banner a coalition diverse in race, religion, age, sexual orientation, and prior allegiance. Riding this wave of enthusiasm, victory for Paul in the nomination contest is no longer out of the question."

Let's hope Hoodjer is right. Be sure to caucus for Ron Paul on January 3rd.

Belated Merry Christmas

2011-12-26T13:07:00.005-06:00

As I was flipping around the channels this Christmas vacation I came upon a movie where Santa Claus and a talking dog were in a cavern beneath the North Pole observing the giant magical icicle which gives Santa his powers. It seemed the damned thing was melting because people were forgetting the true meaning of Christmas. Let me say that again: Santa Claus and a talking dog were lamenting the loss of the true meaning of Christmas.

I didn't watch the rest of the movie, but in the short bit of the conversation between Santa and the talking dog that I did catch, the birth of Christ never came up, and I doubt it did in the rest of the movie either. So to put Santa's mind at ease (and to keep the old boy's magical icicle from melting), here's a bit from the holiday's original source code to remind folks (including any movie producers) of the true meaning of Christmas.

Matthew 1:18-25 (Today's New Internat'l Version)

This is how the birth of Jesus the Messiah came about: His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be pregnant through the Holy Spirit. Because Joseph her husband was a righteous man and did not want to expose her to public disgrace, he had in mind to divorce her quietly.

But after he had considered this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, “Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins.”

All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: “The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel” (which means “God with us”).

When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife. But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus.

Luke 2: 1-20

In those days Caesar Augustus issued a decree that a census should be taken of the entire Roman world. (This was the first census that took place while Quirinius was governor of Syria.) And everyone went to their own town to register.

So Joseph also went up from the town of Nazareth in Galilee to Judea, to Bethlehem the town of David, because he belonged to the house and line of David. He went there to register with Mary, who was pledged to be married to him and was expecting a child. While they were there, the time came for the baby to be born, and she gave birth to her firstborn, a son. She wrapped him in cloths and placed him in a manger, because there was no guest room available for them.

And there were shepherds living out in the fields nearby, keeping watch over their flocks at night. An angel of the Lord appeared to them, and the glory of the Lord shone around them, and they were terrified. But the angel said to them, “Do not be afraid. I bring you good news of great joy that will be for all the people. Today in the town of David a Savior has been born to you; he is the Messiah, the Lord. This will be a sign to you: You will find a baby wrapped in cloths and lying in a manger.”

Suddenly a great company of the heavenly host appeared with the angel, praising God and saying, “Glory to God in the highest heaven, and on earth peace to those on whom his favor rests.”

When the angels had left them and gone into heaven, the shepherds said to one another, “Let’s go to Bethlehem and see this thing that has happened, which the Lord has told us about.”

So they hurried off and found Mary and Joseph, and the baby, who was lying in the manger. When they had seen him, they spread the word concerning what had been told them about this child, and all who heard it were amazed at what the shepherds said to them. But Mary treasured up all these things and pondered them in her heart. The shepherds returned, glorifying and praising God for all the things they had heard and seen, which were just as they had been told.

Merry Christmas to all!

Ron Paul: Champion of the Constitution

2011-12-11T15:38:00.002-06:00

Like many others I once raised my hand and swore an oath to defend the U.S. Constitution. Bill Salier once reminded me that that oath has no expiration date. Whether or not you formally took that oath is immaterial. It is incumbent upon all Americans to defend the Constitution. It is the basis for our form of government and our very way of life as Americans.

Ignored, abused, and denied by the political class for decades, that Constitution is now under direct assault. The “Father of the Constitution,” James Madison, wrote: "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined… [and they] will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce.” But now the federal government has usurped so much power that seemingly every human activity falls under its purview. The price tag for this constant encroachment is a loss of freedom and a crushing debt upon our children.

Only one candidate for president has a long, proven track record of defending the Constitution: Ron Paul. He has defended it not just when it was politically convenient, not just when campaigning, not just when addressing “Tea Party” activists, but always and often. When you cast your vote in the January 3rd Republican caucus, cast it in defense of the U.S. Constitution. Vote for Dr. Ron Paul.

[I just sent this in to the Cedar Rapids Gazette as a letter to the editor.]

Iowa Caucus Countdown

2011-12-11T12:23:00.002-06:00

There is less than a month to go until the Iowa caucuses on January 3rd when Iowa becomes the center of the American political universe for a day. Probably to the chagrin of some of my Libertarian Party friends, I am once again a registered Republican so I can go cast a vote for Ron Paul.

For any who also want to do so, you can find an Iowa voter registration form here. Simply print it out, mark the box for Republican Party and send it in to or drop it off at your local county auditor's office. But do so quickly, time is running out! If you're normally an independent or some other party you can change your party affiliation back after the election.

Also, if any Ron Paul supporters are on Facebook, check out the event page for the "Ron Paul Iowa Caucus Mail Bomb" I set up. It's an easy and free way to support Dr. Paul's efforts here in Iowa.

Ron Paul may be on the verge of major upset in the Hawkeye State. A Paul win would send shock waves throughout the statist political duopoly. Sounds like a winning proposition to me!

The Ron Paul Plan

2011-11-06T16:47:00.003-06:00

At a time when we are adding over a trillion dollars to our national debt every year, the Congressional Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction (a body designed to make the hard decisions that Congress itself has been too cowardly to make) is expected to recommend making about that much in spending reductions over ten years. When they’re driving us over a fiscal cliff I guess it’s nice to know that they’re at least thinking about downshifting. This laughable budget-cutting contrasts with the economic plan offered by Congressman and Republican presidential hopeful Dr. Ron Paul.

Dr. Paul’s detailed “Plan to Restore America” would cut $1 trillion from the federal budget during the first year of the Paul presidency and deliver a balanced budget by the third year. Paul’s plan would eliminate five do-nothing federal departments (Energy, HUD, Commerce, Interior, and Education) and reduce the federal workforce by 10%. It would block grant Medicaid and welfare to the states, allowing flexibility and cost-savings.

If you think such cuts are too much and would knock the federal budget back into the 1800’s, no such luck. Nationally syndicated columnist Jacob Sullum points out, “Paul's plan would not return the country to the 1990s, let alone the 19th century. It calls for total outlays of $2.9 trillion in 2015, which is about as much as the federal government spent as recently as 2003, adjusted for inflation.” They are substantial cuts, but not oppressive.

Ron Paul would extend the Bush tax cuts, lower the corporate tax rate to 15%, and abolish taxes on inheritance, capital gains and personal savings. Paul’s plan would repeal the job-crushing Obamacare, Dodd-Frank, and Sarbanes-Oxley laws and repeal many onerous regulations. It would audit the Federal Reserve and use free market techniques to strengthen the dollar and stabilize inflation. In a symbolic gesture, President Paul would take a salary of $39,336, the median income of the American worker.

You can read the plan in-depth at RonPaul2012.com. At a recent forum, Governor Branstad praised Ron Paul’s plan as “the boldest plan to reduce the federal deficit.” With the country careening ever closer to socio-economic collapse, if now isn’t the time for “bold plans” such as Dr. Paul proposes, when will be? I’ll vote for Ron Paul in the January 3rd Republican caucus.

Braley Bytes: Ben Lange Back To Battle Braley Edition

2011-10-11T21:19:00.002-05:00

According to Craig Robinson at The Iowa Republican:

On Wednesday, Ben Lange, the Republican nominee in the 1st Congressional District in 2010, will announce that he will begin to actively prepare for a rematch with Congressman Bruce Braley in the reconfigured 1st Congressional District. Lange narrowly lost to Braley in what was one of the closest races in the country in 2010. Lange lost to Braley by 4,209 votes, which was less than two percent of the vote.

A rematch between Lange and Braley would be interesting, but while the candidates will be familiar with one another, the reconfigured 1st District will make the 2012 campaign much different from the 2010 contest.

Other potential Republican challengers to Braley include Cedar Rapids businessman Steve Rathje and former C.R. mayor Paul Pate. Robinson continues:

Not only is Bruce Braley is vulnerable, but it seems certain that Republicans will once again put up a tough candidate against him. Braley took less than 50 percent of the vote last cycle, a critical threshold for campaign odds-makers. Since the last election, his star has continued falling, including losing his choice seat on the House Energy and Commerce Committee. He has become marginalized in Washington and has continued casting votes (aside from government takeovers, bailouts, and Obamacare) that will put him at odds with the majority of voters in the new district.

Since he's a conservative and I'm a libertarian, Ben Lange and I don't agree on every political point. But, I have to admit, I've got a soft spot for Lange, not just because of his noble sounding first name, but because we both grew up around the same unpronounceable small town of Quasqueton. Besides, I wish luck to anyone who wants to add Bruce Braley to the ranks of the unemployed.

Greg Graver Grabs Grand Win

2011-10-11T20:42:00.000-05:00

About a week late, but for those of you outside the area who might not have heard, Chief Deputy Greg Graver won the special sheriff's election mentioned in the previous post. Although Graver was nominated by petition and was running against the two major party candidates, he walked away with an impressive 72% of the vote.

Congratulations Sheriff Graver!

Jones County Sheriff's Election and the Second Amendment

2011-10-02T16:55:00.002-05:00

Here in Jones County Iowa we will be having a special election to choose our sheriff this Tuesday. Our long-time and well liked sheriff Mark Denniston retired this summer. Besides being a good all-around law enforcement officer and administrator, county gun owners liked Denniston because of his friendly stance on Second Amendment issues.

Sheriff Denniston maintained a "shall-issue" policy on weapons permits back when the state left issuance solely to each sheriff's discretion. After the statewide shall-issue law (which Denniston championed) passed, Jones County supervisors considered passing a carry ban in the county courthouse. Sheriff Denniston threw cold water on their idea (in the form of common sense), pointing out that signs with a line through a picture of a gun don't stop deranged shooters and that a true "gun-free zone" would require additional personnel and screening stations at each entrance, costing scads of money that the county didn't have.

When he decided to retire, Denniston initially asked his Chief Deputy Greg Graver if he'd be interested in finishing the balance of his term. Graver discovered that if a special election was called during that time, and if he lost, the appointed sheriff would lose his employment with the county. With a wife and three kids at home, Graver passed but expressed interest in running in the next election (which he assumed would be in 2012). Denniston then turned to long-time deputy and jailer Harvey DeSotel, who accepted.

The Jones County Supervisors approved DeSotel as the new sheriff and he has served in that office since June. The transition from Denniston to DeSotel was pretty seamless and smooth. Indeed, most Jones County residents probably never noticed. However, supporters of the other candidate that the Supervisors considered for the job, Rick LaMere, successfully circulated a petition calling for a special election to fill the spot.

That election will be this Tuesday, October 4th. On the ballot are Rick LaMere (Republican), Harvey L. DeSotel (Democrat), Greg A. Graver (Nominated by Petition) and Scotty Shover (Nominated by Petition). I wanted to ask the candidates their positions on some Second Amendment issues. I was only able to dig up email addresses for Sheriff DeSotel and Chief Deputy Graver. Thankfully, they're the only two I was considering voting for anyway.

LaMere is a retired DEA agent. The pragmatist in me says that the experience of being a federal agent doesn't directly translate into being a good local law enforcement officer. The libertarian in me says that the federal war on drugs has been one of this country's biggest, most expensive, unconstitutional failures leading to increased crime, corruption, and violence and decreased civil liberties, especially Fourth Amendment protections. If that's where this guy cut his teeth, no thanks. The other guy, Scotty Shover, has no law enforcement experience whatsoever and his main qualification seems to be that he collected the requisite number of signatures to appear on the ballot.

I asked DeSotel and Graver the following three questions via email:

1. Do you support Iowa's current "shall issue" weapons permit law as written?

2. Will you push for any additional carry restrictions in the county, such as on county property?

3. Would you support a permitless carry system ("Constitutional Carry"), such as been adopted in Vermont, Alaska and a few other states?

Here are Sheriff DeSotel's responses:

Question 1. Just as the former Sheriff, Mark Denniston, I fully support the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution. Mark would not have supported me without sharing the feelings.

Question 2. No I will not push for additional carry restrictions in the county. I believe there are too many restrictions as it stands.

Question 3. Should a state “Constitutional Carry” laws be brought up for adoption I am not certain. I still think there needs to be some sort of accountability. I’m not saying a big brother or myself needs to know, but any way we can keep the guns out of the bad guys hands is better than the other. I feel that every law abiding citizen that can show that they know how to handle a weapon safely should be given the right guaranteed to them by the constitution to carry that weapon as a matter of personal defense. I feel that the more that the public and the criminals know that the citizens of Jones County are carrying weapons for personal defense, I think that the amount of personal impact crime will stay down to where it is now. Jones County has long been known as a heavily carrying county, and the criminals know this too.

Here are Chief Deputy Graver's responses:

Question 1. I do support the "shall issue" law, but I would like to see a few minor changes. For example. If a retired vet brings in a DD214, he is issued a permit. Even if he has not been in the military since 1948. Yet a active war vet back from his 3rd tour of duty in Iraq, needs to show small arms quals. To me, although I support our vets, the 1st vet may not have held a firearm for 60 years and yet the law makes more of an issue for our active vets. It offends me, can't believe how they must feel!

Question 2. I spent 8 years of my career working mostly felony crimes. I know the criminals I sought out had access to firearms, no matter what the law said. Unless the county is willing to man 1 entrance with a metal detector and make it a safe zone, not going to happen. A sign on the door restricting firearms is not going to affect those looking for criminal activity. Those who are carrying lawfully should be permitted to carry on county property. Shootings at a court house have happened in the past and I would hope someone I issued a permit to, could intervene and stop the threat if I can't!

Question 3. I do not know enough about that to make an opinion. Since other states have gone to this, I would like to know from their experience, does the good outway (sic) the bad and how. I could base my opinion on their experience and this would give me great insight to make an informed decision.

In my humble opinion, Graver or DeSotel both are fine for sheriff. They both have plenty of experience in local law enforcement and neither appear anti-Second Amendment. Since I can't vote for them both, I'll be marking my ballot for Greg Graver. I believe Graver's wide-ranging experience (from patrol officer, to EMT, to supervisor, to criminal investigator) edges out DeSotel's. But if DeSotel wins, I'll sleep just fine at night too.

Walk to End Alzheimer's 2011

2011-09-18T13:53:00.002-05:00

Those of you who've read this blog for awhile know that every year about this time I participate in the Alzheimer's Association "Walk to End Alzheimer's" (formerly called "Memory Walk"). This year is no different and I'll be walking in the Manchester Iowa event on October 8th. If you would like to find a "Walk to End Alzheimer's" near you in Iowa check here.

The walks raise money for the Alzheimer's Association which bills itself as "the leading, global voluntary health organization in Alzheimer's care and support, and the largest private, nonprofit funder of Alzheimer's research." Alzheimer's disease is an incurable, degenerative brain disease. An early symptom is short-term memory loss, but eventually it leads to severe confusion, loss of linguistic abilities, and ultimately death. It is currently the 6th leading cause of death in the U.S. and its toll is raising.

If you've read the blog for awhile you'll probably also know that I have a personal interest in Alzheimer's disease. My mom was diagnosed with early-onset Alzheimer's about nine years ago at the age of 60. Although she was able to live at home with my father most of that time, this year her condition worsened dramatically and she had to move into a nursing home. It now appears that her time with us is growing short.

Although any cure found with current research funding that may come along will be too late for my mom, it will help somebody's mom... or dad or brother or sister. That's why I'll be walking in the event. If anyone would like to sponsor my walk with a small contribution to this worthy cause, please click here.

Ron Paul: The Media's 13th Floor

2011-08-22T21:21:00.005-05:00

Many of us Ron Paul supporters have been biting our knuckles for a long time over the fact that Ron Paul can't seem to get any notice from the mainstream media. Apparently others have begun to notice too. Check out this video of Daily Show host John Stewart (who is probably not a supporter of Dr. Paul, but just enjoys pointing out the media's foibles) as he demonstrates the media's ignoring of Ron Paul. (Stewart humorously likens the media's treatment of Paul to the 13th floor of a hotel.)

So why don't the media like Ron Paul? Writing for the Chicago Tribune, John Kass has some theories. One is that "the media is merely trying to provide us with loving protection from Paul and those challenging libertarian ideals:

"Such as the view we shouldn't be eager to be groped in airports or to fund another war in the Middle East, or that we should legalize drugs rather than fight the drug wars, or the wild idea that a coffee shop waitress should not be expected to pay taxes on her tips.

"These are extreme notions, though the principles behind them were once held dear by a few old guys in powdered wigs who founded this country.

"The TV people are happy to do the work for you, and tell you what notions are fit for public debate."

But another theory that he proffers is that the Democrat and Republican establishment (and thereby their cohorts in the media) are just plain scared of the old boy since he could steal votes from the existing power structure. Writes Kass: "Paul is anti-war, and there are many independent Democrats who've been anti-war, including those who elected President Barack Obama in 2008 and have since turned on him because, well, he recently help start a war in Libya, turning America's two wars into three.

"Paul also doesn't campaign on social issues, like outlawing abortion, or involving the government in the bedroom. He's not a political evangelical, so Paul's stance would be attractive to many Democrats."

Republican power brokers fear Paul mucking up the works too. "[I]t's obvious Republicans see Paul as a threat," writes Kass. "Perhaps it's the fact that Paul ridicules the GOP military drumbeat against Iran. It may be that he appeals to tea party fiscal conservatives, and if these voters begin to lean toward Paul, the establishment GOP will be left with defense contractors, neocons and evangelicals, not enough to win a national election."

So the media has lots of reasons to downplay Dr. Paul's campaign. Is there anything that can be done about it? Some local Ron Paul supporters are going to try.

Liberty-activist Brandon Echols recently informed me that a grassroots group will be staging a "protest in response to the Mainstream Media's blackout on coverage of Ron Paul." They will gather at the Cedar Rapids Gazette Headquarters (also home of KCRG tv news) at 500 3rd Ave SE, Cedar Rapids, Iowa from 4pm to 5pm on Friday, August 26. All who support Dr. Paul or are against biased journalism are encouraged to attend. You can view their Facebook event page here.

According to Echols, this will be a "peaceful and lawful" rally in support of Ron Paul. I should note that this assembly is not affiliated with, nor sanctioned by, Ron Paul 2012 Presidential Campaign.

A Day at the Straw Poll

2011-08-17T19:11:00.001-05:00

Representative Ron Paul addresses supporters at the Ames Straw Poll.
Dr. Paul is on the covered stage at center left. (Photo by author.)

After months of planning and hard work the Iowa Straw Poll in Ames is finally over. I spent the day there and, although the results weren't exactly what I wanted, it was time well spent.

The day began early as myself and some local Ron Paul supporters boarded a bus provided by the campaign in Anamosa. Fourteen of us got on at Anamosa and the bus already had about that many on it from Maquoketa. One septuagenarian that got on with us told me that his daughter had chided him for not riding with her group on the Michele Bachmann bus. He said that he told her that he wanted to ride with "the young people."

That might be a bit of an overgeneralization of Ron Paul's supporters, since they run the gamut, but Dr. Paul certainly does have more young and energetic followers than the others. I'm betting that our bus had more examples of tattoos and body-piercings than, say, a typical Rick Santorum bus. It's somewhat ironic that 76-year-old R.P., the oldest candidate in the race, would have so many young supporters. My theory on why is because younger Americans have been so immersed in commercial media their whole lives that they can tell the difference between when they are being talked to and when they are being marketed to. R.P. just says what he thinks while other candidates spout poll-tested platitudes designed to elicit the desired response (a vote).

As soon as the bus arrived at the ISU campus (where the Straw Poll takes place) a Ron Paul campaign staffer escorted our group up to the voting area and everyone voted. After that we were free to enjoy the festivities. Ron Paul's area was in the prime location in the central courtyard next to Hilton Coliseum. He had a stage with bands playing, games for the kids (including a dunk tank featuring someone in a Ben Bernanke mask getting dunked), and barbecue and hot dogs being served. I even spent an hour or so helping hand out pop and water to the thirsty crowd at Dr. Paul's beverage tent.

For once the campaign of the candidate I was supporting had all the bells and whistles and I didn't seem to be in the minority. People in R.P. t-shirts where everywhere, seemingly outnumbering all other supporters.

Besides all of the candidates, various groups such as Strong America Now, NRA, and Us Against Alzheimer's had booths or tents set up. High on my to-do list was to stop by the Iowa Gun Owners booth and get myself an IGO t-shirt. However, due to high demand, they were out by the time I made it to their booth. I guess I'll have to order one on their website.

Our group waited around as long as we could to hear the results of the Straw Poll but eventually had to go catch our bus home. On the ride home the news came in on cell phones that Ron Paul had came in a close second behind Michele Bachmann. The final results looked like this (Votes, %):

1. Congresswoman Michele Bachmann (4823, 28.55%)

2. Congressman Ron Paul (4671, 27.65%)

3. Governor Tim Pawlenty (2293, 13.57%)

4. Senator Rick Santorum (1657, 9.81%)

5. Herman Cain(1456, 8.62%)

6. Governor Rick Perry (718, 3.62%) write-in

7. Governor Mitt Romney (567, 3.36%)

8. Speaker Newt Gingrich (385, 2.28%)

9. Governor Jon Huntsman (69, 0.41%)

10. Congressman Thad McCotter (35, 0.21%)

Scattering (218, 1.30 %) Includes all those receiving votes at less than one-percent that were not on the ballot.

While Bachmann won the Straw Poll fair-and-square, we Paulistas can console ourselves with a few thoughts:

It ain't the caucus. The straw poll is non-binding test of campaign strength primarily used as a fund-raiser for the Iowa GOP. Hopefully the Paul campaign used it to identify their strengths and weaknesses and will put this information to good use winning the Iowa Caucus.
It was darned close! Only 152 votes (0.9%) separated Dr. Paul from the first place finisher. If Ron Paul had won by just a fraction of a percent (as Bachmann did), you can bet the press would be playing up what a squeaker the win was.
He did darned good! Ron Paul's second place vote total was higher than Mitt Romney's first place vote total in 2007 and was the fourth highest vote total in Straw Poll history. He won a higher percentage of the Straw Poll vote than the eventual caucus winner in three of the past four election cycles (including Mike Huckabee's 18.1%).
Bachmann gave away more free tickets. While most Ron Paul supporters like myself had to pay (a discounted price) for our tickets into the Straw Poll, his campaign did buy give away 4,750 tickets for free. Bachmann's campaign, by contrast, gave away 6,000 freebies. There's nothing underhanded about that, it's just easier to pack the house with free tickets to a free meal than a discounted price. Ron Paul supporters mostly had to pay to vote for him and he still almost won.

Anyway, Straw Poll down. Next stop: The Iowa Caucus.

Help Welcome Obama To Iowa

2011-08-14T21:37:00.005-05:00

For those of you who live in Northeast Iowa (or those of you who don't mind driving a little way) here is an email I received from the Dubuque Tea Party regarding President Obama's upcoming visit to the state.

As you probably know by now our job-killing president will be in Peosta, Iowa at Northeast Iowa Community College THIS TUESDAY for a Rural Economic Forum (another Agenda 21 initiative).
We are planning to protest this president during his visit. The information we have gathered shows that the Rural Economic Forum is scheduled to begin at 11:30 AM. We are planning to arrive in Peosta just before 10:00 AM. We will have to "play it by ear" as far as where we will be allowed by the Secret Service to park and protest.
Personally, I am going to try to park at the Red Roof Diner or at the Americinn which are very close to both the off ramp of Highway 20 and NICC. In my first email I mentioned that there is only one road in to NICC. I was wrong. There is also an entrance to NICC off Burds road to the north. Hopefully they will use the Enterprise Drive entrance.
I have got to believe the president's bus will come in on Highway 20 and exit onto Sundown Road/Y-21/Peosta Street and pass by the Americinn Motel and Suites. That's where I hope we can gather - along Peota Street in the grassy area in front of the Americainn.
For those who cannot make it in the morning there is another opportunity for you to protest. The Rural Economic Forum is scheduled to conclude at 2:30 PM. So, if you want you could gather at about 2:00 PM in the same above location to protest as the president departs.
Please spread the word. We would love a huge crowd to show the president and all the democrats in this area that we are still here in force, we are still very angry with this president's job-killing Keynesian policies, we are NOT going away, and we will do whatever it takes to make him a one-term president.
Bring your signs and join us THIS TUESDAY, AUGUST 16TH at 10:00 AM.
Yours in Liberty,
Jeff Luecke for YOUR Dubuque Tea Party

http://www.teadbq.org/

P.S. I know most of us work. I am taking the morning off to do this. We need to resist this man's incompetent manipulation and command/control of our economy. Let's send him a strong message!!!

Update from Jeff Luecke (8-15-11):

It has come to our attention that the streets/roads in Peosta will be shut down at 9:45 AM tomorrow morning.

So, we need to get to Peosta and check things out no later than 9:30 AM to see where we can park.

If worst comes to worst we can park on the shoulder of Highway 20 and walk to wherever we want to stand as we await "The Destroyer in Chief."

Hope to see you ALL there in FORCE to send a strong message to Mr. Obama that we do not want or need him and his oppressive policies in our lives.

"Santorum and Obama: Two Peas in a Pod?"

2011-08-12T21:43:00.000-05:00

Senator Rick Santorum:
As president would impose his personal values
judgements in place of U.S. Constitution.

An excerpt from an article by our friends at The Tenth Amendment Center:

Congresswoman Bachmann [...] has positioned herself repeatedly as a leader in the tea party, state’s rights, and Tenth Amendment movements. Asked last night whether there was a difference between the state or federal government mandating that an individual buy a product (referring primarily to health care insurance), Bachmann responded that there was no difference. It is “unconstitutional,” she maintained, regardless of whether it is imposed by the state or federal government. She did not cite which part of the Constitution denies states this authority.

Of course, that’s because no clause in the Constitution prevents states from doing it, as Congressman Paul rightly noted in response to Bachmann’s doublethink. Paul stated that the federal government is not empowered to go in and stop states that do bad things.

Moments later, Senator Santorum jumped in to criticize both of them, claiming that their responses were indicative of “the Tenth Amendment run amok.” Said Santorum:

Michelle Bachmann says that she would go in and fight health care being imposed by states, but she wouldn’t go in and fight marriage being imposed by the states. That would be okay. We have Ron Paul saying oh, whatever the states want to do under the Tenth Amendment is fine. So if the states want to pass polygamy, that’s fine. If the states want to impose sterilization, that’s fine. No! Our country is based on moral laws, ladies and gentleman. There are things the states can’t do. Abraham Lincoln said “the states do not have the right to do wrong.” I respect the Tenth Amendment, but we are a nation that has values. We are a nation that was built on a moral enterprise. And states don’t have the right to tramp over those because of the Tenth Amendment.

Leaving aside the fact that he inaccurately portrayed Rep. Paul’s stance, it is obvious that Santorum is no Tenther, but rather a power-loving thug looking to impose his personal set of morals and values on any people living under whatever level of government he can use to accomplish his goals. In this respect, he’s hardly different from Barack Obama at all.

Obviously, Santorum has either not read or understood the Tenth Amendment — included in the Constitution which he has on several occasions sworn an oath to support and defend — which provides for the very things he is criticizing.

States do have the ability, under the constitutional system the Founders put in place, to “do wrong.” They have the sovereign authority to decide whatever they wish on whatever matters they like, provided that this authority has not already been delegated to the federal government, or has not been explicitly denied them in the Constitution.

When we sit back for a moment and recognize that the federal government already claims the power to require to you to purchase health insurance, to tell you what size toilet you can have, what kind of plants you can grow in your back yard, what kind of light bulb you can use, and so much more – don’t we realize there’s already too much federal power? For people like Obama and Santorum, it sure doesn’t seem that way.

Read the entire article here.

Ron Paul vs. Michele Bachmann: A Leader or A Cheerleader

2011-07-30T08:35:00.001-05:00

Recently Jones County Ron Paul supporter Roger Kistler attended both a Ron Paul and a Michele Bachmann campaign event in the same day. In this letter Kistler provides an interesting comparison of the styles of those two candidates.

Dear Jones County Ron Paulers,

Yesterday I took the day off from my work. I’m glad I did. I learned a lot and I would like to share some of that with you.

At noon I attended the Ron Paul “meet and greet” in Cedar Rapids. At four o’clock I attended a Michele Bachmann event in Maquoketa. The difference between the two campaign events was stark. I am convinced more than ever before that Ron Paul should be our nation’s next chief executive.

At the Ron Paul meet and greet, people came into the meeting at the Marriott Hotel and either stood talking to one another or sat and chatted with the person sitting next to them until Dr. Paul was introduced. Before Dr. Paul began speaking the only sound was that of people talking to one another. At the Bachmann event held in the parking lot of Flapjacks restaurant, driving music was playing over loudspeakers as the people arrived. I chatted briefly with the lady next to me but really there were very few conversations taking place.

Bachmann campaign signs and stickers were freely passed out. Ron Paul had campaign signs as well. They were neatly stacked by the exit and could be picked up on the way out.

The Bachmann campaign was literally staged. They set up a tent and a stage probably twenty feet long in front of the audience with Ms Bachmann’s campaign bus serving as a back drop. On the stage were 8 chairs with people seated facing the audience holding Bachmann signs. Ron Paul stood at a hotel podium by himself.

Not counting campaign staff, I counted between 140 and 150 people at the Ron Paul event. I counted about 60 people at the Bachman event. I found it interesting that the front page of the Dubuque Telegraph Herald today reported Bachmann having “200 Iowans” present.

The numbers in attendance did not impress me as much as their ages. The Ron Paul group was by and large younger. I was on the older side of the age curve. The Bachmann crowd was older. I was on the younger side of that crowd’s age curve.

The messages of the two candidates were as different as night and day. Dr. Paul identified problems with the country as he saw them and then proceeded to explain how they could be solved in the political arena. The audience enthusiastically but politely applauded to statements to which they obviously agreed. Bachmann on the other hand was full of questions. “Do you think Washington is spending too much of your money?” “Do you want to get rid of Obama care?” Depending upon the question, the audience responses were either a loud, vocal “Yes” or “No” occasionally accompanied by spastic applause.

Dr. Paul repeatedly referenced the US Constitution often citing specific article and section numbers. Michele Bachmann mentioned the Constitution once then added, “By the way that’s what we should follow … the Constitution.”

After Dr Paul completed his prepared remarks, he fielded questions. Michele Bachmann did not. She spoke for a little over 15 minutes and that was it. The questions Dr. Paul was asked were very thoughtful and specific. He spoke for probably 30 - 40 minutes.

On cue the music started again and from the elevated stage Ms Bachmann quickly began shaking hands as the people reached up to her while she occasionally reached down to scribble an autograph. When Ron Paul stopped talking, the crowd members started talking to each other again. Dr Paul positioned himself by the door and one by one, face to face, shook hands, fielded one-on-one questions, posed for photos and signed autographs for those interested.

I think my day could be summarized in the following way. One campaign provided thoughtful insight and those present were obviously intent on learning. The other campaign had the depth of and sounded much like a junior high pep rally.

On the way home I kept wondering, “As a nation, are we going to elect a leader or a cheerleader?” If you haven’t done it yet, get your tickets for the Ames Straw Poll at http://www.iowaforronpaul.com/ so you can vote for a leader August 13.

Ron Pauler Mike Angelos gave me a Ron Paul / Michele Backman comparison sheet. You will find it attached. Feel free to make copies and share it with your friends and especially with those who don’t really know much about Ron Paul. Thanks Mike.

It was good seeing all the Jones County Ron Paulers at the Cedar Rapids meet and greet. Keep up the good work.

Yours in liberty,
Roger Kistler,
Jones Co. chair
Ron Paul Presidential Campaign
Olin, Iowa

Federalists v. Anti-Federalists Lecture Tuesday

2011-07-24T10:34:00.001-05:00

The Jones County 9-12 Project is hosting Professor Lee Strang who will conduct a lecture entitled, "The Federalists v. Anti-Federalists and Lessons for Today." This event is free and open to the public. Here is the information from group's website:

FEDERALISTS v. ANTI-FEDERALISTS AND LESSONS FOR TODAY

Tuesday, July 26 - 7:00 to 9:00 pm

Monticello City Council Chambers - Community Center

220 East First Street - Monticello

Why did the Federalists support the Constitution? Why did the Anti-Federalists fear the Constitution would give the federal government too much power? Professor Lee Strang will provide a foundational understanding of the debates between the Federalists and Anti-Federalists, what prompted the debates, what they debated and lessons for Americans today.

Professor Lee Strang is a Professor of Law, University of Toledo in Ohio.

This event is FREE and open to the public!

I attended Professor Strang's lecture on the U.S. Constitution last year and really enjoyed the informative event. I'll be attending this one as well.

TSA Tyranny Update

2011-07-19T16:20:00.000-05:00

Old Woman's Diaper Raided By TSA Agents; No Weapons Found

In a move sure to make the founding fathers and the Almighty Himself beam with pride, TSA goons strip searched a 95-year-old woman in a wheelchair, going so far as to force the woman's daughter to remove the woman's adult diaper. The elderly woman, Lena Reppert, is in the final stages of Leukemia and was trying to fly from Florida to Michigan to be with family during her final days.

“It’s something I couldn’t imagine happening on American soil,” said Jean Weber, the woman's daughter. “Here is my mother, 95 years old, 105 pounds, barely able to stand, and then this.” For something done in the name of security, I doubt that Jean and her mother feel more secure after the nerve-wracking encounter with TSA.

With the wisdom of an everyday American, Jean added: “I’m not one to make waves, but dadgummit, this is wrong. People need to know. Next time it could be you.”

Texas Fold'em

A Texas bill which would have banned invasive TSA searches such as the one that Lena Reppert endured has been quashed in that state's legislature. Calling the anti-groping bill a "publicity stunt," Texas House Speaker Joe Straus used parliamentary procedures to kill the bill in a special session.

The bill had previously passed in the Texas House during the regular session but was pulled from the state Senate when the TSA threatened to turn Texas into a "no-fly zone" if it passed. Because of overwhelming popular and legislative support, the bill was later re-introduced in a special session where it seems to have met its ultimate demise.

State Representative David Simpson, who introduced the bill, had this to say on the floor of the Texas House, "The people in support of this bill have succeeded in shining the light on those who collaborate with the growing tyranny of our federal government.... Its’ defeat only propels the liberty movement in this state. The people now know that it is possible to fight back."

Let's hope so.

4th Amendment Supporter Detained By, Then Sues TSA

According to a Wired.com article:

A 21-year-old Virginia man who wrote an abbreviated version of the Fourth Amendment on his body and stripped to his shorts at an airport security screening area is demanding $250,000 in damages for being detained on a disorderly conduct charge.

Aaron Tobey claims in a civil rights lawsuit that in December he was handcuffed and held for about 90 minutes by the Transportation Security Administration at the Richmond International Airport after he began removing his clothing to display on his chest a magic-marker protest of airport security measures.

“Amendment 4: The right of the people to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated,” his chest and gut read.

According to the suit, while under interrogation on December 30, the authorities wanted to know “about his affiliation with, or knowledge of, any terrorist organizations, if he had been asked to do what he did by any third party, and what his intentions and goals were.”

Two weeks later, Henrico County prosecutors dropped the misdemeanor charge.

Apparently TSA agents were unable to decipher the strange alien symbols on the man's chest, having never laid eyes upon a copy of the U.S. Constitution before.

Pennies from Heaven in Iowa

2011-07-11T21:35:00.002-05:00

Here in my pastoral Iowa town of Monticello (pop. 3,796) there's been a small debate about getting a new terminal building for our airport. I say a "small debate" because only a couple of people have spoken out against it at City Council meetings. Why would the community be against it?

According to our local paper the Federal Aviation Administration will fund 95 percent of the new structure and the remaining 5 percent will come from private donations to the airport. Perhaps the gist of the pro-terminal side of the debate can be summed up in the words of one member of the local Airport Board. He said: “This is a ‘no brainer.’ It will cost the Monticello taxpayer nothing[.]” [Emphasis added.]

Free money! The federal government will pick up the tab. It's a common refrain all across the fruited plain. It won't cost local taxpayers anything... unless they also happen to be live in the U.S. or have children who will.

The U.S. is already $14 trillion in debt and is borrowing another $3 million every minute. That's $46,000 of debt for every man, woman and child in America. If you include the unfunded liabilities for Social Security, Medicare and the Republican prescription drug entitlement, that number is much, much higher. According to Strong America Now, "Americans born in the 1980′s and 1990′s could face an income tax rate of 60% just to cover the interest on our national debt."

President Obama and the Democrats say we can pay for government's constantly skyrocketing spending by increasing taxes on those dastardly rich people. But, as Amy K. Frantz (writing for Iowa's own Tax Education Foundation) points out, already "the top 10 percent of tax returns paid 69.9 percent of all federal income taxes, and the top 25 percent of tax returns paid 86.3 percent of all federal income taxes."

A recent Wall Street Journal article cited by Frantz states that even if the Democrats placed a confiscatory top income tax of 100% on all millionaires and billionaires "[t]hat yields merely about $938 billion, which is sand on the beach amid the $4 trillion White House budget, a $1.65 trillion deficit, and spending at 25% as a share of the economy, a post-World War II record."

In a Washington Times article, Cato Institute senior fellow Richard W. Rahn concludes that to balance the budget through tax increases, "[T]he only way for the government to obtain significantly more revenue is to increase taxes greatly on the lower- and middle-income groups who now pay very little. But increasing tax rates on the upper-, middle- or lower-income groups will have the nasty side effects of further slowing economic growth and increasing unemployment."

What money the government can't tax or borrow to cover its spending it often prints out of thin air which causes inflation. U.S. Representative Ron Paul has called inflation the "hidden tax" since nobody really thinks about what causes it. Paul explains: "The inflation tax, while largely ignored, hurts middle-class and low-income Americans the most. Simply put, printing money to pay for federal spending dilutes the value of the dollar, which causes higher prices for goods and services. Inflation may be an indirect tax, but it is very real — the individuals who suffer most from cost of living increases certainly pay a 'tax.'” Those "individuals who suffer" higher prices include those lucky folks in Monticello or your community who got some "free" goody from the feds.

My point here is not that my community does or doesn't need a new airport terminal or that your community does or doesn't a new parking ramp or Earwax Museum. The point is that we can no longer treat federal largess as manna from heaven that comes with no cost whatsoever. It comes with the shackles of indebtedness that we are slapping on our children. May they and God forgive our selfishness.

Brandon Echols Joins IFR

2011-07-03T10:09:00.005-05:00

Steve Hoodjer's site Iowa Freedom Report (at which I am an occasional contributor) recently announced another contributor joining the team: Iowa liberty activist Brandon Echols. Hoodjer introduced the new writer like this:

Iowa Freedom Report would like to introduce our newest contributor. Brandon Echols is an energetic young freedom activist from eastern Iowa. His organization is Republic Now and we’ve covered their activities here before. Mr. Echols is the Deputy Chair of the Libertarian Party of Iowa, but he still gets out to freedom events across partisan boundaries. You can expect firsthand report [sic] in an easygoing style from our new contributor[.]

In his first report Brandon briefly introduced himself as well.

My name is Brandon Echols and I am a near-lifelong Iowan. I have lived in Anamosa since I was one year old, originally being born in Rolla, Missouri. And, yes, I have a produceable birth certificate I can share.

I am a Deputy Chair of the Libertarian Party of Iowa, longtime Ron Paul supporter, and founder of the Eastern Iowa activist group, Republic Now (http://www.republicnow.tv/)

Brandon then went on to report about the Strong America Now summit in Des Moines. You can read the complete post here.

I've known Brandon since the 2008 Bob Barr presidential campaign. (Barr didn't win.) Brandon is a good guy willing to stick up for his principles and he has much more youthful energy than I do. He'll be a good addition to Hoodjer's team.

IFC/NRA Second Amendment Rally

2011-06-28T20:24:00.000-05:00

Ron Paul Gains Ground In Iowa (Literally)

2011-06-25T17:26:00.000-05:00

It may come as a surprise to former Congressman Anthony Weiner, but the best way to judge a politician's efficacy is by the size of his... uh, tent. At least that's how it works at the Iowa Republican Straw Poll in Ames. Judging by the site awarded to candidate Ron Paul, the good doctor plans on having a lot of supporters in his tent. (I'll be one of them.)

The straw poll is held in and around the Hilton Coliseum on the ISU campus which is sectioned off and lots are "auctioned" off to the respective campaigns. Of course not all lots are equal and the choicest spots go to those who cough up the most cash. (The proceeds go to the Iowa GOP.) According to the Iowa Republican (which listed Ron Paul as one of the big winners of the straw poll real estate auction):

The Ron Paul Revolution will take center stage at the Iowa Straw Poll now that Paul has purchased the same lot that has hosted the previous two winners of the event, Mitt Romney and George W. Bush. Paul had to pay a hefty price, $31,000, but the space is the closest of any other to the voting locations. The elevated walkways that will surround the Paul compound make it an ideal spot for the media to use as a backdrop.

This will be quite different than when I attended the event in 2007. Back then the deep-pocketed candidates (like Romney) were in the center of the action and had huge tents, catered meals, bands, and carnival rides. Dr. Paul's lot was a bit off the beaten path and I can only recall one open-sided picnic tent. He had some local garage bands and campaign volunteers grilled a few hotdogs. (That was still better than 1999 when I supported Alan Keyes. His small space was literally out in a parking lot. He had a small GI pup tent set up and he and I split a Fresca. Okay, I made that last part up.)

This time Ron Paul appears to one of the major players at the event. Unlike 2007, Ron Paul will be providing charter bus transportation for supporters to get to the event. The IowaForRonPaul website boasts that Dr. Paul's tent will include free food, drinks, literature, music and games. Before supporters had to pay their own way into the event, this year Paul's campaign is subsidizing the tickets so supporters only pay $10 for everything, including transportation.

If you'd like to attend, you can order your ticket at http://www.iowaforronpaul.com/.

TSA Tyranny Update

2011-06-21T21:45:00.003-05:00

Former Miss USA Sexually Assaulted by TSA

TSA Not Just In Airports Anymore

According to a recent American Thinker article, the TSA is currently storming about 8,000 public places per year. In one typical TSA operation, "[b]us travelers were shocked when jackbooted TSA officers in black SWAT-style uniforms descended unannounced upon the Tampa Greyhound bus station in April with local, state and federal law enforcement agencies and federal bureaucrats in tow. A news report [...] showed passengers being given the signature pat downs Americans are used to watching the Transportation Security Administration screeners perform at our airports. Canine teams sniffed their bags and the buses they rode." TSA conducted a similar operation at a Des Moines Greyhound bus depot this month.

Not impressive enough? More spectacular was a recent operation where "the agency led dozens of federal and state law enforcement agencies in [an] exercise that covered three states and 5,000 square miles. According to the Marietta Times, the sweep used reconnaissance aircraft and 'multiple airborne assets, including Blackhawk helicopters and fixed wing aircraft as well as waterborne and surface teams.'"

As the TSA extends its reach well beyond airports, the apathetic masses might soon rephrase Pastor Martin Niemöller's famous statement, "First they came for the air travellers, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't an air traveller."

Texas/TSA Showdown Continues

Earlier in the year the Texas legislature introduced a bill banning the TSA's intrusive "enhanced pat-downs" and one banning the TSA's new nude body scanners in Texas airports. (See "TSA Tyranny Update" March 20, 2011) Support for the bills apparently crumbled after the Obama administration threatened to shut down air traffic in Texas if the bills passed. Neither bill made it out of the regular legislative session.

Now, however, Texas governor Rick Perry has added the anti-groping bill to the agenda of legislative special session at the urging of state legislators. According to the Texas Tribune, "The bill would criminalize any intentional, knowing or reckless touching of a person's private parts during a security screening, including through clothing." It appears that the bill now has the necessary votes to pass.

Don't mess with Texas!

Iowa In Top 15 Freest States

2011-06-12T22:18:00.000-05:00

Ever wonder how Iowa stacks up against other states in the area of freedom? Pretty well according to a recent study by Mercatus Center at George Mason University. Iowa came in 13th in this study that "comprehensively ranks the American states on their public policies that affect individual freedoms in the economic, social, and personal spheres." Iowa ranked 7th and 30th in the economic and personal freedom subcategories respectively.

According to the study, Iowa "particularly stands out on economic regulation. Iowa also has a light touch on land-use planning. Labor regulations are business friendly, with right-to-work laws [..] and a decent workers’-compensation regime."

Iowa appears to be more of a mixed bag when it comes to government paternalism. Private schools and homeschooling are over regulated while marijuana sentencing and asset forfeiture laws need reformed. However, much gambling is allowed and most PAC political contributions are unregulated. The same-sex marriage ruling occurred after the period studied in the report (as did Iowa's new right-to-carry firearms law).

The study makes the following policy recommendations for Iowa:

"1.Improve the environment for personal freedom by cutting sin taxes and reforming marijuana sentencing guidelines.

"2.End private-school teacher licensing. Reduce standardized testing and notification requirements for homeschoolers.

"3.Reform asset forfeiture by placing the burden of proof on the government and redirecting proceeds to the general fund."

Vote Ron Paul At The Ames Straw Poll

2011-06-07T22:47:00.002-05:00

I’ll be supporting doctor and U.S. Representative Ron Paul at the Ames Straw Poll on August 13th.

At a time when the U.S. government is borrowing $3 million every minute, many Republicans have signed on to a supposedly “bold” plan that pretends to have unknown future politicians balance the budget 50 years from now. Ron Paul, however, supports balancing the budget while we still have a country. In his 21 years in Congress, Paul has never voted to raise taxes and has voted AGAINST every unbalanced budget. Imagine what he could do with a presidential veto pen.

He never votes for legislation unless it’s expressly authorized by the Constitution. His votes have earned him the derisive name “Dr. No” from his big-spending colleagues in Congress and “Taxpayers' Best Friend” from the National Taxpayers’ Union. He realizes that we can no longer afford to fight war after endless war where we no longer even bother to define victory. Ron Paul is pro-life, pro-free market, and pro-Second Amendment.

If you want to support Dr. Paul in the Ames Straw Poll you can get your ticket at http://www.iowaforronpaul.com/. If you register before July 4th, you get roundtrip transportation to the event, a Ron Paul T-shirt, and food, drinks, and entertainment at the Ron Paul tent for only $10.

Don't Forget Them This Memorial Day

2011-05-30T16:47:00.001-05:00

Name of war, year and number of U.S. military killed and wounded:

American Revolutionary War 1775–1783 50,000

Northwest Indian War 1785–1795 1881+

Quasi-War 1798–1800 556

First Barbary War 1801–1805 138

Other actions against pirates 1800–1900 294+

Chesapeake–Leopard Affair 1807 21

War of 1812 1812–1815 ~25,000

Marquesas Expedition 1813–1814 7

Second Barbary War 1815 148

First Seminole War 1817–1818 83

First Sumatran Expedition 1832 13

Black Hawk War 1832 390

Second Seminole War 1835–1842 1535

Mexican–American War 1846–1848 17,435

Third Seminole War 1855–1858 53

Civil War 1861–1865 646,392 (Union Forces)

Dakota War of 1862 (Little Crow's War) 1862 220–263

Shimonoseki Straits 1863 10

Snake Indian War 1864–1868 158

Indian Wars 1865–1898 1,025

Red Cloud's War 1866–1868 226

Korea (Shinmiyangyo) 1871 12

Modoc War 1872–1873 144

Great Sioux War 1875–1877 525

Nez Perce War 1877 291

Bannock War 1878 34

Ute War 1879 67

Ghost Dance War 1890–1891 99

Sugar Point- Pillager Band of Chippewa Indians 1898 23

Spanish–American War 1898 4,068

Philippine–American War 1898–1913 7,126

Boxer Rebellion 1900–1901 335

Mexican Revolution 1914–1919 70

Occupation of Haiti 1915–1934 184+

World War I 1917–1918 320,518

North Russia Campaign 1918–1920 424

American Expeditionary Force Siberia 1918–1920 380+

China 1918; 1921; 1926–1927; 1930; 1937 83

US occupation of Nicaragua 1927–1933 116

World War II 1941–1945 1,076,245

China 1945–1947 56

Berlin Blockade 1948–1949 31

Korean War 1950–1953 128,650

U.S.S.R. Cold War 1947–1991 44

China Cold War 1950–1972 16

Vietnam War 1955–1975 211,454

1958 Lebanon crisis 1958 7+

Bay of Pigs Invasion 1961 4

Dominican Republic 1965–1966 213

Iran 1980 12

El Salvador Civil War 1980–1992 35

Beirut deployment 1982–1984 169

Persian Gulf escorts 1987–1988 31

Invasion of Grenada 1983 138

1986 Bombing of Libya 1986 2

Invasion of Panama 1989 324

Gulf War 1990–1991 1,231

Somalia 1992–1993 153

Haiti 1994–1995 3

Colombia 1994–Present 8

Bosnia-Herzegovina 1995–2004 18

Kosovo 1999–2006 22+

Afghanistan 2001–present 12,035

Iraq War 2003–2010 36,395

*Source: Wikipedia

Let Imperial Foreign Policy Die With Bin Laden

2011-05-23T23:04:00.004-05:00

On May 1st the gallant warriors of SEAL Team 6 delivered justice to a wicked man, Osama bin Laden, the founder of al-Qaeda who was ultimately responsible for the deaths of over 3,000 Americans. With the symbolic face of our enemy in the "War on Terror" now resting in the cold depths of the North Arabian Sea, perhaps this is a good time for America to draw down it's forces in that nebulous war and reevaluate it's interventionist foreign policy in general around the globe. Meddling foreign policy, which has occupied our efforts for over a century now, is creating more enemies, stretching our brave military dangerously thin, and helping to bankrupt the nation.

To see how our foreign policy creates enemies we can look at bin Laden himself. Osama wasn't the threat he was just because he could motivate a few religious kooks against us. He was dangerous because, in his heyday, he was able to strike a chord with a large segment of the mainstream Muslim world. And what was he saying that was resonating with rank-and-file Muslims?

Michael F. Scheuer (who, as chief of the Osama bin Laden tracking unit of the CIA's Counterterrorist Center, was studying Bin Laden before most Americans had even heard of him) summed up the case that bin Laden presented to his fellow Muslims against the U.S. in his 2004 book Imperial Hubris. "Bin Laden has been precise in telling America the reasons he is waging war on us," Scheuer wrote. "None of the reasons have anything to do with our freedom, liberty, and democracy, but have everything to do with U.S. policies and actions in the Muslim world. [...] He could not have his current -and increasing- level of success if Muslims did not believe their faith, brethren, resources, and lands to be under attack by the United States and, more generally, the West. Indeed, the United States, and its policies and actions, are bin Laden's only indispensable allies."

Scheuer says that we are not "misunderstood" in the Muslim world, as our politicians often claim. Rather, we are hated because of "how easy it is for Muslims to see, hear, experience, and hate the six U.S. policies bin Laden repeatedly refers to as anti-Muslim:

U.S. support for Israel that keeps Palestinians in the Israelis' thrall.
U.S. and other Western troops on the Arabian Peninsula.
U.S. occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan.
U.S. support for Russia, India, and China against their Muslim militants.
U.S. pressure on Arab energy producers to keep oil prices low.
U.S. support for apostate, corrupt, and tyrannical Muslim governments."

In short, "Muslims are bothered by our modernity, democracy, and sexuality, but they are rarely spurred to action unless American forces encroach on their lands. It's American foreign policy that enrages Osama and al-Qaeda, not American culture and society."

And that's just one culture. Rest assured that your federal government is enraging people of many cultures all around the world (in your name). When foreigners become incensed with our government's meddling in their affairs they sometimes lash out. The CIA casually calls that "blowback." As 9-11 demonstrated, blowback can be disastrous.

In order to guard its empire of intervention, the U.S. maintains an archipelago of some 507 to 1,180 foreign military bases (even the government is unsure of the actual number). To put that in perspective, our nearest competitors, Russia and Great Britain only have a few such bases. China, Iran, North Korea, Libya, and any other nation on our "naughty list" all have zero. It's unclear how much these overseas bases cost the U.S. taxpayers, but in 2010 the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform estimated that cutting U.S. garrisons in Europe and Asia by one-third would save about $8.5 billion in 2015 alone.

The total U.S. defense budget is about $700 billion, or 20% of the total federal budget. This figure represents about half of all military spending in the world. This doesn't include related expenses such as care of disabled vets, pensions, or "homeland security" costs. Since the federal government borrows about 40 cents of every dollar it spends, that means the government will borrow billions per year (often from the likes of the Red Chinese) to fund defense programs supposedly to defend us from the likes of the Red Chinese. This when both the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff have publicly stated that the national debt, not some foreign power, represents the single biggest threat to U.S. security.

In conjunction with its massive military, the U.S. maintains "alliances" with hundreds of much weaker nations that threaten to drag us into any war that breaks out anywhere in the world. Our "allies," who expect our protection from their menacing neighbors, often spend a smaller percentage of their national wealth on defense than we do. Why should they waste their blood and treasure to defend their own country when starry-eyed Americans will do it for them?

Since many neo-conservatives try to dismiss any criticism of aggressive foreign policy as unpatriotic piffle from the "blame America first crowd," perhaps I should pause here to clarify a few things.

First, I have nothing but profound respect for our brave men and women in uniform, who don't set our foreign policy but whose lives are often risked by it. I wore the uniform in peacetime and served with some of the Iowa Guardsmen who are in Afghanistan right now. They're a great bunch of guys. Nor am I some pacifist who thinks that war is always wrong. It' a rough world and nations, like individuals, have a responsibility to defend themselves. Lastly, I don't think America or her people are "bad." On the contrary, she is a great nation populated by brave, honest and industrious people. It's just that our country has a convoluted, self-destructive foreign policy. Again, that's not because we are bad but because foreign policy is a product of the federal government and our government could screw up a cheese sandwich.

So what is the alternative to the current quasi-imperialist foreign policy? Perhaps a return to the peaceful, noninterventionist foreign policy that the founders of our country envisioned. Thomas Jefferson famously advised "peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations-entangling alliances with none." In his farewell address, George Washington stated, "It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliance with any portion of the foreign world."

I believe the most elequent statement of traditional American noninterventionism, however, comes from John Quincy Adams' speech delivered on July 4, 1821: "America, in the assembly of nations, since her admission among them, has invariably, though often fruitlessly, held forth to them the hand of honest friendship, of equal freedom, of generous reciprocity.

"She has uniformly spoken among them, though often to heedless and often to disdainful ears, the language of equal liberty, of equal justice, and of equal rights.

"She has, in the lapse of nearly half a century, without a single exception, respected the independence of other nations while asserting and maintaining her own.

"She has abstained from interference in the concerns of others, even when conflict has been for principles to which she clings, as to the last vital drop that visits the heart. [...]

"Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be.

"But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy.

"She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all.

"She is the champion and vindicator only of her own. [...]

"She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom.

"The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force....

"She might become the dictatress of the world. She would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit...."

As we look at the state of our great nation at home and abroad, she is beginning to look like that "dictatress of the world" that Adams warned of, whose principles are changing "from liberty to force." Perhaps now is the time to correct that. Our great enemy Osama bin Laden is at the bottom of the sea and our nation is sinking in a sea of red ink. If we can't honestly reexamine our foreign policy now, then when can we?

"Atlas Shrugged" Now At More Theaters

2011-04-21T21:49:00.000-05:00

After racking up a respectable first week of box office grosses for an independently produced and distributed film, "Atlas Shrugged- Part 1" producers hope to increase the number of theaters showing it from the current 300 to about 1,000 by this weekend. This translates to more screens showing the film here in Iowa. Here's an updated list:

Cedar Rapids

Carmike Wynnsong 12

2435 Edgewood Road SW, Cedar Rapids , IA 52404

Davenport

Rave Motion Pictures 53-Davenport

3601 East 53rd Street, Davenport, IA 52807

Johnston

Carmike Wynnsong 16

5233 Stoney Creek Road, Des Moines, IA 50131

Sioux City

Carmike Southern Hills 12

4400 Sergeant Road #15, Sioux City, IA 51106

West Des Moines

Century 20 Jordan Creek and XD

101 Jordan Creek Parkway, West Des Moines, IA 50266

TSA Tyranny Update

2011-04-17T21:42:00.001-05:00

Groping Kids on the Taxpayers' Dime

TSA: Making the world a safer place... one sobbing child at a time.

DHS: We Have the Authority to Routinely Strip-Search Air Travelers

According to the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC):

The Department of Homeland Security told a federal court that the agency believes it has the legal authority to strip search every air traveler. The agency made the claim at oral argument in EPIC's lawsuit to suspend the airport body scanner program. The agency also stated that it believed a mandatory strip search rule could be instituted without any public comment or rulemaking. EPIC President Marc Rotenberg urged the Washington, DC appeals court to suspend the body scanner program, noting that the devices are "uniquely intrusive" and ineffective. EPIC's opening brief in the case states that the Department of Homeland Security "has initiated the most sweeping, the most invasive, and the most unaccountable suspicionless search of American travelers in history," and that such a change in policy demands that the TSA conduct a notice-and-comment rule making process. The case is EPIC v. DHS, No. 10-1157.

TSA Agents Busted for Stealing From Checked Bags

According to the New York Post two TSA agents, Davon Webb and Couman Perad, were arrested in February for stealing $160,000 in cash from passenger luggage at JFK Airport. According to the article, "Perad and Webb would screen bags looking for loot, then swipe the cash once the luggage was opened in a private screening room, sources said." These two got caught, but a lot of luggage goes missing every year.

John Locke philosophised that man has three basic rights: to life, liberty and property. From their invasive searches and gropings, it's clear that the TSA doesn't care about the American people's liberty. When they're stealing from us, they apparantly don't care about our property. Perhaps Congress should bring the TSA to heal before the other right on Locke's list begins to fall victim to abuse by the TSA or its sister agencies.

Atlas Shrugged Movie- Now In Theaters

2011-04-15T21:57:00.001-05:00

The movie based upon Ayn Rand's classic novel "Atlas Shrugged" hit theaters today. The book, a defense of laissez-faire capitalism, had been in Hollywood "development hell" for almost four decades before finally making it to the big screen. Check out the trailer:

The film is currently playing at the following Iowa theaters:

Davenport

Rave Motion Pictures 53

3601 East 53rd Street, Davenport, IA 52807

West Des Moines

Century 20 Jordan Creek and XD

101 Jordan Creek Parkway, West Des Moines, IA 50266

Check out the film's website to find the latest theaters and news about the movie.

Iowa DNR Proposes Ban on Lead Shot

2011-04-10T19:16:00.001-05:00

From NRA-ILA:

Iowa’s Natural Resources Commission recently announced its intent to ban hunters’ use of lead shot on numerous state and federal wildlife areas across Iowa, except for use in turkey and deer hunting. The ban will also prohibit the use of lead shot in target shooting.

According to the Commission, the purpose of imposing this ban is to “begin limiting the use of lead for all hunting and fishing on all public areas”. The proposed ban would also designate three wildlife areas as completely “lead free,” including rifle ammunition and fishing tackle. The announcement does not mention any research showing that the use of lead shot is having a negative impact on the state’s wildlife populations. The DNR should base any proposals to restrict hunting on science, not politics and emotion. Unfortunately this is not the case in this instance.

This proposal should be treated as a statewide ban because of the size of the area it covers and because of the Commission’s intent to extend it to all public lands in the future. It is critical that the Commissioners hear strong opposition to its proposal from hunters, shooters, and anglers across the state. Written comments are being accepted until April 27 and can be sent to Dale Garner, Wildlife Bureau Chief, at Dale.Garner@dnr.iowa.gov

The Commission is not alone in advocating a ban on lead ammunition and fishing tackle. They are keeping company with anti-hunting extremists, anti-gunners, and radical environmentalists who are campaigning for a nationwide ban.

Lake Delhi- We Will Be Back- Trailer

2011-04-10T17:18:00.000-05:00

Someone is making a documentary about Lake Delhi and the 2010 flooding and dam breach. The trailer looks interesting.

Hein Responds

2011-04-07T21:45:00.001-05:00

In the previous post I discussed state Representative Lee Hein's apparent flip-flop on Constitutional Carry. Hein emailed me back and rather than translate his position (and potentially put words in his mouth) I decided just to include our correspondence below.

From: BENJAMIN CASHNER
Sent: Friday, April 01, 2011 9:13 PM
To: Hein, Lee [LEGIS]
Subject: Constitutional Carry

Dear Representative Hein:

I was disappointed to hear from Iowa Gun Owners that although you said you would support a "Constitutional Carry" bill while campaigning you now say that you will not. I realize that gun issues have gotten a lot of media attention and have become a contentious issue this year, but I hope that you will reconsider and SUPPORT Constitutional Carry as you originally said you would.

As you know, Constitutional Carry is a simple, straight forward idea. If passed, it simply permits anyone who is eligible to own a firearm to carry a firearm concealed without a permit. This legislation would not get rid of the current permit system, but it would merely give gun owners another option for exercising their right to bear arms. For reciprocity between states, citizens might still want a permit, but that’s their choice under the Constitutional Carry system. Constitutional Carry is currently law in Alaska, Arizona, Vermont and now Wyoming.

Again, please support Constitutional Carry in Iowa. Thank you for your time.

Sincerely,
Benjamin R. Cashner
[Address redacted]

Here's Hein's response, which I received April 4th:

Ben,

I want you to hear my position on the Constitutional Carry bill. I would support the bill if they would add some education to the bill. I believe everyone who carries a firearm should understand the law before they get put into a situation. The education can be as simple as a pamphlet that they receive when they get the Right to purchase permit. I want to protect the average citizen who needs to understand the consquences [sic] of what can happen after he or she pulls and points the firearm.

I believe that law abiding citizens who wants [sic] to carry should be able to. What I do not want, is to have to put that citizen in prison because he did not understand the laws of the state of Iowa. I do not think this is to much to ask. I would like to hear your views on this.

Rep. Lee Hein

Lastly, here's my reply which was sent April 7th:

Dear Representative Hein:

Thank you for your prompt reply and for explaining your position on Constitutional Carry. I'm still somewhat confused since I believe that HF 2241, which you expressed support for while campaigning, contained no education requirements for citizens who choose to carry firearms without a permit, which you now say is needed for your support. Some are characterizing this as a deliberate misrepresentation on your part.

I can appreciate your not wanting citizens going to jail because they don't fully understand Iowa's self-defense laws. While that danger would exist under a Constitutional Carry system, it already exists under current law. I doubt, for instance, that many of the people now getting their permits to carry using their military discharge papers as proof of training received much instruction on the intricacies of Iowa weapons and self-defense laws. Ultimately the duty to educate oneself resides with each individual. With freedom comes responsibility.

If it turns out that some Iowans are going to jail because Iowa laws run contrary to the average Iowan's concept of what is "self-defense," then the laws need changed. (Your support of the Enhanced Castle Doctrine/Stand Your Ground bill was a good step in that direction.)

That said, if the state did want to create some type of public awareness campaign or pamphlet (as you suggest), that might not be a bad idea. However, I don't think that the people's right to freely exercise their pre-existing Constitutionally-protected right to bear arms should be made contingent upon it.

Once again, thank you for your time.

Sincerely,
Benjamin R. Cashner

Lee Hein Backpedaling On Constitutional Carry?

2011-04-03T17:09:00.001-05:00

Since I'm a newly-minted member of Iowa Gun Owners (IGO) who happens to live in state Representative Lee Hein's district, IGO Executive Director Aaron Dorr recently let me know of an about-face Hein has done on the issue of Constitutional Carry.

When campaigning for the House District 31 seat against incumbent Democrat Ray Zirkelbach, Hein filled out IGO's candidate survey. The very first question dealt with Constitutional Carry, IGO's pet issue. It read:

1. In 2010 the legislature passed SF2379 which took Iowa from a 'may issue' state, regarding permits to carry weapons, to a 'shall issue' state. This was an important first step. However, the REAL Right-to-Carry bill (HF2241) did not pass, falling 6 votes short in both chambers. REAL Right-to-Carry recognizes that every law abiding citizen has the right to carry a gun, openly or concealed, for any reason they want to, except to commit a crime. Thus, with no government bureaucracy or license, Iowa citizens can defend themselves and criminals who use arms are severely punished. This is the law in Vermont, Alaska and most of Montana. This concept is close to becoming law in Arizona and Wyoming as well. If passed in Iowa, this law will allow thousands of people the right to carry a firearm for self-defense who currently are required to beg government permission, pass a class and shooting test every 5 years, pay fees, and be subject to a background check like a common criminal.

Would you support House File 2241 or similar legislation, known as Vermont carry legislation, which would allow all law abiding Iowans the right to carry a weapon, either concealed or openly, without having to first beg government permission as is done in several other states?

Hein answered in the affirmative. Largely because of this promised support (and because Zirkelbach was no friend of gun owners) IGO supported Hein and spent their own money sending out mass mailings in his district urging gun owners to support him. Hein eventually defeated Zirkelbach. Now that he's safely in office, Dorr says that Hein has told him that he will NOT support any Constitutional Carry bill.

I don't want to give the idea that Hein is entirely bad on Second Amendment issues. In a recent email he assured me that he would vote for the Enhanced Castle Doctrine/Stand Your Ground bill and the bill that would have prevented gun seizures during declared emergencies. Perhaps Hein is only hearing the shrill squawking of the media and others in opposition to Constitutional Carry.

If you live in Hein's district and support Constitutional Carry, please politely let him know that there IS support out there and that he should honor his campaign promise. His email is Lee.Hein@legis.state.ia.us and his capitol phone is 515-281-3221.

Iowa Bill Would Ban "Distribution or Possession” of Farm Photos

2011-03-27T15:45:00.003-05:00

The National Press Photographers Association’s Advocacy Committee is reporting on a proposed Iowa law (HF 589) that "elevates editors and news organizations to the status of criminals if they publish, or even possess undercover footage of farms, crops or animal facilities." This is no doubt an attempt to avoid some of the embarrassing videos chronicling supposed abuse of farm animals that have surfaced in recent years.

Specifically the bill states that “distribution or possession” of photographs that were illegally obtained (through violations of earlier portions of the bill). Under the proposed law, “A person is guilty of animal facility interference if the person. . . [p]ossess or distribute a record which produces an image or sound occurring at the animal facility which” is a “reproduction of a visual or audio experience occurring at the animal facility, including but not limited to a photographic or audio medium” without the consent of the owner.

To give some perspective to the blatant unconstitutionality of this bill consider this – the only time that the Supreme Court has upheld a law that bans distribution and possession of any kind of photography it was a law against possessing and distributing child pornography. As powerful of a lobby farmers are, elevating exposes of farms to the level of child pornography is absurd and I can’t see how this would hold up. Just last year the Supreme Court ruled that a law banning possession and distribution of video of cruelty to animals was unconstitutional. See U.S. v. Stevens, 130 S.Ct. 1577 (2010). The intent of that law was to prevent animal cruelty but even it went too far (the NPPA signed an amicus brief advocating for the overturning of that bill).

The government can’t even prevent the possession and distribution of documents that put U.S. security interests at risk so it is hard to imagine how the public relations interests of farms would be considered more compelling than U.S. security interests.

I'm certainly no animal rights nut (on the contrary, I'm a proud omnivore, son of an Iowa pig farmer and an occasional hunter and fisherman), but this bill seems over the top to me. Iowa should respect the First Amendment right to freedom of the press.

TSA Tyranny Update

2011-03-20T10:00:00.002-05:00

Ticket To Tyranny

Here's text from a video-recorded exchange in November between a TSA supervisor and airline passenger John Tyner.

TSA: "If you're not comfortable with that [groin check], we can escort you back out and you don't have to fly today."
Tyner: "OK, I don't understand how a sexual assault can be made a condition of my flying."
TSA: "This is not considered a sexual assault."
Tyner: "It would be if you were not the government."
TSA: "By buying your ticket you gave up a lot of rights."

Tests of Body Scanners Show 10 Times The Expected Radiation

When the TSA recently tested its 500 new nude body scanners it found radiation levels much higher than expected. TSA says it was a simple calculation error. Others aren't convinced.

The Association for Airline Passenger Rights says the TSA should stop using the machines until they can be retested. "Airline passengers have enough concerns about flying — including numerous ones about how TSA conducts its haphazard security screenings," said Brandon Macsata, executive director of the group. "So it is the TSA’s responsibility to ensure passengers are not being exposed to unhealthy amounts of radiation."

Texas Bills Would Ban TSA Scanners/Enhanced Pat-Downs

A state legislator in Texas has introduced two bills to protect Texans' rights from TSA violations. One bill from Rep. David Simpson (R-Longview) would prohibit "body imaging scanning equipment" at any airport in the state and provides penalties for any airport operator who installs them. According to the Tenth Amendment Center, the second bill "criminalizes touching without consent and searches without probable cause."

If passed, these laws would set up a legal showdown between Texas and the federal government. Good! Texas would have a little thing called the Constitution on its side.

Free-Market Foreign Aid

2011-03-13T19:57:00.002-05:00

Doug Newman over at Foodforthethinkers's Blog responds to criticism by Christians United for Israel (CUFI) against Ron Paul's proposal to end aid to Isreal. As an alternative to continued government aid, Newman proposes a "three-step plan for free-market Zionism." While Newman focuses on Israel, the principals he articulates would apply equally well to all foreign policy in general.

Here are the main points of his plan:

1) Shaking down the American taxpayer to provide aid to Israel – or, for that matter, any foreign country – is not just unconstitutional. It is also unbiblical. In the words of II Corinthians 9:7, “So let each one give as he purposes in his heart, not grudgingly or of necessity; for God loves a cheerful giver.”

Christians are never to bankroll their works by force. So if CUFI truly wants to support Israel, let its members reallocate their funds. Instead of, say, building bling-bling megachurches that resemble the Burj Al-Arab Hotel in Dubai, why not pass the hat for Israel? Perhaps CUFI supporters could take a special love offering after each service.

2) Of the 12 current senior members of CUFI, only two have any military experience. Instead of sending kids from places like Camden, New Jersey and Muskogee, Oklahoma to fight and bleed and die all over the Middle East for the sake of Israel, why don’t they pay the bill with their own blood? Why don’t they enlist as infantry privates in the Israeli Defense Force? (IDF) And why don’t they encourage the CUFI rank-and-file to do likewise?

3) If the IDF will not have them for whatever reason, let them form their own detachment to fight alongside the IDF. There are precedents. During the Spanish Civil War, for instance, a group of Americans calling themselves the Abraham Lincoln Brigade fought for the Spanish Republican forces against Franco’s Spanish Nationalists. To be sure, a lot of them were communist sympathizers, but I will give them this: they produced enough testosterone that they put their own lives on the line for their convictions.

Sounds like a good plan to me.

Right To My Head

2011-03-06T15:14:00.004-06:00

Apparently there's an award of sorts floating around the blogosphere called the "Stylish Blogger Award." If another blogger awards it to you (by mentioning you), you're supposed to "[l]ist seven things about yourself that other people might not know. Then pass the award to 15 other bloggers."

Since my online friend strandediniowa over at Between Two Rivers blog mentioned me on his list as "Iowa's hard fighting libertarian," I figured I'd better respond. (I'm not sure how "hard fighting" I really am or how much of that I owe to my silly choice of a blog title which makes me sound like a professional wrestler or something. Nonetheless, I appreciate the mention.)

Now for the hard part: finding seven things to tell about myself without putting anyone to sleep. Here goes:

I spent six years as an infantryman in the Iowa Army National Guard. This was back in the pre-9-11 Clinton years when people still called us "weekend warriors" and all we fought off were hangovers.
Except for 6 months at Fort Benning Georgia, for basic training and infantry school, I've lived in Eastern Iowa my entire life.
I was in Moscow the month before the August 1991 coup attempt or 5 months before the dissolution of the Soviet Union.
I'm actually the fourth Benjamin Cashner in my family. (Not in direct succession however. My dad's twin brother had the name, but passed away too young to pass it on.) My son is number five.
I've voted in every presidential and off-year election since I turned 18, first as a registered Independent, then Republican and now Libertarian. (Perot, Dole, Bush, Bush, Barr. Yes, I regret a couple of those.)
I've smoked a Cuban cigar. (I didn't like it.)
A childhood friend and I thought we saw Bigfoot. In retrospect, it might have been a farmer.

Okay, now to pass the award along. Honestly I don't read enough blogs to be able to list 15 that I like, and a few that I do list probably aren't "blogs" in the truest sense of the word. Anyway, here's a few stylish "blogs" that I enjoy:

Between Two Rivers: The only blog that I read every day. I find it interesting that blogger strandediniowa and I often reach the same conclusion on political topics, but many times take different intellectual paths to get there. Stranded's coverage of the Iowa firearms preemption battle has been great. He appears to be a human web crawler with some of the local news stories he unearths.
Iowa Freedom Report: More of a news site than a blog, it is maintained by Iowa freedom activist Steve Hoodjer. Hoodjer seems to have his finger on the pulse of the Tea Party/freedom movement in Iowa. It also occasionally has articles by yours truly (though not often).
Beth Cody, Libertarian Writer: A collection of Cody's recurring columns from the Iowa City Press-Citizen newspaper. Unfortunately it's only updated a few times a year.
Republic Now: Local libertarian firebrand "Commentator X" and his merry band of patriots "seek to make Iowa a freer, safer, and constitutional place to live." Some of the "New World Order" and conspiracy theory stuff might scare off uninitiated readers, but there's good information there.
Des Moines Gun Rights Examiner: This is written by Sean McClanahan who is the host of the webcast Firearms Weekly and is the President of The Iowa Firearms Coalition. Keeps you up to date on Second Amendment issues in Iowa.
Roberts Gun Shop: Die-hard gunrights supporter Robert Fowler posts gun news from around the web on his blog. Fowler organized the April 19th, 2010 Second Amendment March at the Iowa capital grounds.

That's it. Thanks for the award stranded!

Mom's "Never Alone" Redux

2011-02-27T09:54:00.000-06:00

Since my family has had a tumultuous week dealing with my mother's progressively worsening Alzheimer's Disease, I don't feel much like writing. I hope you'll indulge me as I repost a piece I originally posted on April 3, 2010. As I watch my mom disappear further into the mists of Alzheimer's, it seems even more poignant now.

As I was knocking about the internet the other day I found an online version of a magazine article, titled “Never Alone,” that my mother got published back in 2003. The article is about how Mom’s faith in God and a big black dog comforted her when she was first diagnosed with Alzheimer’s disease at the young age of 60.

According to the Alzheimer's Disease Education and Referral Center, “Alzheimer’s disease is an irreversible, progressive brain disease that slowly destroys memory and thinking skills, and eventually even the ability to carry out the simplest tasks.” That’s the clinical definition. It takes on a much more personal tone when it strikes someone in your family. It slowly takes away who that person is before it takes their life.

Rereading her article now, seven years after it was published, is like a window into the past for me. I can once again see the woman I once knew, expressing the thoughts and fears that she can no longer fully articulate.

Mom wrote: “Tank sprang out the door and galloped down the road. Eighty solid pounds of black Labrador retriever, he certainly lived up to his name. He loved barreling through our 160 acres. I used to enjoy it too, but not lately. Not since I heard the word Alzheimer’s. ‘You seem to be showing some early signs,’ the neurologist had told me, after a checkup with my family doctor and a battery of tests, including a brain scan. […]

“I remembered the flyer I’d picked up from an Alzheimer’s support group. It said that I should get an ID bracelet with my name, address and phone number. More than likely I’d end up forgetting who I was and where I lived. The thought horrified me. I was going to lose myself, remembering nothing and nobody. Would I eventually forget who God was? Lord, I can’t bear the idea of being so utterly alone. Please stay with me.

“’Tank!’ I called. No sign of our big black Lab. Would I forget him too? ‘Here, boy!’ I called. Tank careened out of the woods. The dog was so big that when he stood on his hind legs his paws rested on my shoulders. Still, he was one of the most gentle creatures I’d ever known. Tank circled me then dashed back into the trees, chasing something I couldn’t see. I’m being chased too, I thought. To a place where no one will be able to reach me.”

Medicine has slowed it somewhat, but the predator that stalks my mother is closing in swiftly now. She has difficulty now with common tasks that my four-year-old takes for granted. My words, my guns, even my love for my mother are all powerless against this killer.

Mom is a good, hard-working, church-going woman, totally undeserving of being slowly stripped of a lifetime of memories, then of life itself. I often use this blog to impotently speak out against injustice. If you’re listening God, I’m speaking out now.

If anyone else has some time, please read the short article by my mom, Judy Cashner, here.

"The Hemorrhoid" Baudler Cleared Of Ethics Violations

2011-02-20T09:11:00.005-06:00

Demonstrating that government oversight of itself if usually a joke, the House "Ethics" Committee unanimously cleared state Representative Clel "The Hemorrhoid" Baudler (R-Greenfield) of any wrongdoing on Wednesday. Baudler was being investigated because he admittedly flew to California and fraudulently obtained a prescription for medical marijuana in that state by lying about suffering from hemorrhoids and depression. California authorities declined to prosecute Baudler, who didn't take possession of the marijuana.

Iowan Mike Pesce, who filed the ethics complaint against The Hemorrhoid, pointed out in an early February Des Moines Register article that "the state constitution denotes grounds for impeachment as the commission of any misdemeanor or malfeasance and what Baudler did violated the law of another state." And it certainly was malfeasance, which Dictionary.com defines as "the performance by a public official of an act that is legally unjustified, harmful, or contrary to law; wrongdoing (used especially of an act in violation of a public trust)."

State Rep. Scott Raecker (R-Urbandale), Vice Chair of the House "Ethics" Committee, explained to the Register why The Hemorrhoid's malfeasance didn't warrant so much as a finger-wagging from the group, before he rejoined the committee in hitting paddleballs. "The committee’s jurisdiction is limited, [Raecker] said. They can only ascertain whether there was a violation of [Iowa Code section 68b or House ethics], and neither addresses a lawmaker who allegedly broke a law in another state or told a lie, he said." So, the House "Ethics" Committee doesn't have jurisdiction over stuff like, oh, ethics.

We should not be surprised when government is less than ethical. We should be surprised whenever it is ethical. The legislative "ethics" police aren't going to want to set any precedent that may be used against themselves later down the road. Also, when you think about it, ethics is anathema to government in general. Politicians are elected by winning popularity contests where they must lie more convincingly than their opponents. If they win, they get to help run the government which is itself nothing more than legalized theft and coercion. No wonder Americans from Mark Twain on have cursed crooked politicians and ethics can never seem to take root.

That age old cycle continues. Having learned nothing, according to a Radio Iowa report, Baudler says the next time he’s out west, “you won’t believe what I’ve got planned.” The House "Ethics" Committee slumbers at the ready for whatever it may be.

Emergency Powers Reform Bill Advances Too

2011-02-16T19:35:00.001-06:00

From Des Moines Gun Rights Examiner (Iowa Firearms Coalition President Sean McClanahan):

HSB18 passed out of the [House Public Safety Committee] with a vote of 14-5, so it now goes to the floor of the full Iowa House of Representatives for debate. HSB18 is a reform to the Emergency Powers Act; if passed, HSB18 would make it illegal for a citizen to be removed of his or her ammunition or firearms during a state of emergency, and it would protect a citizen's right to transport and carry firearms during that time. Essentially, it prevents another "Katrina aftermath" from happening in Iowa.

The vote was almost completely along party lines. Representatives R. Olson and Swaim were not present. All of the Republicans voted for the passage of HSB18, while all of the Democrats – with one exception – voted against passage. The lone Democrat who voted to protect the rights of Iowa citizens who own firearms was Representative Wolfe.

The final tally:
Voting AYE – to protect the rights of citizens:
Baudler

Shaw

Alons

Brandenburg

Fry

Hagenow

Klein

S. Olson

Rayhons

Sands

Tjepkes

Windschitl

Wolfe

Voting NAY – to allow your rights to be removed:

Kressig

Abdul-Samad

Berry

Gaines

Muhlbauer

Absent:
R. Olson

Swaim

Iowa Abortion Ban Moves Forward

2011-02-15T21:43:00.003-06:00

A fan of the ban.

From LifeNews.com:

A three member Iowa state House subcommittee approved a pro-life bill on Monday that would define human life beginning at conception. The bill, which purports to ban all abortions, likely won’t make it out of the state legislature.

The measure is an effort to go against the Roe v. Wade decision that allowed virtually unlimited abortions throughout pregnancy for any reason. The Supreme Court has affirmed the ruling and is currently split at least 5-4 in favor of continuing abortion on demand. It has also allowed states like Missouri to define human life beginning at conception, but said those laws can’t be used to prohibit abortions.

Because of that, the Iowa bill would likely be declared unconstitutional and court and would never go into effect — even if the state legislature approves the bill. But the bill may not likely get out of the state House.

Rep. Kim Pearson and Rep. David Heaton, both Republicans, sponsored House File 153 and both voted for it during the subcommittee consideration. According to the Des Moines register, Rep. Beth Wessel-Kroeschell, a Democrat, voted against it and it passed 2-1.

“Life is sacred and worthy of protection … I believe that abortion is murder,” Pearson said of her bill.

The legislation declares human “life is valued and protected” beginning at conception and is given the same rights and protections as people after birth under the laws and state constitution of Iowa. The bill bans abortions but does not declare any penalties for an abortion practitioner doing one.

The Register indicates the bill now heads to the House Human Resources Committee, where Family Leader lobbyist Danny Carroll says it has a good chance of passing. He also says the bill is likely to make it out of the state House, but its prospects in the Democrat- controlled state Senate are more uncertain.

Ironically, Pearson and Rep. Glen Massie, who supports Pearson’s bill, have both blocked another measure pro-life advocates are promoting that would be more likely to get through the legislature and more likely to be upheld in court. The legislation would ban abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy based on the scientific evidence that unborn children feel intense pain.

Opponents say HF 153 would prohibit many forms of contraception and could have many other unintended consequences. Judge for yourself; you can read the bill here.

Braley Bytes: Knock Me Over With A Feather Edition

2011-02-11T22:44:00.006-06:00

I've gone to great lengths on this blog to present my supposed U.S. representative, Bruce "Clunkers" Braley, as a big government liberal who's only interested in defecating on the Constitution and drowning my children and unborn grandchildren in red ink. While I still think that's an apt description, there have been a couple of signs lately that Braley is, if not turning over a new leaf, at least running scared from the baying of the Tea Party hounds on his trail.

For instance there is Braley's recent call to avoid raising the national debt ceiling. He said, "[W]e have to be able to draw the line somewhere because if we don’t start addressing this spending problem now, when will we?” Since he helped nearly double the national debt, hearing Braley preaching spending restraint is a little like hearing Homer Simpson preach temperance (not that the average elected Republican has much more credibility on the issue). In Washington words are cheap, but votes are more concrete.

Recently Braley actually voted my way on a bill for once. Braley voted to allow three onerous provisions of the misnamed Patriot Act to expire February 28. According to the ACLU (conservatives, stop rolling your eyes, they're right on this one):

The overbroad provisions of the Patriot Act due to expire are the John Doe roving wiretap provision, which allows law enforcement to conduct surveillance without identifying the person or location to be wiretapped; Section 215, or the “library records” provision, which allows the government to gain access to “any tangible thing” during investigations; and the “lone wolf” provision, which permits surveillance of “non-US” persons who are not affiliated with a terrorist group. All three provisions lack proper and fundamental privacy safeguards.

Although my fingers are starting to itch and stiffen up as I attempt to type these words, I'll endeavour to write them anyway: Good job, Clunkers!

Zach Wahls Speaks About Family

2011-02-04T20:49:00.000-06:00

Zach Wahls, a sixth-generation Iowan, speaks before the Iowa House of Representatives about his life as the child of same sex couple. Although I have my own religious reservations about homosexuality, I don't want to see the rights of homosexuals stifled by the government through the Iowa Marriage Amendment. Mr. Wahls certainly presents his case passionately and articulately.

Braley Bytes: Pyrrhic Victory Edition

2011-02-03T21:41:00.000-06:00

In the November elections incumbent U.S. Representative Bruce Braley won reelection despite the fact that the majority of voters in his district voted for one of his three opponents rather than him. However Craig Robinson at The Iowa Republican says that Braley's victory may have come at a heavy cost. Robinson analyses how all three of Iowa's Democrat members of Congress are now strapped for campaign cash while the two Republican reps, Steve King and Tom Latham, are doing well. This will be important during the uncertainty of redistricting this year.

Bruce Braley has seen his cash-on-hand number plummet by 90 percent. Braley squeaked out a narrow victory in November over Republican Ben Lange. He won re-election by just two points, but only has $28,896 in the bank. The once rising Democrat star is now relegated to insignificant committees. With Democrats in the minority in the House for the first time since being elected, Braley is going to struggle at raising money.

The only fundraising advantage Braley still has is that he’s a trial lawyer. Braley is scheduled to travel to Miami later this week for a campaign fundraiser at the American Association for Justice’s Winter Convention.

I disagree with Robinson on one thing though. He writes:

Braley and Loebsack [...] are not going to scare anybody. They [barely] won their 2010 campaigns, have little or no money in the bank, and their districts are going to get more rural, which is good news for their Republican challengers. [Emphasis added.]

People who love and respect the U.S. Constitution should be scared to death of Clunkers Braley.

Clel's Bogus Journey

2011-01-30T21:48:00.007-06:00

An Iowa state representative who flew to California to fraudulently obtain a medical marijuana prescription, in order to

Rep. Clel Baudler- Former lawman
turned petty criminal

prove “how asinine it would be to legalize ‘medical marijuana'" in this state, may land in hot water. According to DesMoinesRegister.com, "Rep. Clel Baudler, R-Greenfield, is a former state trooper who says he hates illegal drugs. He wrote in an e-mail to supporters in October that he had gone to California, where he lied about having medical problems to obtain a prescription[.] California law states that a person who fraudulently represents a medical condition to a doctor is subject to a $1,000 fine or six months in jail for their first offense."

Iowa medical marijuana activist Mike Pesce said, “I think he should be investigated and impeached. If you read his e-mail he wrote while he was sitting in this Statehouse, he planned this crime. We can’t have lawmakers sitting in this Statehouse planning crimes.”

Clel chronicled his excellent adventure in an email to supporters. While visiting his son in California, Baudler was able to get a medical marijuana prescription by complaining about depression, hemorrhoids, and an artificial left knee. But in the email he admitted, "I have never had an issue with depression, and to be honest, I don’t even know what hemorrhoids were [sic]." (Take a long look at this guy's picture above and ask yourself if you really believe that he doesn't know about hemorrhoids.)

During Clel's bogus journey he met an assortment of characters that were unacceptably different than himself. At one clinic Clel met a "security guard that had to weigh close to 110 pounds [and who] had ten earrings on and about his face and ears, and [...] way over the legal limit on tattoos." (Judge not lest ye be judged Clel, especially when you just crossed state lines to commit prescription fraud. Or perhaps a more fitting verse is John 7:24, "Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.")

If his encounter with the perforated security guard wasn't distressing enough for him, the person who ultimately gave Clel his prescription didn't even have the common courtesy to be an American-born white man. According to Baudler he "was an oriental 'doctor' and only spoke broken English." Perhaps poor Clel should have considered taking his fraudulent business elsewhere.

What ultimately drove Baudler to his reefer madness was the fact that last year the Iowa Board of Pharmacy unanimously recommended allowing medical marijuana in Iowa after months of hearings. A task force is set to report to the legislature in 2011 with recommendations on how to implement such a program. Most people agree that any marijuana prescription program in this state would be far less permissive than in California.

While most Iowans recognize that there should be some therapeutic uses for marijuana, Clel believes that "the 'fight for medical marijuana' isn’t for medical purpose [sic] at all, it is all about people just wanting to get high." While medical marijuana can help many who are sick or in pain, it is true that some people will abuse the system, just as they do with the prescription drugs already available at the pharmacy.

If someone does fake an illness to get prescription pot, just imagine a supposedly free American ingesting into their own bodies a substance that Clel Baudler doesn't approve of. The nerve of some people!

With threats of impeachment and potential criminal prosecution against Baudler, most medical marijuana supporters wouldn't mind seeing this overzealous drug warrior hoisted on his own petard.

Iowa Joins Lawsuit Against Obamacare. YES!

2011-01-22T21:29:00.002-06:00

From the DesMoinesRegister.com on Tuesday, January 18th:

Gov. Terry Branstad has joined 25 other states in a federal lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the health care reform bill approved last year by Congress, a Branstad aide confirmed today.

Branstad, a Republican, joined the lawsuit on behalf of Iowa taxpayers, said Tim Albrecht, the governor’s spokesman. The suit challenges the individual mandate of the health care reform, as well as the expansion of Medicaid, the state-federal health insurance program for low-income people, he said.

I'm not a big Branstad fan, but I do like this.

Christopher Peters Ranks Highly

2011-01-19T21:05:00.004-06:00

According to Libertarian Party News, the official newspaper of the Libertarian National Committee, the performance of Iowa City surgeon and Libertarian Party candidate Christopher Peters in the November election ranked high among all Libertarian candidates nationwide. In races for state legislature with either no Republican or no Democrat in the race, Dr. Peters finished sixth in the country.

Peters ran for State Senate District 15 in the heavily Democratic Johnson County. No Republican volunteered to be a sacrificial lamb in this Democratic Party stronghold. Peters received 25.22% of the vote, a new record for an Iowa Libertarian candidate.

Here's the 2010 results as listed by LP News:

Top ten percentages for state legislature (either no Republican or no Democrat in the race)

Sean T. O'Toole MO State Rep., Dist. 40 33.42%
Brad Hyatt IN State Rep., Dist.56 31.57%
Scott A. Kohlhaas AK State Rep., Dist. 20 30.10%
Jonathan Loya MA State Rep., Middlesex 8 28.74%
Ron Cenkush IN State Rep., Dist. 5 27.97%
Christopher Peters IA State Senator, Dist. 15 25.22%
Fred Fogel HI State Rep., Dist. 5 24.39%
Bob Ludlow MO State Senator, Dist. 10 23.65%
Richard W. Shuey TX State Rep., Dist. 43 22.44%
Don Crossley IN State Senator, Dist. 27 21.72%

Way to go, Doc!

Four Myths About Iowa's New Gun Law

2011-01-15T17:03:00.007-06:00

As I read the plethora of news and commentary that are critical of Iowa's new "shall issue" weapons permit law I'm detecting at least four recurring themes. I'll use examples of each from a recent post at Blog for Iowa (BFIA) titled "Iowa: A Gun In Every Pot," since it appears fairly typical of what's out there and has hints of all four myths.

Myth One- "Carried weapons had to be concealed, now they don't.": Blog for Iowa laments, "[M]ore people can have weapons that wouldn't have qualified before, and they no longer have to be concealed, but don't worry. Nothing has changed in Iowa." [Emphasis added.] Here BFIA's attempted sarcasm that "nothing has changed" is absolutely true in regard to concealed carry.

According to the Iowa Department of Public Safety website: "Iowa law has not changed in this regard. You may carry concealed or you may carry openly; however, most permit holders carry concealed to avoid making it obvious that the person is armed, thus avoiding unnecessary attention, concern, or alarm."

Although it's exactly the same as under Iowa's old licensing procedure which was in effect for decades, since the fact that the weapon doesn't have to be concealed has been so hyped by the media recently, I imagine that some newly-issued permit holders will carry openly just because they can. If so, let me put the hoplophobes' fears to rest: I have been around firearms all of my life and I have never suffered, nor ever heard of anyone suffering any ill health effects simply by laying eyes upon them. So, to quote the great philosopher Sgt. Hulka from Stripes, "Lighten up, Francis!"

Myth Two- "Permit holders couldn't carry in bars, now they can.": BFIA quotes Cerro Gordo County Sheriff Kevin Pals in a KAAL-TV story regarding the "most controversial" part of Iowa's new law. "I don't think it’s a good idea to mix alcohol with guns, I don't think they belong together, however Iowa law does not ban that from happening, " says Pals.

Although this country was founded and settled by hard-drinkers with guns (in 1790 the average American over 15 years of age consumed 34 gallons of beer or hard-cider, five gallons of hard liquor, and one gallon of wine per annum), the idea of mixing alcohol and guns does indeed fly in the face of our effete modern sensibilities. Even those who support the new law certainly don't advise carrying a firearm while intoxicated, which is exactly what the new law prohibits.

The new law says that a permit to carry becomes invalid if the holder is legally intoxicated (i.e. has a blood alcohol level of .08, the same threshold to operate a vehicle on public roadways). The myth here is that this new standard is less strict than the status quo. The previous statewide standard for carrying in bars and/or consuming alcohol was no standard at all.

A few county sheriffs did put restrictions on the permits that they issued, such as "Not valid in bars," but many others did not. For instance, I've heard Linn County put such restrictions on its permits, however I could have carried weapons in Linn County with my unrestricted Jones County permit and sat at Moose McDuffy's in Cedar Rapids and drank Jager bombs to my heart's content without any standards applying toward being armed. (I'm speaking hypothetically of course, I long ago traded in my drinking hat for a daddy hat.) The new law at least applies some standard to all permit holders.

They couldn't go with a simple "no carrying weapons in taverns" decree because, what is the difference between a tavern that serves food and a restaurant that serves alcohol? Permit holders would have to audit the books of potential eating joints to find out what percent of their revenues came from alcohol sales or just get stuck eating at McDonalds.

Fanning the hysteria, BFIA notes, "[A]ll a person has to do if you happen to see someone in a bar or a restaurant brandishing heat is call law enforcement and they will promptly show up and make sure the person has a permit to carry." [Emphasis added.] Wrong. Permit or not, brandishing your weapon has serious legal consequences. One thing that Mike Sieverding of FIERCE Training really hammered into our heads in the permit to carry class I took a few years ago was that if you ever pull your pistol in public, even for a legitimate self-defense use, your life is about to change and not for the better. So when opponents of the new law make it sound like it gives permit holders legal permission to get drunk and wave their pistols around in the local Red Robin, they're either being disingenuous or genuinely ignorant.

Myth Three- "Sheriff knows best.": BFIA complains, "Under the new law, permits to carry weapons cannot be denied [italics BFIA's] unless 'the applicant is a felon or if they have been through some sort of mental health commitment process. Previously, Iowa sheriffs had the discretion to deny permits if a background check turned up something of concern, such as a history of substance abuse.'"

The dirty little secret here is that under the old law, sheriffs could arbitrarily deny your permit for any reason, known only to themselves. Some just chose not to issue them at all. Many of the people opposing the new law are liberals who would be up at arms if some local official had been allowed to arbitrarily deny voting rights or housing or some other benefit based on their own whims, for fear that that decision might be based upon the applicant's race, gender, religion or sexual orientation. But when gun rights are involved, nary a peep of protest.

The argument often given is that "sheriffs know the folks in their county and know who the bad eggs are who shouldn't get a permit," so we should leave discretion to deny permits solely with them. Now, Sheriff Andy Taylor may have known all the denizens of Mayberry by their first names, but that's not realist nowadays, not even in Iowa.

Under the new law all permit applicants have to undergo a criminal background check and specified training requirements. Even then the sheriff can still deny the permit if he thinks there is a problem with the applicant. The difference now is that the sheriff has to give the applicant a written statement explaining why the permit was denied and the applicant can now appeal that decision if he feels it was unfair. What, I ask, is so scary about that?

Myth Four- "Blood in the streets.": The common belief that more private citizens with guns will lead to increased violence is the central and underlying myth that feeds the rest. This idea has been so thoroughly debunked on a national scale that I can't believe it still has so many adherents. Mythbusters should do an episode on this.

Many Iowans are too engrossed in whether Vinny and Snooki are going to hook up to realize that "shall issue" is not some strange new idea that fell out of outer space and landed in Iowa. 36 other states have passed similar laws. (Three states go even further and allow weapons to be carried with no permit required.) Violent crime in the U.S. peaked in 1991, since then, 24 states have adopted shall issue laws and the number of privately owned firearms has risen by about 90 million. Now violent crime rates, including murder, are at historic lows. (Remarkably, accidental gun deaths are at historic lows as well.)

A comprehensive study by University of Chicago Professors John R. Lott, Jr. and David B. Mustard showed that states which passed "concealed carry laws" reduced their murder rate by 8.5%, robbery by 3%, rape by 5%, and aggravated assault by 7%. I don't know if Iowa's will go down that much, because we already had limited concealed carry and fairly low crime rates to begin with, but it puts the lie to the idea that shall issue will drive violence up.

While statistically rare, nothing can totally eliminate the chance of some nutjob going on a shooting rampage like we saw in the recent assassination attempt in Tucson Arizona. But research by Professor Lott and William Landes suggests that concealed handgun laws reduce the likelihood of a "multi-victim public shooting" in a state by up to an incredible 70%. And when they do occur they most often occur in a "gun-free zone" where permit-holders are forbidden from carrying.

I don't know if this technically fits under the "blood in the streets myth" heading, but I'll include it just because it annoyed me. BFIA's post included "a couple of great letters to the editor" regarding the new shall issue law, cherry-picked from the Iowa City Press Citizen. One letter writer moans: "I understand that schools still can have rules that prevent gun-toters from entering school buildings. But can they prevent people carrying high-powered rifles from standing across the road from school property? No, they can't. Hey, parents, doesn't that warm your hearts?"

While I believe that there are several laws that would come into play in such an unlikely scenario, this moronic comment doesn't really deserve a response. It's only useful to illustrate the absolute disgust that some of these people view their gun-owning neighbors with. I'm shocked that someone would think that permit holders like myself, who merely want the means to defend our families from harm, really are just looking to get our jollies by standing across from schoolyards with high-powered rifles, licking our chops like hungry foxes watching a chicken coop, waiting for a juicy target to present itself. What more outrageous and hurtful venom can these people spew at us? Can there be a rational debate with people who view us as such vile monsters?

Thankfully I don't think that most people who have concerns with the new Iowa law are that extreme. Like those of us on the pro-carry side of the debate, they just want what is best to ensure the safety of their families and communities.

If we can learn from the experience of other states, a safer community is exactly what the new shall issue law will deliver. Consider the words of Former Colorado Asst. Attorney General David Kopel, who already went through this process in his own state: “Whenever a state legislature first considers a concealed carry bill, opponents typically warn of horrible consequences....But within a year of passage, the issue usually drops off the news media’s radar screen, while gun-control advocates in the legislature conclude that the law wasn’t so bad after all.”

A year or two from now, when the sky doesn't fall and the bodies aren't stacked in the streets like cordwood, most Iowans can go back to not remembering that we have a carry law.

Neo-Prohibitionist Wants Your Rum and Cola

2011-01-15T15:08:00.002-06:00

Our governing leaders always seem to be concerned that someone, somewhere, might be enjoying their life, especially if they're enjoying it in a way that doesn't involve taxpayer-funded frisbee golf courses or ice skating rinks. As a case in point, Iowa Freedom Report's Steve Hoodjer reports that one legislative teetotaler, Iowa state Senator Brian Schoenjahn (D-Arlington), has proposed a ban on the "dangerous" practice of mixing alcohol and caffeinated substances (like pop or coffee).

According to Hoodjer:

Simple possession of such drinks would land a person in jail for 30 days and bartenders who mix caffeinated cocktails would cost their employers their liquor licenses permanently. It is not clear whether the Senator introduced the measure as a means of increasing unemployment in the entertainment sector or if he is merely looking to drive up prison populations in an effort to stave off cutbacks in criminal justice spending.

Hoodjer also quotes Reason magazine's Hit and Run blog that also picked up on the story:

[The bill] apparently applies not only to drinks with a noticeable caffeine kick but also to coffee-flavored liqueurs with detectable amounts of the stimulant, such as Kahlua or Tia Maria, and any cocktails made with them, such as a Black Russian or a Mudslide. In addition to jail time and fines, violators would face revocation (not just suspension) of their liquor licenses, and therefore loss of their livelihoods—a pretty harsh penalty for following the instructions in a Mr. Boston book.

Although Schoenjahn, the latter-day Elliot Ness who proposed the ban, is a Democrat, Hoodjer worries that the bill could make it out of committee "if nanny-state Republicans cross the aisle to support it[.]" If this legislative buzzkill does pass, it will no doubt be followed, at some point, by the formation of yet another blue-ribbon panel of state hand-wringers who will spend my tax money to try to figure out why young adults flee Iowa in droves. It's enough to drive a man to drink!

Muscatine Journal: "Gun law transition smooth"

2011-01-05T22:15:00.004-06:00

Iowa's new "shall issue" law went into effect January 1st and the news media in the state have been reporting the heck out of it, often with a can you believe that they're doing this? tone. Here's a rare news story that doesn't sensationalize the new law, found in the Muscatine Journal, that interviews an equally rare sheriff that supported passage of the new law.

The new law eliminates a sheriff’s discretion in issuing a permit to carry a weapon, except to convicted felons and people convicted of a domestic assault.

[Muscatine County Sheriff Dave] White hailed the uniformity of the new law.

“People used to be restricted by what a sheriff’s feelings were,” he said. “There were 99 counties with 99 sets of rules.”

White said he doesn’t mind giving up a little bit of his authority if it means Muscatine County’s 42,934 residents will be safer.

“We were told that if we let this happen, we will lose some of our power,” White said. “I’ve been in law enforcement since 1973, and I didn’t get into it for the power. We get into this line of work because we want to protect people and see crime rates go down.”

And it has, he said, in many of the 39 other states that have adopted “shall issue” laws.

“The likelihood that people will have to use a weapon (to defend themselves or others) is pretty slim,” he said. “But people want to have that option. They don’t want to be a victim.”

Yikes, common sense! How did that get into print? You can read the entire article here.

AOL News: Are TSA Scanners Safe?

2010-12-30T15:06:00.000-06:00

As long as I'm already making friends at Dept. of Homeland Security, I'll stick with the TSA stuff for one more post. An investigation by AOL news shows that the job of maintaining and calibrating the TSA's funky new body scanners belongs to "somebody else," although nobody is really sure who.

According to Aol.News.com:

The Transportation Security Administration says that when working properly, the backscatter Advance Imaging Technology X-ray scanners emit an infinitesimal, virtually harmless amount of radiation.

The problem is that the TSA offers no proof that anyone is checking to see if the machines are "working properly."

The TSA ticks off a litany of groups that it says are involved with determining and ensuring the safety of the controversial devices, including:

•The Food and Drug Administration
•The U.S. Army Public Health Command
•Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Laboratory
•The Health Physics Society

However, AOL News has found that those organizations say they have no responsibility for the continuing safety of the alternative to TSA's grope.

Why worry about maintaining the machines?

To assure that the doses are as low as they are billed to be, it is imperative to accurately calibrate the machines and carefully monitor their performance.

A spike in the intensity of the scanning beam, or a slowdown or pause in the timing of that beam's sweep across a traveler's body, could cause significant radiation damage, AOL News was told by a radiologist and two radiological health physicists, who are trained and certified to ensure the safety of those exposed to or working with radioactive material.

The FDA and many state radiation safety offices license, inspect and monitor almost all medical radiation devices everywhere they're used. But even identical X-ray machines used in nonmedical government venues fall outside FDA scrutiny, the agency said last week.

Nevertheless, the TSA maintains that when it comes to the safety of the full-body scanners, "everything is working fine," an agency spokesman told AOL News.

So who does verify the safety of these machines?

"The safety of our scanning systems are routinely and thoroughly tested by the manufacturer, FDA, the U.S. Army, the Health Physics Society, Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Laboratory and others," the spokesman said when asked last month how the TSA knows if the scanning system is safe.

But in interviews with those same safety sentinels, AOL News found that none of the groups was doing any routine testing of operating scanners in airports. Further, they all said they have no responsibility to monitor the safety of those passing through the airport scanners.

For example, the FDA says it doesn't do routine inspections of any nonmedical X-ray unit, including the ones operated by the TSA.

The FDA has not field-tested these scanners and hasn't inspected the manufacturer. It has no legal authority to require owners of these devices -- in this case, TSA -- to provide access for routine testing on these products once they have been sold, FDA press officer said Karen Riley said.

You can read the entire article here.

New TSA Policies Not Protecting Us

2010-12-19T21:53:00.003-06:00

Not long after a Canada Free Press article broke news that a leaked U.S. Department of Homeland Security memo supposedly called for creating an enemies list of people who agitated against the new enhanced TSA security screening procedures, I had a guest column in the Cedar Rapids (Iowa) Gazette agitating against those very TSA security screening procedures. [Hat tip to Between Two Rivers blog, where I first read about the DHS/TSA enemies list.]

My column in the paper (which appeared Monday Dec. 13th, with the above title) was edited for space and brevity, but I present here my original long-winded submission:

The Transportation Security Administration’s new procedures, which involve taking naked body images of or giving intense pat-downs to American citizens without reasonable suspicion or probable cause, would have been unfathomable to most Americans a decade ago. Now, however, many view them as a necessary trade off to make us safer against the terrorist threat. But how much safer do they make us?

The procedures are being justified as being in response to the 2009 “Underwear Bomber,” Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab. However a report from the Government Accountability Office, the auditing and evaluation arm of Congress, concluded that it was “unclear” whether the new scanners would have detected the materials used by Abdulmutallab. Ben Wallace, an ex British Army officer who later worked for a defense firm that made such scanners, says that it’s “unlikely” that they would.

The debate may be moot because Al Qaeda has already developed a way of eluding the scanners, as well as the pat-downs. In an assassination attempt against a Saudi prince in 2009, an Al Qaeda operative snuck a pound of explosives and a detonator through security in his rectum. A device hidden in this manner could only be detected by a full body cavity search. So it’s “unclear” to “unlikely” that the TSA’s new procedures would make us safer against an “underwear bomber” and are useless against cutting edge suicide bomber tactics.

If the scanners don’t make us much safer, then how did we end up with them? According to David Rittgers, an analyst at the Cato Institute: “An army of executives for scanner-producing corporations — mostly former high-ranking Homeland Security officials — successfully lobbied Congress into spending $300 million in stimulus money to buy the scanners. But running them will cost another $340 million each year. Operating them means 5,000 added TSA personnel, growing the screener workforce by 10 percent. This, when the federal debt commission is saying that we must cut federal employment rolls, including some FBI agents, just to keep spending sustainable.”

Borrowing more money to purchase marginal technology and increasing spending to employ it, at a time when the U.S. appears on the verge of economic collapse, does not make us safer.

Then there are privacy and Fourth Amendment concerns. According to one congressman, the scanners “offer a disturbingly accurate view of a person’s body[.]” British officials banned their use on people under 18, for fear of running afoul of child pornography laws. Documents obtained by Electronic Privacy Information Center show that the scanners “include the ability to store, record, and transfer images” and “include hard disk storage, USB integration, and Ethernet connectivity” that raise significant privacy concerns. Comparable scanners that more adequately address privacy concerns are available and used in Europe, but then former DHS officials don’t sell those scanners.

The Fourth Amendment states, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons […] against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated[.]” According to law professor Jeffrey Rosen, as an appeals court judge in 2006, Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito said that to be constitutionally “reasonable” airport screening procedures must be both “effective” and “minimally intrusive” as well as “well-tailored to protect personal privacy.” The new TSA procedures seem to miss the mark.

Most Americans don’t need to hear legal opinions to know that the TSA searches are an affront to their liberties. As the millions of people lying in mass graves around the globe would surely attest if they were able, when a government begins to disregard the rights and dignity of its people and the people do nothing, we are all decidedly less safe.

Benjamin R. Cashner is a freelance writer from Monticello and a member of the Iowa Libertarian Party. He blogs at http://coldhardcashner.blogspot.com/ and is a contributing writer at Iowa Freedom Report.com.

Blasts From the Past

2010-12-12T21:44:00.008-06:00

Last Christmas I got a Barnes & Noble gift card that I used to buy Brian Doherty's book Radicals for Capitalism: A Freewheeling History of the Modern American Libertarian Movement. Although it's a great book, I'm still working on it since it will often sit unmolested on my nightstand for weeks on end. Periodicals always seem more pressing and, given my work schedule, my pillow usually seems more alluring than the book.

Doherty is a senior editor at Reason magazine and also the author of This Is Burning Man: The Rise of a New American Underground and Gun Control on Trial: Inside the Supreme Court Battle Over the Second Amendment. In Radicals for Capitalism, Doherty traces the philosophical evolution of the libertarian movement and provides brief biographies of many of its influential thinkers.

Lysander Spooner

One of these early proto-libertarians was Lysander Spooner. Spooner (1808-1887) was an American anarchist (before allegations of bomb-throwing nuts ruined the term) and a staunch abolitionist. He is best known for illegally starting his own postal service, the American Letter Mail Company, to compete against the USPS.

In one of my favorite quotes, Spooner explains the difference between a highwayman (robber) and the government:

The fact is that the government, like a highwayman, says to a man: Your money, or your life... [But] the highwayman [...] does not pretend that he has any rightful claim to your money, or that he intends to use it for your own benefit. [...] He has not acquired impudence enough to profess to be merely a 'protector[.]' Furthermore, having taken your money, he leaves you[.] He does not persist in following you on the road, against your will; assuming to be your rightful 'sovereign,' on account of the 'protection' he affords you. He does not keep 'protecting' you, by commanding you to bow down and serve him; by requiring you to do this, and forbidding you to do that; by robbing you of more money as often as he finds it for his interest or pleasure to do so; and by branding you as a rebel, a traitor, [and] shooting you down without mercy, if you dispute his authority, or resist his demands. He is too much of a gentleman to be guilty of such impostures, and insults, and villainies as these. In short, he does not, in addition to robbing you, attempt to make you either his dupe or his slave.

Another influential libertarian was Isabel Paterson (1886-1961). Paterson was a journalist, novelist, and a leading literary critic. Her 1943 book The God of the Machine featured a chapter titled "The Humanitarian with the Guillotine." (You can read the entire chapter here.) In it she includes a warning about those who demand to "help" their fellow man, even those who don't want to be helped (which then usually requires the coercive force of government):

Isabel Paterson
If the primary objective of the philanthropist, his justification for living, is to help others, his ultimate good requires that others shall be in want. His happiness is the obverse of their misery. If he wishes to help "humanity," the whole of humanity must be in need. The humanitarian wishes to be a prime mover in the lives of others. He cannot admit either the divine or the natural order, by which men have the power to help themselves. The humanitarian puts himself in the place of God.

I look forward to reading more little pearls of wisdom like these in Radicals for Capitalism. Hopefully I'll have it all read by Christmas... next year.

[Addendum- 12/17/2010: In my own defense I should add that I did get a few other books last Christmas that I did finish reading and that I didn't use the gift certificate to get Radicals for Capitalism until awhile after Christmas. Whew! I feel better getting that off my chest.]

Four Minutes For Freedom

2010-11-30T22:10:00.001-06:00

"All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."
attributed to Edmund Burke

Americans have been asked to do a lot to secure the blessings of liberty over the years. I hope that you'll do two more things to that end. They won't involve suffering through a long winter at Valley Forge or getting tear gassed and billy clubbed at Selma. They'll only take a few minutes each and you can do them right over the computer before you now. Let me explain why they're important.

In the previous post I chronicled a few personal horror stories of the Transportation Security Administration's (TSA) new enhanced security measures. These involve expensive new "body scanners" that basically conduct a virtual stripsearch of air travellers and transmit the image to a TSA officer for viewing. The naked image of the citizen can also be stored and transferred elsewhere. Other technologies, that are equally effective yet raise fewer privacy concerns, already exist and are operation in European airports. The only alternative the TSA offers for its body scanners is an even more intrusive full-body pat-down.

These searches are clearly in violation of the Fourth Amendment rights of U.S. citizens. The Fourth Amendment says, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." [Emphasis added.]

While the Supreme Court has not ruled on airport screening technology yet, lower courts have. According to George Washington University law professor Jeffrey Rosen in a recent Washington Post article:

[T]he U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit ruled in 2007, that "a particular airport security screening search is constitutionally reasonable provided that it 'is no more extensive nor intensive than necessary, in the light of current technology, to detect the presence of weapons or explosives.' "

In a 2006 opinion for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit, then-Judge Samuel Alito stressed that screening procedures must be both "minimally intrusive" and "effective" - in other words, they must be "well-tailored to protect personal privacy," and they must deliver on their promise of discovering serious threats. Alito upheld the practices at an airport checkpoint where passengers were first screened with walk-through magnetometers and then, if they set off an alarm, with hand-held wands. He wrote that airport searches are reasonable if they escalate "in invasiveness only after a lower level of screening disclose[s] a reason to conduct a more probing search."

As currently used in U.S. airports, the new full-body scanners fail all of Alito's tests.

Most Americans don't need these highfaluting legal opinions to tell us what our gut is already telling us, namely that there is something wrong with all this. We know that the new TSA procedures look, sound, feel and stink like a police state. So, what can we do about it? I suggest two things for starters.

First, write your elected officials. I know that seems trite and lame. I've pretty well given up on that civics class pap, but this is important enough that it's worth a try. If we raise enough of an uproar perhaps even our representatives might have to awaken and do something. If you go to the ACLU's website you can send a pre-written message to DHS Secretary Napolitano, your U.S. Senators and U.S. Representative urging them to "rein in these invasive searches, and to implement security measures that respect passengers' privacy rights." It only takes a few clicks and you can use the service even if you're not a fan of the ACLU.

CLICK HERE.

Secondly, please help out Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC). Back in July, when the rest of us were thinking about barbecues and fireworks, EPIC was already slapping a lawsuit on the DHS to stop them from implementing the new scanner/pat-down procedures. Unfortunately the wheels of the justice system turned too slowly to have it stopped before it started, but better late than never. The on-going lawsuit alleges that the new procedures violate travelers' Fourth Amendment rights, and violate both the Privacy Act and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act as well as a bunch of administrative regulations.

Legal battles aren't cheap, especially when you're going up against the federal government with it's deep pockets (our pockets, that is). According to its website, "EPIC is a public interest research center in Washington, D.C. It was established in 1994 to focus public attention on emerging civil liberties issues and to protect privacy, the First Amendment, and constitutional values." Contributions to EPIC are tax-deductible. I know times are tight, but please try to send them whatever you can. Even $5 would help, if enough of us do it. You can DONATE ONLINE or send a check to: "EPIC," 1718 Connecticut Ave. NW, Suite 200, Washington, DC 20009.

So please, there are two small things we can do to defend freedom. It will only take a few minutes and a few clicks. The other option is to do nothing and allow evil to triumph.

TSA Travel Terror

2010-11-21T21:39:00.004-06:00

Holiday travelers be on alert: An organized and determined group has launched a coordinated effort to disrupt airline travel and terrorize American citizens. The "good" news is that the group is our own federal government.

No doubt you've already heard horror stories of the Transportation Security Administration's new "enhanced pat-down" techniques and body scanners. The new security measures are supposedly in response to the Christmas bomber Farouk Abdulmutallab who snuck explosives onto a plane in his underwear.

David Rittgers of the Cato Institute explains that the expensive new body scanners, "that look beneath clothing to perform virtual strip searches," aren't the panacea they're made out to be. "Despite what their proponents would have us believe, body scanners are not some magical tool to find all weapons and explosives that can be hidden on the human body," writes Rittgers. "Yes, the scanners work against high-density objects such as guns and knives — but so do traditional magnetometers."

He continues: "And the scanners fare poorly against low-density materials such as thin plastics, gels and liquids. Care to guess what Abdulmutallab's bomb was made of? The Government Accountability Office reported in March that it's not clear that a scanner would've detected that device."

Rittgers also explains how Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) has already figured out a low-tech way of defeating the machines by inserting the explosives in their rectums. Drug smugglers have been doing this for years with their product and AQAP has already tried this in an assassination attempt against a Saudi official. A would-be terrorist could smuggle the explosive device on board a plane, then remove it from its "hiding place" during the flight in the plane's lavatory.

What the scanners lack in effectiveness they make up for in expense. According to Rittgers, "executives for scanner-producing corporations — mostly former high-ranking Homeland Security officials — successfully lobbied Congress into spending $300 million in stimulus money to buy the scanners. But running them will cost another $340 million each year. Operating them means 5,000 added TSA personnel, growing the screener workforce by 10 percent. This, when the federal debt commission is saying that we must cut federal employment rolls, including some FBI agents, just to keep spending sustainable."

For airports that don't yet have the expensive scanners, or for people who decline to be scanned by them (perhaps out of fear of the unknown long-term health effects), or for people on whom the scanners see something suspicious, an "enhanced pat-down" becomes necessary. During this procedure TSA agents manually check passengers intimate areas for weapons or explosives.

This experience is traumatic enough for most travelers but especially for a rape survivor like "Celeste" in Minnesota who, despite public assurances that pat-downs will be performed only by same-sex agents, had hers performed by a male agent. She recounts her encounter with the TSA here: "He started at one leg and then ran his hand up to my crotch. He cupped and patted my crotch with his palm. Other flyers were watching this happen to me. At that point I closed my eyes and started praying[.] He also cupped and then squeezed my breasts. That wasn’t the worst part. He touched my face, he touched my hair, stroking me. That’s when I started crying. It was so intimate, so horrible. I feel like I was being raped. There’s no way I can fly again. I can’t do it.”

Or there's the story of 61 year old Thomas D. Sawyer of Lansing Michigan. According to an msnbc.com article, "Sawyer is a bladder cancer survivor who now wears a urostomy bag, which collects his urine from a stoma, or opening in his stomach. 'I have to wear special clothes and in order to mount the bag I have to seal a wafer to my stomach and then attach the bag. If the seal is broken, urine can leak all over my body and clothes.'"

When the scanners picked up Sawyer's urostomy bag he was pulled aside for a pat-down procedure. When Sawyer tried to explain his condition to the TSA agents they said they didn't need to know about it. Once Sawyer removed his sweatshirt and they spotted the bag they finally asked him about his medical condition.

“One agent watched as the other used his flat hand to go slowly down my chest. I tried to warn him that he would hit the bag and break the seal on my bag, but he ignored me. Sure enough, the seal was broken and urine started dribbling down my shirt and my leg and into my pants.”

The security officer finished the pat-down, tested the gloves for any trace of explosives and then, Sawyer said, “He told me I could go. They never apologized. They never offered to help. They acted like they hadn’t seen what happened. But I know they saw it because I had a wet mark.”

Humiliated, upset and wet, Sawyer said he had to walk through the airport soaked in urine, board his plane and wait until after takeoff before he could clean up.

These are just two examples, but a quick search of the internet will show more stories like this than you'd care to read. These are all real Americans being treated like cattle by their government. Thankfully the people appear to be fighting back. Multiple lawsuits have been filed against the TSA and there has been a vocal public outcry against the new procedures. Some local district attorneys have threatened to prosecute TSA agents who engage in inappropriate behavior. Despite all this, TSA head John Pistole has said that they're not going to change the policies.

Pistole and the rest of the federal security bureaucracy, as well as many fellow citizens, probably think that all of this is a perfectly acceptable trade-off to keep the American people "safe." However, as the government is diligently fondling Grandma's labia in a vain attempt to prevent the previous terrorist attack, they will meanwhile be failing to "connect the dots" to prevent the next one. When it hits, Homeland Security will treat the present level of intrusiveness as a floor, not a ceiling, and the current infringements upon our liberty and dignity will have all been for naught. They will just demand more of our liberty the next time.

Perhaps the best summation of the situation comes from Thomas D. Sawyer, the traveler who had his urostomy bag ruptured by the probing fingers of an overreaching government. “I am a good American and I want safety for all passengers as much as the next person. But if this country is going to sacrifice treating people like human beings in the name of safety, then we have already lost the war.” Wise words from someone whose dignity was a collateral casualty in the federal government's "war on terror."

Iowa Firearms Coalition Announces 2011 Legislative Agenda

2010-11-14T15:07:00.004-06:00

The dust had barely settled from the 2010 election when the Iowa Firearms Coalition (formerly Iowa Carry) announced its 2011 legislative agenda, working in conjunction with the National Rifle Association. The two groups successfully pushed through a "shall-issue" weapons permit law which was signed by Governor Culver in April of this year. The ambitious 2011 agenda includes an amendment to the state constitution, as well as legislation strengthening Iowa's firearms preemption laws, protecting those who use a gun in self-defense from civil liabilities, and allowing Vermont/Alaska-style carry of firearms without a permit.

The "Iowa Right to Keep and Bear Arms Constitutional Amendment" was first announced by the group on Jan Mickelson's radio show in early October. Iowa is one of only six states that has no provision in its constitution protecting the right to keep and bear arms. Since Iowa voters rejected a constitutional convention on the November ballot, amending the state constitution will require that an identically worded amendment pass two successive legislatures, then be approved by Iowa voters.

The proposed wording for the amendment by IFC/NRA is: "The right of individuals to acquire, keep, possess, transport, and use arms to defend life and liberty and for all other legitimate purposes is fundamental and inviolable. Licensing, registration, special taxation, or any other measure that suppresses or discourages the free exercise of this right is forbidden."

Second, the "Iowa Firearm Preemption Act" would modify "the current preemption law to completely disallow a series of confusing, indiscernible 'Gun Free' zones intermittently spread across the state causing confusion," according to IFC's website. State firearms preemption laws basically state that local governments may not pass gun restrictions more strict than the state. This bill no doubt comes in response to recent efforts by local governments, such as Shelby and Hancock Counties and the cities of Ottumwa and West Burlington, to circumvent the state's current preemption law and ban permit-holders from carrying concealed weapons on county or municipal property.

Next is the "Iowa Family Defense Act." According to IFC: "Today, in Iowa, should you be forced to defend your life, you can be held liable for your act of defense in a civil court. Your act of self defense, or the defense of another, could be used against you. This piece of legislation would ensure your right to self defense without potential exposure to prosecution in a civil case from an attacker."

Lastly the "Iowa Constitutional Carry Bill" would apparently require "no permit for carrying or for the acquisition of firearms," thereby ensuring "that our right to keep and bear arms is not infringed at all, just as our forefathers intended." This would appear to be similar to legislation sought by the group Iowa Gun Owners in the 2010 legislative session.

This system is often called "Vermont Carry" and, in addition to that state, it is currently enjoyed in Alaska and most recently Arizona. IFC President Sean McClanahan told me recently that permits would still be available to those who wanted them, such as for people who wanted to carry concealed weapons into other states that recognize Iowa's permits, but would not be required to carry in Iowa.

McClanahan says the group will be considering other legislation as well, but these four measures will be the prime focus.

[This story also posted at Iowa Freedom Report.]

SKUNKED!

2010-11-06T16:44:00.001-05:00

As a known third-party supporter, after an election I'm sometimes asked by friends and coworkers if any of my "weird people" won. This year, like every year before, I can answer that all of my "weird people" were soundly handed their asses yet again. If you just want to be on the team with the highest score you can't vote third party.

One major disappointment came in the governor's race however. Regular readers will recall that Libertarian candidate Eric Cooper sought to win 2% of the vote, thereby securing "major party" status for the Libertarian Party under Iowa law. If ever we could achieve this status, I thought 2010 would be the year.

In Cooper we had a passionate and articulate candidate who was willing to do the necessary leg work. He garnered the most media coverage of any Iowa L.P. candidate that I'd ever seen. There was a palpable anti-establishment buzz in the air this election season. All the political tumblers seemed to be aligning for the L.P. to capture major party status. When the dust settled, however, Cooper had only received 1.28% of the vote. (14,293 total votes.) This is a respectable showing, but it didn't quite hit the state's arbitrary 2% requirement. The L.P.'s next shot for Iowa major party status will come in the 2012 presidential election.

Libertarian candidates in other races across the ballot had some decent showings also. John Heiderscheit got 25,168 votes (2.27%) in the U.S. Senate race. For the U.S. House, Rob Petsche got 4,072 votes (1.93%) in District 1 and Gary Sicard got 4,327 votes (1.91%) in District 2. One of the star performers of the night was Jake Porter who was running for Secretary of State. Porter got 33,683 votes or 3.13%. There were only 31,000 votes separating the two major party candidates, so Porter's votes were enough to make or break the election. That is the main goal of a third party candidate: make the big boys sweat, so they'll steal your issues to get those voters back the next time.

In statehouse elections, Libertarian candidate Dr. Christopher Peters got an impressive 25.22% of the vote (6,071 votes) for State Senate District 15. This district covers Iowa City and Republicans didn't bother running a candidate against Democrat Robert E. Dvorsky. Peters happily jumped at the losing cause and used his candidacy to promote limited-government ideals in an area of the state not known for those ideals. He was rewarded with the new record for highest vote percentage for an Iowa Libertarian candidate (beating Eric Cooper's 21% record for statehouse). Also in Iowa City (and again with no Republican running), medical student Dustin Krutsinger got 20.44% of the vote (2,550 votes) for State Representative District 30. In State Representative District 46, Tyler Pauly got 347 votes or 2.45%.

Even with some good results, I'm still bummed we didn't get major party status. And I'm bummed the Constitutional Convention vote failed. And I'm bummed that that bumbling Bolshevik bum Bruce Braley is still my U.S. representative. (Since "Big Borrowin' Braley" is returning to DC, I've been trying to prepare my 16-month-old for his future by pointing to China on the map and trying to teach him to say "master.")

C'mon, I couldn't end this thing without taking a swipe at my old buddy Clunkers (and practicing my alliteration). That always makes me feel better.

Caffeinated Thoughts on Constitutional Convention

2010-11-01T21:16:00.000-05:00

Today there was a good post by Eric Goranson at Caffeinated Thoughts blog, dealing with (among other things) the constitutional convention ballot question. Here it is an excerpt:

The following question is on the back of your ballot: “Shall there be a convention to revise the constitution, and propose amendment or amendments to same?”

My vote will be a resounding YES! The Legislature has failed to act, I can’t see Republicans (sadly, at this point anyway) having the spinal fortitude to get two Assemblies to vote for a marriage amendment should they win control, and this is a Constitutional remedy we should jump on.

The opposition from the Right and the Left will point out that all kinds of bad things can happen in a convention and then the people might vote on them. The simple truth is this: All proposed amendments would be voted on individually. With that in mind, the opposition always wants the people to vote when the polling shows that the people agree with them and avoid popular votes when the polling tells them they might lose. Anyone who opposes the Constitutional Convention is either disingenuous, saying that calling a convention is “playing fast and loose with the Constitution” (It’s a CONSTITUTIONAL REMEDY, numbskull!) or they use fear to scare people into making a “risky” convention take place. They have succumbed to elitism. We either trust the people with the vote or we don’t.
With polls showing the people of Iowa pretty evenly split on the gay marriage issue, a marriage amendment wouldn't be a slam dunk for either side. But a convention could also allow many other important reforms that the legislature won't move on, such as term limits, sunshine laws, and recall of elected officials to at least be voted on by the people. You can read Goranson's entire post here.

Vote Libertarian in Iowa in November! -2010

2010-10-23T21:28:00.000-05:00

Here's a video produced by local Libertarian activist Brandon Echols urging everyone to vote Libertarian this year. It features appearances from such Iowa Libertarian notables as Eric Cooper, Kevin Litten, Rob Petsche, Gary Sicard, Dustin Krutsinger, Dr.Christopher Peters, and even a mercifully short appearance by myself. I hope you enjoy Brandon's video. And please, no autographs!

Register Article on Constitutional Convention

2010-10-23T21:09:00.001-05:00

Today's DesMoinesRegister.com had one of the better articles about the Iowa constitutional convention vote that I've read.

A nonprofit group called Call the Convention is working to shoot down commonly held worries about a convention.

"Any amendment would have to pass the people of Iowa," said Bill Gustoff, a Des Moines lawyer who is on the steering committee for Call the Convention. "Iowans need not fear the constitutional convention process unless they fear the people. I think clearly public sentiment is in favor of the Defense of Marriage Act."

Social conservatives are listening and trying to decide whether a convention would be the best option to ban gay marriage.

"If you had asked me a year ago, I would have been adamantly opposed to it," said Steve Scheffler, the head of the Iowa Faith & Freedom Coalition, formerly called the Iowa Christian Alliance. "Now I'm considering it, but I have mixed feelings about it."

Even if a convention is called, delegates don't have to propose amendments. And if amendments are proposed, they would not necessarily be adopted. Each amendment proposed by the convention would go in a separate ballot question for voters' final approval.

If you go to the Register article, be sure to read the sidebar items on the right, they're very informative.

Done Voting!

2010-10-17T21:09:00.005-05:00

Thanks to the miracle of the absentee ballot, my wife and I are done voting. I'll tell you who I voted for and why. I won't call these my "endorsements" because I don't think that any of these candidates probably need or even want the endorsement of some nutty blogger banging away on a keyboard in his pajamas.

Iowa Governor: I voted for Eric Cooper (Libertarian). No, he's not going to win the governorship, that's Terry Branstad's job... for some reason. Cooper and his Lieutenant, Nick Weltha (and the rest of us Iowa Libertarians), will define victory as getting at least 2% of the vote. If we achieve that benchmark in a statewide race we will achieve "major party" status under Iowa law. Then, it is hoped, we can become a big enough fly in the ointment for the two major parties that they will adopt many of our policies just to get rid of us. To see the plan, go to Cooper's website and read the section titled, "We need 2%."

Secretary of State: My vote went to Jake Porter (Libertarian). Although he's only 22, Porter is already a heavy-lifter in the Iowa Libertarian Party. He and a handful of others do all the work while the rest of us sit back and watch (or blog about it as the case may be). In addition to his work for the party, Porter works full-time in retail, is working on his degree in Business Administration, and owns the Des Moines Free Press. I wish I had his energy! The Secretary of State, among other things, oversees Iowa's elections. It would be nice to have an impartial third-party referee in elections between the Republicans and Democrats.
US Senator: I voted for John Heiderscheit (Libertarian). I used to like Chuck Grassley but the guy is bragging about being the one who wrote the Medicare Part D (prescription drugs) bill. Social security and medicare are going to bankrupt the country and the Bush-era Republicans poured gasoline on that fire when they were in charge. Now they're criticizing Obamacare? The difference between Medicare Part D and Obamacare is a matter of degrees not principle.

US House of Representatives, District 1: Although there's a Ben Lange sign in front of my house, I voted for Rob Petsche (Libertarian). (Certain others in my house may have voted for Lange however, hence the sign.) I like Petsche and agree with him on the issues, unfortunately, as a third party candidate he lacks the political big guns to unseat incumbent commie Bruce Braley, only Republican challenger Ben Lange has any chance. So I voted for Petsche just out of quixotic principle, but secretly I hope that Lange kicks Braley's butt.

Attorney General: I voted for Brenna Findley. Although I voted for a few Republicans for Secretary of this or that and for some of the county-level dog catcher-type positions out of a lack of options, Findley was one Republican that I was actually excited to vote for. Findley was one of the few Iowans who thought highly enough of the Second Amendment to show up at the Second Amendment March in Des Moines in April and spoke at the event. Although numerous other states have signed onto a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of Obamacare, our current AG has refused. If elected, Findley says she'll get Iowa in on the legal action against this unconstitutional federal usurpation. You go girl!

Iowa House, District 31: I voted for Lee Hein. I'll admit I don't know much about the guy. I heard him speak once at an event. He didn't rattle the rafters with some Pattonesque speech like I crave, but he seemed like a common, competent farmer running for office, and that's fine with me. Although it wasn't the determining factor, the incumbent Ray Zirkelbach's comments equating the Tea Party movement to the KKK didn't help earn my vote.

Retention of 3 Supreme Court Justices: Since I'm not opposed to gay marriage, it might surprise some that I voted against all three judges. Incumbents in the legislative and executive branches are taking hits in what hopefully will be "The Great Voter Revolt of 2010," so why not the judicial? The message is simple: If you're in a position of governmental authority, be afraid, be very afraid.

Iowa Outdoor Recreation Trust Fund Amendment: I voted no. According to BallotPedia.org, "If the measure is approved by a simple majority of Iowa voters, the next time the Iowa Legislature approves a sales tax increase, the measure would allow 3/8ths of one cent to be used in support of the Natural Resources and Outdoor Recreation Trust Fund. This would establish permanent revenue for natural resources and outdoor recreational programs in the state." If the state legislature raises the sales tax to fund some urgent need, a certain percent will automatically be syphoned away to the DNR, whether they need it or not. That doesn't make sense. As we've seen at the federal level with Social Security and Medicare, putting programs on budgetary "autopilot" is not a good idea.

Iowa Constitutional Convention Question: The question is simple: "Shall there be a convention to revise the constitution, and propose amendment or amendments to same?" My vote was, "Yes." I explained why here.

Dr. Cooper: Introducing Libertarianism

2010-10-16T15:56:00.001-05:00

Here Libertarian candidate for Iowa governor Eric Cooper gives a presentation called "Libertarianism: An Introduction" at University of Northern Iowa on October 14th. (Two parts)

Tea Party Supporters Protest Representative’s Comments

2010-10-13T19:16:00.001-05:00

From Iowa Freedom Report:

Two women with ties to the Iowa Tea Party movement have mounted a letter-writing campaign recalling a state representative’s offensive comments earlier in the year. State Representative Ray Zirkelbach (D-Monticello) referred to the Tea Party movement as the "Tea (Bagger) Party" and the "KKK out of their costumes." Jenn Jones of Anamosa and Liz Strang formerly of Monticello, but now residing in Ohio, have had letters published in several Northeast Iowa newspapers speaking out against Zirkelbach’s remarks. Jones is active in the Jones County 9.12 Project.

Zirkelbach’s comments were posted on his Facebook page in April. In one he refers to the movement as the "Tea (Bagger) Party" and points out the supposed hypocrisy of criticizing government spending while still utilizing public roads, schools, and snow removal. At that time, Strang posted a reply prudently pointing out that the Tea Party movement stands for "limited government," not necessarily "no government." After parrying several more online replies from Tea Party supporters, Zirkelbach declared, "I believe the Tea Party is the KKK out of their costumes!”

Read the full story at Iowa Freedom Report.

Braley Bytes: "Debt for Clunkers" Edition

2010-10-01T22:59:00.003-05:00

Besides helping to nearly double the national debt, Iowa First District Representative Bruce Braley's biggest achievement in Congress is his co-sponsorship of the 2009 "Debt for Clunkers" program. (This program is sometimes erroneously called "Cash for Clunkers" under the mistaken assumption that an organization that's $13 trillion in debt and hemorrhaging $1 trillion more than it's taking in each year actually has "cash" to hand out.)

Chris Edwards, director of tax policy studies at the Cato Institute, a free market think tank, wrote a good summary of the program shortly after it ended in 2009. Forgoing the usual academic niceties, Edwards dubbed Debt for Clunkers as "the dumbest government program ever." Here's Edwards' rundown of the program's dubious achievements:

"A few billion dollars worth of wealth was destroyed. About 750,000 cars, many of which could have provided consumer value for many years, were thrown in the trash. Suppose each clunker was worth $3,000 at a guess, that would mean that the government destroyed $2.25 billion of value.
"Low-income families, who tend to buy used cars, were harmed because the clunkers program will push up used car prices.
"Taxpayers were ripped off $3 billion. The government took my money to give to people who will buy new cars that are much nicer than mine!
"The federal bureaucracy has added 1,100 people to handle all the clunker administration. Again, taxpayers are the losers.
"The environment was not helped. See here and here.
"The auto industry received a short-term “sugar high” at the expense of lower future sales when the program is over. The program apparently boosted sales by about 750,000 cars this year, but that probably means that sales over the next few years will be about 750,000 lower. The program probably further damaged the longer-term prospects of auto dealers and automakers by diverting their attention from market fundamentals in the scramble for federal cash."

Edwards' last point is vividly illustrated in the following graph from John Stossel's website. Although there's a temporary "blip" when the $3 billion in borrowed money is injected into the automobile market, as soon as that is removed auto sales drop right back to where they were. The only lasting effect of "Debt for Clunkers" was to put America's children $3 billion further in debt to the Red Chinese.

If the "dumbest government program ever" is his crowning achievement, it's easy to see that Bruce Braley is a real lemon. If 1st District voters are willing to push, pull or drag Braley out of office in November, there are a couple of newer and better models just waiting to be driven off the lot.

How about a 1979 Republican Ben Lange? The Lange features lower taxes, lower spending and higher integrity than our current clunker. If you really want to save some bucks we also have the economy model, a vintage Libertarian Rob Petsche. The Libertarian has many of the same fine features as the Republican model, but with much lower imperial maintenance costs. Either one would be fine for us to park in DC for a few years.

So, now what can I do to set you up with a new representative today?

Thank You!

2010-09-26T20:56:00.002-05:00

Thank you to everyone who donated towards my participation in the 2010 Alzheimer's Association Memory Walk. Thanks to your generosity I was able to raise $170, and the three members of "Team Cashner" were able to raise $230 for the Alzheimer's Association. In total, the East Central Iowa Chapter of the Association raised over $104,000.

Although it didn't go toward the team's Memory Walk total, after the walk was over one member of Team Cashner received a $500 cash donation. She turned it on World Alzheimer's Day, September 21st, when a wealthy donor was conducting a matching challenge. The donor matched the $500, turning it into a $1,000 donation.

Take that, Alzheimer's Disease!

The opinions expressed on this site are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of any group or organization.

Constitutional Convention For Iowa

2010-09-23T21:18:00.006-05:00

Although the 2010 general elections appear to be shaping up to be as historic as any in recent memory, we here in Iowa will have an additional opportunity to vote on something that only comes along once every decade. This year a question will appear on the ballot asking Iowa voters if a state constitutional convention, to propose amendments to the state constitution, should be held. I hope Iowa voters vote yes.

In 1964 the Iowa Legislature amended the Iowa State Constitution, mandating that this question be put to the voters every ten years starting in 1970. In the four times that the ballot initiative has come up, Iowa voters have rejected it, usually by wide margins. This year may be different.

A recent poll by TheIowaRepublican.com showed that 42% of Iowans surveyed support calling the convention and 36% oppose it. This is without any major groups (until very recently) publicly supporting a convention. This year had a palpable sense of public outrage at elected officials from both parties; if ever Iowa voters would call a convention to pass needed reform, this could be the year.

If a state constitutional convention were approved by voters here's basically how it would go: The General Assembly would be responsible for determining how delegates would be elected. The folks at CallTheConvention.com (who have studied this more than I have) believe that "the General Assembly will likely simply utilize the existing state senate districts as delegate districts as they did for the 1857 constitutional convention in order to avoid any legal challenges." The convention would then craft amendments to the state constitution and each one would have to be voted on by the people of Iowa before being implemented. CallTheConvention.com addresses some of the most common concerns about the process here.

So, why is all this needed? There are big, burning, philosophical political issues facing Iowa (and the nation) today and our timid state politicians seem unable or unwilling to address them. At a time when other state governments were beginning to exert their own sovereignty, challenge federal usurpation and address other important issues, our state legislature was creating a mandate that employers provide special areas for women to express breast milk and creating a new licensing regime for dog breeders. Were these really the most pressing issues facing the state?

Earlier in the year my state senator's email newsletter said that he was proudly supporting a bill to restrict "payday lenders" and thereby help the poor. I wrote him an email detailing how the bill was actually injurious to the working poor and asked him to reconsider his support for the bill. He wrote me back saying that we'd have to "wait and see how much traction" the issue got. My, what a principled stance on an issue! I point that out not because I hope a constitutional convention would address that particular issue, but to illustrate the wishy-washy unprincipled nature of our average politicians.

No, if the people of Iowa want principle, if they want substance, if they want "big ideas," then they will have to do it themselves. They have to convene a constitutional convention and circumvent the usual legislative process. Since the convention would be a one shot deal a person could hardly make a career out of being a delegate, so it will hopefully attract a different sort than the run-of-the-mill politician.

Of the "big ideas" that would be facing the convention delegates, gay marriage would be the elephant in the room. This is the issue that made the Iowa Catholic Conference become the first major group (that I know of) to support calling a convention. They hope to have an amendment defining marriage as being between one man and one woman to be put to a vote by the people of Iowa. Regardless of your stance on that issue, there are many other important issues that could also be addressed.

In a guest column in at SiouxCityJournal.com former Sioux City councilman Brent Hoffman lists five worthy potential amendments:

1. Open government (aka “Sunshine”). Current laws only mandate transparency (e.g. open meetings) at the local level. When a past bill was offered to “unexempt” the Governor and Legislature, State Representative Bill Schickel noted “it was so troubling to legislative leaders that they killed the entire bill.”

2. Recall elected officials. If your State Senator or City Councilman is corrupt or incompetent, you should be able to remove them via a “recall vote.” But the Iowa Constitution doesn’t contain that provision. According to Joshua Spivak at least “26 states authorize the recall in some form.”

3. The ballot initiative. First introduced in South Dakota in 1898, the “initiatve” or “ballot measure” empowers citizens to gather petitions and vote on an issue. Twenty-three states have since joined South Dakota in this “more direct form of democracy,” but Iowa isn’t one of them.

4. Term limits. There are at least “15 states that currently have term limits for legislators” (NCSL). Two of these 15 states are our neighbors: Nebraska and South Dakota. Whether you love or hate term limits, it’s a safe bet this amendment won’t see the light of day without a convention.

5. Budget and tax controls. The “People’s Right to Vote” amendment has never made it out of the State Legislature. Iowans for Tax Relief says this amendment would “require voter approval for most tax and fee increases” (beyond 1 percent of revenues from the previous year). Call it a “veto power” on the legislature’s spending habits.

Hoffman's theme is enacting provisions that the legislature is unlikely to impose on itself. Additionally Iowa is one of only six states that has no constitutional provision protecting the individual right to keep and bear arms. That could surely be addressed at a convention. My own personal wish list, for what it's worth, would also include some type of state sovereignty amendment and switching to biennial legislative sessions (like Texas).

Granted, devotees of big government will be elected as delegates as well and will push for amendments expanding government power and probably some really bad ideas. This is where a little faith in our fellow citizens comes in. Remember, the proposed amendments must then be voted on by Iowa voters before they are accepted. As Tom Chapman, executive director of the Iowa Catholic Conference, said recently, "Obviously, there are a lot of other things that could take place at a convention, and we’re just going to rely on the people of Iowa to vote yes on the good things and no on the bad things."

Faith in the wisdom of the common man, now that's something you won't hear coming from the entrenched power brokers in either major party. That's because, as Brent Hoffman points out, "if anyone should be fearful of a state Constitutional Convention, it is surely not the voters. It is the politicians."

Let's vote "YES" on the state Constitutional Convention so that we can then vote on the issues that the heels in Des Moines won't address.

Braley Bytes

2010-09-12T22:20:00.005-05:00

Here is another installment of my new series of articles dealing with Iowa's so-called "representative" of the First District in the U.S. House, Bruce Braley. I've changed the title of the feature from "Braley Bites" to the less provocative sounding "Braley Bytes" because I'm still trying to get Braley to hand me a juicy federal grant so I can finally quit working for my money like a sucker.

Braley Continues Assault On Constitution & Our Children

James Madison, the "Father of the Constitution" wrote: "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce[.] The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State." [Emphasis added.]

When Bruce Braley and his cohorts in Congress read words like those from the framers of the Constitution their brains must translate it into those squawking trombone sounds of the adult characters in the "Peanuts" cartoons. From Braley's vote for Obamacare to his signature piece of legislation, the "Debt for Clunkers" program, just about everything that Braley has done since he was elected has been an affront to constitutionally defined federalism as spelled out in the enumerated powers and the 10th Amendment. With his yes vote on the painstakingly named "XXXXXX Act of XXXXXX" (it was rushed through so hastily, that that is it's official name!) Braley keeps his Constitution-trashing streak going.

Not satisfied with the record amount of deficit spending that they had already inflicted on future generations of Americans (i.e. our children, who must pay the bill, plus interest) congress was rushed back to DC by the Democrat leaders for a special session in order to spend even more money. The "no-name bill" they voted on (H.R. 1586, by number) was a $26.1 billion "bailout."

$10 billion was to go to pay the salaries of teachers, long known as stalwart supporters of the Democrat Party. (Since Braley voted to give them the money, I guess that the $7,500 that the American Federation of Teachers gave Braley this election cycle was a good investment.) Another $16.1 billion went to the extension of Federal Medicaid matching rates. Education and healthcare are duties that the Tenth Amendment reserves to the states and to the people and are definitely not any of those "few and defined" "external objects" that Madison referred to. But I guess Braley knows what the Constitution means better than one of the guys who wrote it.

Lange Moving Into Striking Distance?

Although unseating an entrenched incumbent like Braley is a difficult task, in fighter-pilot terminology, Braley better "watch his six." A new poll shows that upstart Republican challenger Ben Lange may be closing in on the big-spending politico. The poll, commissioned by the American Future Fund, shows Lange trailing "Clunkers" Braley by only 4.4 points among those who identified themselves as "certain to vote." While the poll did show Lange still trailing by 11 points among the entire sample in the Democrat-leaning district, it also showed that only 39% of those in the district thought Braley "deserved re-election." Apparently not listed as an option in the survey was Libertarian candidate Rob Petsche, so it's unsure how he'll affect the election.

Sept. 11 Rally: Marion Iowa

2010-09-08T21:19:00.000-05:00

The gang over at Republic Now Iowa will be hosting an "anti-war, pro-libertarian" rally at noon on September 11 in Marion Square park in the center of Marion Iowa (right across from the Democratic Headquarters).

According to Group Coordinator Brandon E.: "We are hosting our first Republic Now rally with invitations going to multiple personalities throughout the state of Iowa. Don't miss out at what is going to happen at Marion Square Park on September the Eleventh.

"On September the Eleventh in Marion Square Park, Marion, Republic Now will be staging a political rally hot on the heels of an expansive flyering campaign in both Marion and Cedar Rapids.

"In a time of so much hatred and an increasing police state with cameras on street corners and intolerance everywhere you happen to be, a statement must be made that will show peace to a community. And this is how America will return, one community at a time.

"We will show up and gather, share our opinions, welcome each other as brothers and sisters in liberty.

"There will be a public reading of the Declaration of Independence and excerpts from United States Constitution. We will not resist or instigate any form of disorderly conduct or violence as we are a peaceful organization.

"We will show the city that our rights are disappearing and that only a love and respect for people of all ethnicity, beliefs, skin color, spiritual, and political persuasion will bring America back.

"We will also be addressing where our loss of Liberties may be taking our nation in the future[.]"

Be Prepared. Be Armed.

2010-09-04T21:09:00.002-05:00

[A note from Ben: I've posted this same post every September since I've started this blog. Since much of it is still relevant, I decided to post it again this September. I hope you'll indulge me yet again.]

After a year replete with blizzards, tornadoes, and epic floods, we Iowans now realize that disasters don’t just happen to those people on the coasts that we see on TV with their fancy earthquakes and hurricanes. So Iowans should sit up and take notice that September is “National Preparedness Month.”

The U.S. Dept. of Homeland Security’s (DHS) “Ready Campaign” recommends three things to prepare for disaster: 1.Get a Kit, 2.Make a Plan, 3.Be Informed. The "Be Ready Iowa!" website has a pretty similar list you can check out too.

Since you can read the details at the National Preparedness Month website, I won’t rehash what each of these entails. But I will spend some time on one vital survival tool that usually doesn’t make the government’s list: a modern firearm.

I won’t try to sell you on owning a gun if you don’t want one. I fully support your right to NOT own a gun. However, I’m convinced now more than ever that a firearm is an important part of an American’s readiness kit.

During Hurricane Katrina we saw massive destruction that stripped all credibility from the modern argument that you can just call 9-1-1 in an emergency. When the phones don’t work and the police themselves are looting, who do you call and how?

During the 1992 Los Angeles riots the California National Guard arrived on the scene without any ammunition and missing their riot gear. When the local cops and state militia can’t impose order, who do you call? Local Korean shopkeepers were more prepared and defended their businesses with semi-automatic rifles until the Marines showed up to quell the riots.

Even in less extreme circumstances, Americans use firearms in self-defense over 1 million times each year. (Some research puts that number at 2.5 million times per year.) Usually the defender doesn’t even have to fire a shot before the attacker runs off to look for easier prey. A gun is a useful defensive tool.

I’ve been a lifelong shooter, but I don’t consider myself an expert. I’m someone who wants a functional weapon for protection and recreation, but who doesn’t have the time or money to make a religion out of it. I write the following pointers for people who are considering buying a defensive arm. It should not be considered technical nor legal advice, nor anything else that will get me sued. If at all possible, take a gun safety class and certainly check to make sure you are complying with all state, local and federal laws and regulations. Chat with shooters in your area.

Guns that shoot .22 rimfire ammo are good for target practice and small game but are generally too underpowered for defensive purposes. Get the largest caliber that you can comfortably handle. Stick with common calibers so that ammunition will be relatively plentiful and cheap. If you live in close quarters with others, consider buying frangible ammo by MagSafe or Glaser. It breaks apart on impact rather than punching through the wall into your kids room or the neighbor’s sitting room. (Definitely not the way to get invited to the next apartment block-party.) Frangible ammo is costly so practice with cheap “ball” ammo and save the frangible stuff for defense.

The kind of gun you choose will depend on what you're trying to defend.

Level One-Defending Yourself: Being lightweight and concealable, the handgun is the ideal weapon for defending your person. Here in Iowa you’ll need a special permit to buy one and another special permit if you intend to carry your pistol in public. Both are available from your county sheriff.

Semi-automatic pistols are the most popular, but are generally more complicated than revolvers. Glock (brand) pistols have a reputation of ease of use and reliability, but they are costly. The .45 caliber M1911 has proven reliable enough to still be popular almost 100 years after it was invented. (This is what I carry.) Avoid the very cheap “no-name” autos; you get what you pay for. Common calibers for auto pistols are: .380 ACP, 9mm, .40 S&W, and .45 ACP.

Revolvers are rugged and reliable. There’s darned little that can go wrong with them. The down-side: They usually only hold six shots. Stick with "double-action," as opposed to "single-action" revolvers. Common calibers are: .38 Special, .357 Magnum (revolvers chambered for .357 Magnum can also shoot .38 Special Ammo, but not vice versa), .44 Magnum and .45 Colt.

Level Two- Defending Your Home: Your pistol will make a fine home defense weapon, but since size and concealability won’t matter on your own property, you might want more gun. A shotgun or small-caliber carbine rifle would make a good home defense weapon. No special permit is required to buy long guns in Iowa, but the retailer will run a criminal background check on you at the point of purchase.

Shotguns fire a number of small metal balls rather than a single bullet. Contrary to popular belief, you still have to aim. “00 Buckshot” is the most powerful ammo but in close-quarters you may want 6 or 7-½ birdshot to avoid over-penetration. A pump-action shotgun should be reliable enough. Common calibers are: .410, 20-guage, and 12-guage.

There are numerous pistol-caliber carbines out there that work well if you need just a little extra “reach,” such as on a farm. (If you're on a budget, Hi-Point Firearms makes a very affordable pistol-caliber carbine.) The old M1 Carbine is also readily available. Again, consider frangible ammo if you have neighbors very close. Common calibers are the same as for handguns and .30 carbine ammo for the M1 Carbine.

Level Three- Defending Freedom: If you live in open country or for the real doomsday (and less likely) scenarios involving extended anarchy, invading armies or the four horsemen of the Apocalypse, you’ll need a rifle. You might want one anyway, because they’re fun to shoot. If you don’t already have a bolt-action or lever-action that you’re comfortable with, get a reliable semi-automatic.

A .223 caliber rifle should be your bare-minimum for defense. Common semi-automatic weapons in this caliber include the AR-15 (by many names, from many manufacturers including one made in Iowa), Ruger Mini-14, and the Kel-Tec SU-16 to name just a few. There are also many semi-autos chambered for the 7.62 X 39mm Russian round. These include the AK-47, SKS, and Ruger Mini-30.

If you can handle the extra kick, the .308 Winchester round gives better range and take-down power than the two previous calibers. The most common semi-autos in this caliber are the Springfield M1A, AR-10 clones from several manufacturers, FAL clones, H&K 91 and the Israeli Galil (also available in .223).

You may want to configure your rifle as a “scout rifle.” With a small, low-powered telescopic sight mounted far ahead on the weapon, it becomes much easier to quickly acquire and engage targets at normal combat distances. [Shameless plug: To inexpensively configure your weapon read the newly revised and updated “Poor Man’s Scout Rifle” by my brother Bob Cashner, who, unlike me, is an expert.]

Besides the three mentioned above, two other common rifle calibers are the .30-30, which is common in lever-action rifles, and the .30-06, which is fired through the semi-auto M1 Garand rifle as well as many bolt-actions.

There you have it, firearms for any scenario. If you get one, learn to shoot, maintain and store it safely. (For gun safety classes try here or here.) Remember that your gun will do you no good if you don’t have any ammo or if its rusted shut. Whatever weapon you can afford is better than no weapon at all.

In honor of National Preparedness Month: Be prepared. Be armed.

Memory Walk

2010-08-18T21:40:00.008-05:00

Alzheimer’s disease is a degenerative disease that destroys brain cells, causing memory loss and problems with thought and behavior. It gets progressively worse over time and is always fatal. There is no cure. According to the Alzheimer's Association, a leading nonprofit dedicated to Alzheimer's care, support and research, Alzheimer's disease is currently the seventh-leading cause of death in the United States. Some 5.3 million Americans are currently living with the disease, including my mom.

I'm determined to do something to help. Once again this year I'll be participating in the Alzheimer's Association's Memory Walk, in Cedar Rapids on Saturday September 18th, to raise funds in the battle against the disease. I hope that you will consider giving a donation. No amount is too small; every little bit helps. Last year, Team Cashner was able to raise over $500 for the Alzheimer's Association. With your help, I know we can do even better this year.

PLEASE CLICK HERE TO DONATE.

The opinions expressed on this site are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of any group or organization.

A Dam Dilemma

2010-08-08T08:40:00.005-05:00

Delhi Dam during July flood (Iowa State Patrol photo)

In my last post I mentioned the Delhi Dam which ruptured during recent flooding. Whether or not to rebuild it (and how) has become somewhat of hot button issue here in Iowa. The dam is owned and maintained by the Lake Delhi Recreation Association. Homeowners on the lake paid dues to the association. Since the dam was a privately owned structure, should taxpayer funds be used to rebuild it?

Some citizens and politicians, like Governor Culver and U.S. Representative Bruce Braley, say yes. On the day after the dam failed, Governor Culver assured, "We're going to throw everything we have at it, in terms of federal and state resources." Others disagree. Ed Failor Jr. of Iowans For Tax Relief said, "It isn't the obligation of taxpayers to alleviate risk from our society. By having private ownership of that dam, they assumed risk." I'm inclined to agree with the second camp.

That's not to say that I don't think that Lake Delhi should be rebuilt. I love Lake Delhi. For all the talk of this being a "private" lake, it was very much a public asset. I didn't own a cabin on the lake, yet I spent many hours fishing and pleasure boating with friends there in my youth. I frolicked at Freddy's Beach. I dined at the Pizza Place and Camp-O. I camped along its shores at Turtle Creek County Park. I hope to do so again someday with my kids. I just hope that the dam will be rebuilt in a responsible manner. (My friend strandediniowa over at Between Two Rivers blog stole some of my thunder on this, but I'll soldier on. His post, too, is worth a read.)

There are plans for a new dam to produce hydroelectricity. It should be possible to find investors (a power company perhaps) to help finance such a project. Granted it would take longer to scrape the money together and the Lake Association would have to be more creative than if "rich" Uncle Culver or Braley just whip out the taxpayer's money, but in the long run it would be better for everyone.

The lake is important to Delaware County. So, if local voters decided to throw their own local tax money at this with a bond issue or something (if that's even possible) I think that might not be too bad. At least it would localize the cost to those who most benefit from it. If the state DNR lent some expertise to the project, I probably wouldn't lose much sleep. Even if the state and local government do get involved somehow, the project definitely doesn't require Bruce Braley's sack of borrowed Chinese blood money.

Braley said, "My job is to help identify and secure all potential federal resources to assist those individuals and businesses in the 1st District who are eligible to help recover from the recent flooding." Bull crap! According to the oath he swore before God, his job is to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States [and] bear true faith and allegiance to the same." The Constitution doesn't give Congress authority to rebuild a privately-owned dam on an intrastate lake.

Small-town lawyer Ben Lange, who is challenging Braley for the First District seat, seems to get this. In a statement, the Republican Lange expressed sympathy for flood victims but explained: "Based on the facts as I now understand them, I believe the repairs will require the state and local governments, working in concert with the private sector, to fix the Delhi dam. Despite the political pressure to reach an alternative conclusion, I simply do not believe the federal government should be involved with this local issue because it is a privately-owned dam on a recreational lake."

Lange continued, speaking of the fiscal ramifications of this and similar usurpation by Congress: "I was disappointed, but not surprised, to read Rep. Braley’s statement yesterday, in which he said that we need to spend federal money to bailout a private entity now, and 'then tough choices are going to have to be made.' I respectfully disagree with the Congressman; our nation has reached a point where tough choices need to be made now. Rep. Braley’s 'spend first, think later' approach to this issue is exactly what is wrong with Congress as a whole, and the kind of thinking that has gotten this country into the fiscal mess we are in today."

I couldn't have said it better myself. Props to Lange for taking the constitutional high road rather than the pandering political easy road on this issue.

Let's rebuild Lake Delhi. But let's do it right; let's do it local.

Hell and High Water

2010-07-28T22:29:00.006-05:00

My stomping grounds along Iowa's Maquoketa River got more national attention than we would have liked this past weekend when massive flooding caused a dam failure. (I'm sure most of you heard, unless you've been in a cave in Tora Bora.)

Upstream from the dam, record flood levels deluged the town of Manchester early Saturday afternoon. This high water quickly overwhelmed the Delhi Dam south of Manchester and washed away the earthen causeway on the side of the concrete dam. Hundreds of homes in the unincorporated community of Lake Delhi were damaged or destroyed.

The floodwaters from the ruptured dam rushed downstream toward the towns of Hopkinton and Monticello. In my town of Monticello the call went out for help filling sandbags. As soon as I was able to hand the kids off to my wife (who had been in Dubuque), I went down to the city shop and spent a couple hours helping fill sandbags.

The flood put a damper (pardon the pun) on the Great Jones County Fair, which was going on and caused millions of dollars in damages in Monticello. Despite all this, it could have been worse. Thank God no one was killed.

Although this is an extremely localized disaster, it has caused a lot of hardship for several small Iowa communities. I haven't seen any flood-specific relief funds yet, but if anyone desires to help you can can make an online donation to the Grant Wood Area Chapter of the Red Cross (serving the affected counties of Jones and Delaware) here.

Of course I can't go a whole post without pontificating about politics and good governance. While I was down there filling sandbags I witnessed the various layers of government in action. Lest I be accused of being an anarchist, I do see the use of some government and various levels for certain jobs.

I could certainly understand what many of the elected officials were trying to do. The town mayor and a few city officials were coordinating the local efforts, including the sandbagging. The county sheriff was there coordinating his deputies who were directing traffic from the increasing number of news vans and gawkers and performing countless other important tasks.

Even Governor Culver was on hand to check out the situation. He ended up calling out the National Guard (although to where and to do what I'm not sure, my boy was disappointed that he never did see any "army trucks"). Although there probably wasn't much that the governor could do right away, in his role as chief executive of the state it was indeed appropriate for him to see if the state resources at his disposal could lend a hand.

The elected officials who really didn't need to be there were the state and federal legislators who showed up to "see first-hand" what was going on and "speed" recovery aid to the area. I didn't even realize they were there until I was walking out to my car to leave, because they sure weren't out where we were filling sandbags. You could almost see them salivating at all the reporters and news vans around.

They were there for what they're always doing: getting their pictures taken and promising to dole out other peoples money, i.e. campaigning. The legislature's job is to make laws, not personally deliver the goods. They should appropriate emergency funds that the executive branch can quickly dispatch to disasters when needed. Term limits would help ensure legislators from both parties think about what there job actually is, rather than how to keep it.

As for the promise of federal help: as a constitutional purist who lives safe and dry up on a hill, I won't claim to speak for anyone else in my county, but I don't see that any of this is the federal government's damned business. As I've written before, the argument that the Constitution's "general welfare clause" authorizes a power not specifically enumerated in the Constitution (like disaster relief) doesn't hold water.

Besides, if the federal government didn't syphon so much money out of the states it wouldn't have to "benevolently" shovel borrowed money back into them during emergencies.

Welcome Representative Braley!

2010-07-23T11:51:00.002-05:00

In the day and a half after I posted "Braley Bites" I had five views of my blog from Washington DC, including two from house.gov (U.S. House of Representatives) domain names. A similar phenomenon occurred when I posted "Bruce Braley Buffoonery" and "An Open Letter To Rep Bruce Braley." I'm beginning to think I've got fans in high places.

Let me follow a hunch and extend a hearty welcome to Representative Braley or (more likely) a couple of his staffers. I'm glad to have you here! Anyone with an open mind is welcome.

Let me start off by saying I have nothing against Braley personally. He may very well be a nice person in private. I don't know; I've never met him. It's his public policies that I don't like. Unfortunately, the progressive policies that he promotes affect me quite intimately: taking the bread from my mouth through taxation, subverting the Constitution I swore to defend, and wrapping the noose of interminable debt around the necks of my children. It's hard for me not to take umbrage at all that I'm afraid.

But I hope that you find the blog enjoyable and enlightening. So long as you're here though I would ask that you please patronize my advertisers, to generate revenue for my site. You see, unlike you, I don't have swarms of armed thugs to take other people's money for me and I can't borrow money from the Chinese in my children's name.

Or maybe I could forgo all that ad revenue stuff and you guys could just hook me up with a big, fat federal grant. Watch how fast I change my tune from "Braley Bites" to "Braley's Brilliant" then!

Braley Bites

2010-07-19T22:40:00.003-05:00

I'd like to take this opportunity to introduce what will be a recurring feature on this blog titled "Braley Bites." Each installment will deal with Bruce Braley, Iowa's so-called "representative" of the First District in the U.S. House. The "bites" comes from each one being a small, "bite-sized" news snippet, but since I'm no big fan of Braley, you can take it a couple of different ways. Here's the first installment:

Lange Outraises Braley In Second Quarter

According to financial disclosures released this month, challenger Ben Lange raised more money in the second quarter than the incumbent Braley. Lange, a small-town lawyer from Independence, raised $108,587 while Braley only raised $106,678.

While those numbers are similar, where the money came from are polar opposites. 85% of Lange's donations came from constituents here inside Iowa's 1st District. Compare that to Braley, who had 88% of his contributions come from out-of-state. Incredibly only six actual constituents donated to Braley this past quarter, according to the disclosures. Braley relied heavily on political special interests for donations, whereas 96% of Lange's support came from individual contributors.

While Iowans are already voting for Lange over Braley with their wallets, that doesn't mean Lange can breathe easy. Braley has $632,385 in his war chest, while Lange only has $110,296. Braley helps wield the resources of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and will use them to fund his own campaign. And since Braley is one of the most consistently liberal votes in Congress, unions and other liberal special interests from across the country will be dumping truckloads of money into the race to ensure Braley's victory.

Constitution 101

2010-07-17T22:18:00.000-05:00

What do small-town Iowans do on a hot July night? If you said skinny dipping or cow tipping you'd be wrong (and you need to go back to your production company in L.A.). For about 80 people in Jones County last Thursday the answer was "attend a lecture on the U.S. Constitution."

Hosted by the Jones County 9.12 Project, Lee J. Strang, Professor of Law gave a presentation he called "Constitution 101."  The event was free and open to the public. Professor Strang currently teaches at The University of Toledo (Ohio) College of Law but is originally from Northeast Iowa and is a graduate of the University of Iowa.

The presentation consisted of one hour of lecture followed by one hour of questions and answers. The lecture was a brief history of the Constitution. Strang started with the Constitution's lineage to the ancient Greek, Roman, and Judeo-Christian traditions as well as English institutions and common law. He then moved on to the more immediate precursors to the Constitution, such as the Declaration of Independence, the Second Continental Congress, and the Articles of Confederation.

Professor Strang ran through some of the unique aspects of the U.S. Constitution. One unique aspect that we might not think about, for instance, is its "writtenness." Our Constitution, unlike the English one, is actually written down, making it harder to change on a whim.  It defines a limited government of enumerated powers. It has separation of powers within the federal government, checks and balances, and it divides powers with federalism.

The lecture was informative and Strang was an excellent speaker. The audience was engaged and the question and answer period ran well over the one hour allotted. (It was still going when I left, but I wanted to get home to tuck my boys in.) Event organizers were pleased with the turnout.

Kudos to Professor Strang for donating his time and talents to help educate the general public about the Constitution.  Thanks also to Jenn and Freddie Jones and the other members of the Jones County 9.12 Project who worked hard to put this event together.

Obama-Hitler-Lenin Billboard, We Hardly Knew Ye

2010-07-14T22:09:00.001-05:00

Between Two Rivers reports that a controversial "Tea Party" billboard in Mason City that was unveiled last week has now been covered up.

Although the news articles I've read about this all allude to "complaints" about the sign, the only people I've seen quoted complaining about it are fellow Tea Partiers saying it's counterproductive. Everyone objected to linking Obama with Hitler. Does that mean the comparison to Lenin is apt?

The billboard was originally sponsored by the North Iowa Tea Party. Lest anyone forget what it looks like, I think I'll put it at the bottom of my blog for a while.

Iowa Firearms Group To Change Name

2010-07-10T20:52:00.000-05:00

An Iowa pro-Second Amendment group that this year helped to improve Iowa's concealed weapons law is changing its name to reflect its expanding mission. From the Iowa Carry website:

"The name Iowa Carry will soon be history (the end has already technically taken place). Born in 2005 of a desire by one Iowan to stop the ability of his sheriff to unfairly deny him his Constitutional and God-given right of self-protection, then joined by another, and shortly thereafter by a handful of others, all with that same goal, Iowa Carry’s membership now numbers in the hundreds, with thousands of others looking our way for direction and leadership in seeking to protect and restore their firearm rights. Having recently achieved many of our concealed carry goals with the passage of SF 2379 (we do remind everyone that there is still work to be done, even in this area), we arrived at the conclusion that renaming ourselves the Iowa Firearms Coalition would more accurately reflect the direction we intend to take with this organization.

"While concealed carry issues will remain an integral part of our operation, we will be expanding into any and all other areas concerning firearms—the ongoing rejuvenation of our Second Amendment rights in all aspects; hunting privileges; sport shooting; self-defense training; socialization with like-minded individuals; publication, promotion, and advocacy in all of the media; individualized interests, be they handgun, rifle, shotgun; and perhaps most importantly, integrating our message and activities with other like-minded organizations (hence, the coalition moniker). While Iowa Carry (now the Iowa Firearms Coalition) carried the load for several years, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to know that it was the assistance of the National Rifle Association this past year that put us over the top! We look forward to working closely with Chris Rager and other NRA representatives in the years ahead!" [Emphasis in original.]

Regardless of the name, I wish the Iowa Firearms Coalition well!

Freedom Events Next Week

2010-07-08T06:03:00.001-05:00

Constitution 101

Lee Strang, Professor of Law, University of Toledo in Ohio will give an informal class on the U.S. Constitution. Where did the Constitution come from? What is its purpose? Why is it important? How should we interpret the Constitution? A question and answer session will follow the presentation. The event is free and open to the public.

When: Thursday, July 15, 2010 from 7-9p.m.
Where: Monticello City Council Chambers Community Center, 220 East First Street, Monticello IA
Hosted by: Jones County 9.12 Project Contact Jenn Jones for more information.

Anti-Authoritarian Night or Night of the Disestablishmentarianists

According to event organizers: "We Are Change and the Patriots are invading Pub Mitchell on Friday night, the sixteenth of July. Be there and tear the house DOWN! We will be spreading truth, waking people up to the two-party dictatorship, the coming new World Order, and spreading some general, all-around Libertarian view points. Many different groups are represented with different viewpoints. Have fun and don't put anybody down. But I will say that this will lean more toward End The Fed / Peace Activism / States' Rights as the core."

When: Friday, July 16, 2010 at 8:00pm until close
Where: Pub Mitchell, 1100 1st Street Southwest, Cedar Rapids IA

Happy Birthday America and (Hopefully) Many More!

2010-07-06T01:25:00.000-05:00

I spent this weekend with all the usual activities that we’ve come to associate with Independence Day: parades, getting sunburned, and fireworks. I did this all in Independence, where else? As we watched fireworks light up the night sky behind the city’s historic Wapsipinicon Mill [see photo by my wife] my mind drifted back to the many Independence Day fireworks displays I’d seen in my youth.

The Mill, dark and foreboding in the foreground, had silently observed about 140 such July 4th celebrations. I wondered how many more would it see? Would my children still celebrate the founding of a nation called “The United States of America” when they’re my age? This was the first Independence Day that I wondered if they would.

The nation whose birthday we celebrated is now $13.2 trillion in debt. To put that number in perspective, if you spent $1 per second it would take you 31,710 years to spend just one trillion dollars. We’re on track to add another $1.5 trillion on to that government debt this year alone, with similar sized deficits for years to come. Total spending by the entire federal government was only about $2 trillion in 1990 (in inflation-adjusted dollars), so our yearly budget deficit is now almost equal to the entire budget just 20 years ago. President Obama’s budget would double the national debt by 2020.

Add to that debt another $109 trillion in unfunded liabilities (promised benefits) for Social Security and Medicare. Add to that debt every “unforeseen” emergency expenditure, war, new entitlement and pork barrel project to come. You don’t need a crystal ball to see that that can’t go on forever.

Budget numbers aren’t the only alarming trends. Our society itself seems to be in a state of flux. The federal government has broken free of its Constitutional shackles and now tries to regulate every aspect of human existence. Some states are showing a rebelliousness against federal intrusion that we haven’t seen since before the Civil War. The people, too, seem to be awakening to the federal government’s usurpation. While I think that’s a good thing, if the feds respond with the jackboot, things could get ugly.

So will my boys one day become men in a free and prosperous land, as I did, or in a land torn by war and economic destitution? I don’t know. The best I could do was hold them close on the cool night grass and watch what my 4-year-old called the pretty “sizzles in the sky.”

I pray that these celebrations of our nation’s founding are the only “rockets’ red glare” that they will ever know. I recall the words of Thomas Paine in The Crisis, December 23, 1776: "If there must be trouble, let it be in my day, that my child may have peace."

Iowa Freedom Report: "Des Moines Police Advise Putting Kids in Debt, Not Jail"

2010-07-05T23:20:00.000-05:00

I'm just now getting around to writing about the fact that I'll occasionally contributing articles to the relatively new website Iowa Freedom Report. Steve Hoodjer, the site's founder/editor describes the site as "Iowa’s new home page for news and commentary about limited government and alternative politics. We work to advance issues and oppose blind partisanship."

So far I've had two posts on IFR. The last one was "Des Moines Police Advise Putting Kids in Debt, Not Jail."

Second Amendment Essentials- Part 3

2010-06-26T14:30:00.004-05:00

Why it's Needed

In previous columns we have examined how the Second Amendment protects an individual right. We looked at how “the militia” referenced in the amendment referred to all law-abiding citizens. Although it is clear that the Founding Fathers wanted an armed populace, our modern friends and neighbors may wonder why.

Besides the necessity of putting wild game on the table, the founders realized that the right to keep and bear arms gave the people a defense against various threats to their lives and liberty. Joseph Story, the famous jurist and Supreme Court Justice put it this way: "The importance of this article [Second Amendment] will scarcely be doubted by any persons, who have duly reflected upon the subject. The militia is the natural defense of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers." I would add common crime to that list as well.

Admittedly the risk of foreign military invasion is pretty remote. Fortress America is protected by oceans on two sides and friendly neighbors to the north and south, but who knows what the future holds? Any nation foolish enough to send an invading army into the United States would be in for a fight. Even if they were able to defeat American military forces and capture certain areas, the armed citizenry would be able to conduct a campaign of guerrilla warfare against the occupiers. As Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan and numerous other examples have proven, armed civilians on their own turf are often harder to defeat than professional armies.

Thomas Paine: "[A]rms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property... Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them."

Domestic tyranny, unfortunately, may be a more likely threat than foreign invasion. Our founding fathers understood that an armed populace was the final, last ditch safeguard against government suppression of the people’s liberty, when all the other “checks and balances” had failed.

Joseph Story: "The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium [safeguard] of the liberties of a Republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them[.]"

Noah Webster: "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States."

Thomas Jefferson: "And what country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms."

Defense against crime is probably the most relevant of these issues to modern day Americans. Police can’t (and in a free society shouldn’t) be everywhere. This means that the duty to protect the individual resides with the individual himself. Some places have recognized that fact while others have tried to hide from it.

John Jay: "Even if it was practicable, would it be wise to disarm the good before 'the wicked cease from troubling?'" [citing Job 3:17]

A look at crime rates from around the country shows that areas with the most restrictive prohibitions on civilian gun ownership have the highest crime rates (i. e. Washington D.C.), while areas with the least restrictive gun laws have some of the lowest crime rates (i.e. Vermont). States that legally recognize the right to carry concealed firearms, for instance, have 26% lower total violent crime and lower rates of murder by 31%, robbery by 50%, and aggravated assault by 15%, than states that do not recognize the right to carry.

America’s crime rates have remained low while the number of guns in private ownership has greatly increased and the number of licensed concealed carriers has also increased. Compare that to England and Australia which have seen their violent crime rates (including gun crimes) skyrocket after passing near-total gun bans. According to the U.N., these two countries now have higher violent-crime rates than America. Noted crime researcher Professor John Lott summed it up succinctly in the title of his book, “More Guns, Less Crime.”

The Second Amendment reads: “A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” The militia that the framers referred to was all citizens capable of fighting. The amendment therefore protects an individual right of the people to keep and bear arms, which is necessary to defend themselves from crime, invasion and tyranny. Now, just as then, that's important.

End of series.

Second Amendment Essentials- Part 2

2010-06-23T22:08:00.001-05:00

An Individual Right

In the previous post we dispelled the idea that "the militia" referred to in the Second Amendment means a "select militia," such as today's National Guard. Instead the "general militia" that the Constitutional framers referenced meant all citizens capable of bearing arms for defense.

Although both sides of the current gun debate could probably squabble over the definition of "the militia" indefinitely, the Founding Fathers left little doubt as to what they meant. It is clear that the right they referred to was an individual right. The following quotes should further dispel any doubts:

Patrick Henry: "The great object is that every man be armed... Every one who is able may have a gun."

Thomas Jefferson: "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms within his own lands."

Zachariah Johnston: "The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them..."

Samual Adams: "The said Constitution [shall] be never construed to authorize Congress […] to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms."

James Madison: The Constitution preserves "the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation... [where] the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."

Tench Coxe: "[T]he people are confirmed by the next article (of amendment) in their right to keep and bear their private arms."

Akhil Reed Amar (Modern Yale Law School Professor): "The ultimate right to keep and bear arms belongs to 'the people', not the 'states.' As the language of the Tenth Amendment shows, these two are of course not identical and when the Constitution means 'states,' it says so." [See below.]

The Tenth Amendment states, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." [Emphasis added.] The people and the States are two separate entities. The United States is a third.

Its ridiculous to think that "the people" referred to in the Second Amendment actually means "the States." It is the same "the people" who have the right to peaceably assemble under the First Amendment. It is the same "the people" whose "right [...] to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures" is guaranteed in the Fourth Amendment. If we apply the gun-prohibitionists' "the people means the States" logic to the other amendments in the Bill of Rights, it becomes clear how absurd their logic is.

All this led the U.S. Supreme Court to conclude in the 2008 landmark Heller decision: “The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.”

Second Amendment Essentials- Part 1

2010-06-20T07:24:00.003-05:00

Who Are the “Militia?”

With the Supreme Court’s landmark 2008 ruling in D.C. vs. Heller, declaring that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms, we might think that the debate over the Second Amendment has been put to rest. However, we gun owners can’t get complacent. As the saying goes, “the price of liberty is eternal vigilance.” We need to keep educating ourselves and our neighbors about the Second Amendment.

The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitutions reads simply, "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." People who dislike civilian gun use often focus on the phrase “a well-regulated militia” as proof that the amendment doesn’t protect civilian ownership.

So, who are the "militia" referred to in the Second Amendment? For the definition of the militia at the time that the Bill of Rights was written we must look at the statements of the Founding Fathers who were alive at the time. Here are a few examples:

George Mason: "[W]ho are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." State Gazette of S. Carolina (Sept. 8, 1788): "Such are a well regulated militia, composed of the freeholders, citizen and husbandman, who take up arms to preserve their property, as individuals, and their rights as freemen." Samuel Adams: "The militia is composed of free citizens."

Tench Cox: "Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."

The Founding Fathers drew a distinction between the "general militia" composed of the body of the people and a "select militia" which received special weapons and training from the government (like today's National Guard). They viewed "select militias" with almost as much suspicion as they did standing armies, as the following quote demonstrates.

Richard Henry Lee: "A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves... and include all men capable of bearing arms... To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms... The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle."

Shortly after the ratification of the Constitution, the U.S. Congress passed The Militia Act of 1792 that declared that all free male citizens between the ages of 18 and 44 were members of the militia. It also stated that "[e]very citizen... [shall] provide himself with a good musket, or flintlock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints…[,]” in short, that every male citizen be armed. As with other rights, such as voting and owning property, the right to keep and bear arms was slowly extended to women and minorities through the years.

U.S. Senate Subcommittee on the Constitution (1982): "In the Militia Act of 1792, the second Congress defined 'militia of the United States' to include almost every free adult male in the United States. These persons were obligated by law to possess a [military-style] firearm and a minimum supply of ammunition and military equipment... There can be little doubt from this that when the Congress and the people spoke of the 'militia,' they had reference to the traditional concept of the entire populace capable of bearing arms, and not any formal group such as what is today called the National Guard."

It is clear that when the founders referred to “the militia” they meant all law-abiding citizens.

Iowa City Targets Freedom of Movement

2010-06-13T07:45:00.011-05:00

At a time when liberals around the country are criticizing Arizona’s new immigration law as encouraging discrimination and criticizing Rand Paul’s rhetorical questioning of the federal governments authority to ban discrimination by private businesses, liberals on the Iowa City council are making such discrimination mandatory. The new city ordinance bans members of a certain “lesser class” of adult legal-citizens from entering some private business establishments while allowing members of a more privileged class of citizens to enter those same businesses. So much for the supposedly "liberal" principles of fairness and equality.

The new ordinance states that anyone under 21 is barred from being in drinking establishments after 10 p.m. The problem is that people over 18 are legally adults. This is a curfew for adult Americans, restricting their rights to freedom of movement, peaceable assembly, liberty and pursuit of happiness.

The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects “the right of the people peaceably to assemble[,]” even in bars. The Ninth Amendment serves notice that the people have rights too numerous to be listed. It reads: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” The people (even young adults) can do whatever they want, so long as they don’t harm others.

Article I, Sec. 1 of the Constitution of the State of Iowa states: “All men and women are, by nature, free and equal, and have certain inalienable rights--among which are those of enjoying […] liberty […] and pursuing and obtaining […] happiness.” [Emphasis added.] The Iowa City ordinance does not treat its young citizens as “free and equal” and infringes their rights of “enjoying liberty” and “pursuing happiness.”

By the way, “liberty” is defined by the Merriam Webster Dictionary thusly: “1 : the quality or state of being free: a : the power to do as one pleases b : freedom from physical restraint c : freedom from arbitrary or despotic control d : the positive enjoyment of various social, political, or economic rights and privileges e : the power of choice.” [Emphasis added.]

Although I don’t put much stock in the U.N.’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Iowa City liberals generally do and it is now taught in our schools with more enthusiasm than the U.S. Declaration of Independence or Bill of Rights. Article 3 of the Universal Declaration states: “Everyone has the right to […] liberty[.]”

Other provisions include: Article 13: “Everyone has the right to freedom of movement[.]” Article 20: “Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.” Article 24: “Everyone has the right to rest and leisure[.]” Article 27: “Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community[.]” The Iowa City ordinance violates even this, the liberals’ sacred screed.

University of Iowa (UI) students and local business owners collected thousands of signatures for a petition to put the new ordinance up for a vote by the people on the November ballot. Unfortunately, city hall invalidated fully 60% of those signatures, putting the petition well below the legally-required number of signatures to allow a vote. Since many of the signers of the petition were college students and first-time voters, they didn’t appear on the city clerks voter list, so the ordinance stands. (Signature collecting efforts are still underway.)

This law is only the latest onerous effort by the Iowa City council to curb drinking in its city, especially by under-age college students. What results have their previous efforts yielded? A new report shows that alcohol-related offenses at UI rose 53% last year, even though a UI police official said they had “not significantly increased alcohol-related enforcement.” Drunk driving citations at UI shot up 97% last year!

So, when this latest effort also fails to reduce drinking, the city council and UI will have to come up with even more restrictions upon the liberty of young adults between 18 and 20, as well as local business owners. Who knows what atrocities await as Iowa City seeks a “final solution” to its “young-adult problem.”

Poll: Iowans Support Medical Marijuana and Gay Marriage

2010-06-06T10:36:00.005-05:00

According to a recent poll commissioned by KCCI NewsChannel 8 (Des Moines), majorities of Iowans support both medical marijuana and gay marriage.

A clear majority of 62% of respondents said they supported legalizing marijuana for medical purposes. 33% said they were opposed to the idea, while 5% were unsure.

"I don't think it's any more hazardous or dangerous than any other medication, if it's used properly," Bob Lipert, who said he suffers from multiple sclerosis, told KCCI.

Also according to the poll, a slim majority of 53% said they supported marriage rights for same-sex couples. 41% said they were opposed.

"Iowans want their elected officials to focus on issues like jobs and education and really, those pocketbook issues, rather than focusing on divisive issues that are going to pit neighbor against neighbor," said Justin Uebelhor of the gay-rights group One Iowa.

Bryan English of the Iowa Family Policy Center disagreed. Apparently referring to the fact that Iowa's gay marriage policy was imposed by the courts rather than the legislature, English told KCCI: "When folks go to the polls next week and then in November, they will in fact support candidates who understand their Constitution and who will defend marriage."

Glenn Beck's "Common Sense"

2010-06-01T08:42:00.004-05:00

There's been a string of celebrity commentators whom I've enjoyed in other media, but I didn't like their books. I enjoy listening to Rush Limbaugh on the radio, but I didn't enjoy his book. I loved hearing Charlton Heston speak, but I didn't love his book. Now I can add national radio and television host Glenn Beck to this list.

I like watching him on TV, but I didn't like his book "Glenn Beck's Common Sense: The Case Against an Out-of-Control Government, Inspired by Thomas Paine." Since the previous book I read before Beck was John Locke's "Two Treatises of Government," anything not written in 17th Century English was refreshing. But as I think back about Beck's "Common Sense" though, I can't really recall any new ideas that I took away from it.

Where Beck shines is when he details what he calls "The Cancer of Progressivism." Here Beck doesn't just bash the Democrats. He shows how both political parties are steeped in the ideology of the progressives (who some might call liberals or statists). He includes some telling quotes from Republican President Teddy Roosevelt who believed that private property was "subject to the general right of the community to regulate its use to whatever degree the public welfare may require it," and continues on to George W. Bush's big government policies. Beck has strong political convictions and is not just a schill for the GOP, even if his opponents may try to paint him that way.

The book also contains a copy of Thomas Paine's 1776 classic "Common Sense." Since I had read Paine's work many years ago and time is short, I didn't reread it this time. As I recall, in it Paine spends a lot of time explaining why hereditary monarchy is not a good form of government. Although I hope every American will read Paine's work at least once, to many modern readers it will seem like... well, common sense.

In general, if you're looking for a primer on small government and constitutional thought, I would forgo "Glenn Beck's Common Sense" and pick up a copy of "The Revolution: A Manifesto" by Dr. Ron Paul. I'll continue to enjoy Beck where he excels: on TV and radio.

Rand Paul Is Right

2010-05-23T11:53:00.008-05:00

The Rand Paul campaign had barely swept up the confetti from its victory party for securing the Republican nomination for U.S. Senate candidate when the media began trying to paint him as a racist. The flap arose over comments that Paul made on MSNBC’s "The Rachel Maddow Show" last Wednesday. On Friday the New York Times reported: "Asked by Ms. Maddow if a private business had the right to refuse to serve black people, Mr. Paul replied, 'Yes.'"

That’s not quite how it went down. In this video clip “The Rachel Maddow Show” guest host Chris Hayes explains how the The Times got it wrong.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Despite this misquote, Rand Paul did say that he had problems with some provisions of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. After mentioning that he‘s “not in favor of any discrimination of any form,” and pointing out that he supports 90% of the Civil Rights act, specifically the parts that banned institutional discrimination in the public domain, he asked some libertarian philosophical questions about federal desegregation of privately-owned venues. “Does the owner of the restaurant own his restaurant? Or does the government own his restaurant?” asked Paul. “These are important philosophical debates but not a very practical discussion.”

Important questions indeed. If you don’t want to invite someone into your house because of their race, religion, sexual orientation, weight, shoe size or any other reason, it’s generally agreed that you have no legal obligation to allow that person onto your property. Why do so many people think that the rules suddenly should change if you are trying to make money on the use of your property? Isn’t commercial property still the property of the owner, just as noncommercial property is?

Another interesting question in regard to federally mandated desegregation is the constitutionality of it. Only in the mind of an imaginative Progressive is exchanging food and crumpled bills across a lunch counter a transaction of “interstate commerce.” While the state and local governments might have something to say about who someone serves in their privately-owned business, the federal government isn’t holding many constitutional cards on the issue.

It would be increasingly hard for a business or property owner to discriminate in this day and age, not because of any law, but because of how our culture itself has changed. Racism simply is not tolerated as it once was. That is mostly because of the work our great social reformers (often private religious leaders) who worked to change society’s hearts and minds about race. In most instances, government (at all levels) had to be dragged, kicking and screaming, into modernity after society had mostly evolved into its more tolerant self.

These are “important philosophical debates,” Doctor Paul, but don’t expect anyone in the press or politics to debate them with you. Just expect more “gotcha” politics.

Iowa Big Box Parties Hemorrhaging Voters

2010-05-08T14:47:00.004-05:00

KCCI Des Moines reports that voter registration numbers released by the state on Friday show that both branches of the Republicrat Party are losing registered voters.

According to the article on KCCI's website: "In the past year, Republicans have lost 10,997 registered voters while Democrats lost 17,235 registered voters. Independents gained 7,527 voters, according to the Iowa Secretary of State's office. [...] The new numbers show 602,768 Republicans, 711,106 Democrats, 774,005 no party or independent, and 1,682 listed as 'other.'"

Iowans are obviously dissatisfied with both parties and with the whole sullied political process. I can't say as I blame them.

Iowa Becomes "Shall-Issue" State

2010-05-02T08:35:00.010-05:00

On Thurday, April 29th, Iowa Governor Chet Culver signed NRA-backed legislation making Iowa the 37th state that shall issue concealed weapons permits to qualified applicants. Prior to this, permits "may" have been issued by each county sheriff, but sheriffs were not required to do so.

“This bill strikes an appropriate balance, recognizing the rights of law-abiding Iowans guaranteed by the Second Amendment and the duty of local law enforcement officers,” said the big lug, Culver. “We all have a role to play in public safety. I believe this is a good bill that has the potential to keep Iowans safer.”

According to the NRA's bullet points, in addition to changing from a "may-issue" to "shall-issue" process, the new law "will increase the term of a permit from one year to five years; narrow the disqualifying circumstances for a permit to the federal minimum in most cases, while at the same time further narrowing state-specific disqualifiers; prevent the issuing officer from placing limits on or restricting the scope of a carry permit; ensure that denials, suspensions and revocations of permits would be subject to both administrative and judicial review; grant recognition to all valid out-of-state permits; broaden the types of training that would fulfill the state-mandated training requirement for permit applicants; and remove other over-reaching restrictions on gun owners in the Hawkeye State."

While I had some problems with this bill, it DOES set up a uniform state-wide standard for issuing permits. Since the Iowa Constitution mandates that laws have a "uniform operation," this is important. I may have under-stated this importance in previous posts. The new "shall-issue" law will get rid of the 99 different issuance standards uses by each county, and will hopefully get rid of the arbitrary denials of permits by a handful of anti-Second Amendment sheriffs.

One of my beefs with the original bill introduced by the NRA was that it made it a crime to publicly carry your weapon if you were "under the influence of alcohol," yet it gave no quantifiable standard as to what that meant. The version that passed says simply: "A permit issued under this chapter is invalid if the person to whom the permit is issued is intoxicated as provided in section 321J.2, subsection 1." This means, I believe, a blood alcohol concentration over .08, the same to legally drive in Iowa.

Another problem was that the original bill spelled out most of the dreaded federal "Lautenberg Act" into state code. The passed version simply states that a permit can't be issued to an applicant who "[i]s prohibited by federal law from shipping, transporting, possessing, or receiving a firearm." Now if Lautenberg is repealed or struck down as unconstitutional, it would automatically be moot in the state law.

One provision that I liked in the original NRA version that I didn't see in the new law was the section that protected the private information of permit applicants. Apparently the Iowa legislature had a fleeting interest in "sunshine and openness," so long as it is just their constituents' personal information being given out.

There are still philosophical reasons not to entirely like the new law. Even under a "shall-issue" system, supposedly free citizens must ask permission from the state to fully enjoy their God-given right to bear arms.

But, on the whole, I would say that this new law is a step in the right direction. We've seen in other states that once people (including law enforcement personnel) realize that the sky didn't fall with shall-issue, there is a tendency to lessen restrictions on permit holders. Hopefully that trend will continue in Iowa.

Maybe someday Iowa will join Vermont, Alaska, and Arizona in requiring no permit at all. I hope I'm still around to see it.

[Right to Carry map courtesy of NRA-ILA]

Iowa Libertarian Candidates 2010

2010-04-27T21:32:00.003-05:00

Ed Wright, Chairman of the Libertarian Party of Iowa, recently announced the 2010 nominees selected at the Libertarian State Convention in Ames. Here are the candidates for each race:

Iowa Governor- Eric Cooper, 44, Ames, e-mail: eric@coopersmallergovernment.com, website: http://www.coopersmallergovernment.com/

Iowa Lt. Governor- Nick Weltha, 30, Des Moines, e-mail: nick.weltha@gmail.com, website: http://www.coopersmallergovernment.com/

U.S. Senate- John Heiderscheit, 46, Bettendorf, e-mail: jheiderscheit@nhquadcities.com

U.S. House District 1- Rob Petsche, 35, Manchester, e-mail: farleyrob2002@yahoo.com, website: http://www.petscheforsmallergovernment.com/

U.S. House District 2- Gary Sicard, 37, Robins, e-mail: gary@sicardforcongress.com, website: http://www.garysicard.org/

Iowa Senate District 23- Campbell DeSousa, 25, Ames, e-mail: desousacampbell@yahoo.com

Iowa House District 46- Tyler Pauly, 20, Ames, e-mail: tapastro@gmail.com

Polk County Attorney- Karen Tegtmeyer, 50, Johnston, e-mail: karen.tegtmeyer@gmail.com, website: http://www.iowasmallergovernment.com/

Blog Update

2010-04-26T19:47:00.002-05:00

My posts dealing with the Tax Day Tea Party and the Second Amendment March in Des Moines have been updated with magnificent full-color photographs from my piece of crap disposable camera. I just got them back from Walmart.

"Liberty Minded" Candidates Getting Noticed

2010-04-25T14:24:00.004-05:00

Kathie Obradovich had a front page write-up about Libertarian candidate for Iowa Governor, Dr. Eric Cooper, in Thursday's Des Moines Register. According to Obradovich:

"Libertarian candidate for governor Eric Cooper pulled off a rare feat at a recent forum: He upstaged the major-party contenders. And not just because he announced he's lost 144 pounds in eight months.

"Cooper, of Ames, owned the audience at the Iowans for Tax Relief gubernatorial forum last Saturday. He left me wanting to know more about him. That's another uncommon accomplishment for a third-party candidate."

The article goes on to quote Dr. Cooper and talks about his stance on several issues. You can read the entire article here.

IowaPolitics.com linked to the article on Thursday and Steve Hoodjer's new website Iowa Freedom Report scooped me and reported it the same day.

Speaking of Iowa Freedom Report, that site also has a good article about Will Johnson who is vying for the Republican nomination to go against Democrat Bruce Braley in Iowa's First District. Johnson, who the article describes as "a liberty minded Republican from Dubuque," is a Navy veteran and was active in campaigning for Ron Paul in the run up to the 2008 election. He has also been active in the Tea Party movement.

Other Republicans seeking the First District slot are Jim Budde, Mike La Coste, and Independence attorney Ben Lange. Lange appears to be leading the pack, having raised more funds than the other three GOP contenders combined. I'll be writing about Lange sometime soon.

Bruce Braley Buffoonery

2010-04-20T20:15:00.005-05:00

Here U.S. Representative Bruce Braley gets schooled when he appears on Fox Business. The best line is when the host tells Braley that his voting record looks like "a porn site for liberalism." Thankfully, whoever put this montage together edited out all the double-talk and b.s. (i.e. Braley's responses).

Eric Cooper's Speech at ITR Event

2010-04-20T20:03:00.003-05:00

Here is audio of Libertarian gubernatorial candidate Eric Cooper's speech at the Iowans for Tax Relief 2010 Iowa Taxpayer Day: http://www.radioiowa.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/ITRCooper.mp3 It deals, of course, with taxes and runs about seven minutes and thirty seconds.

Second Amendment Rally In Des Moines

2010-04-19T20:00:00.005-05:00

It was a beautiful day in Iowa, which made it all the more frustrating that so few people showed up for the Iowa Second Amendment March. I counted about 40 people at the event, not counting the speakers and event organizers.

According to the event's coordinator Robert Fowler, the goal of the march was "to bring attention to the people about the way the government is slowly taking our rights away. There are over 20,000 gun laws on the books that try to restrict our rights." The event was held on April 19th to commemorate the battles of Lexington and Concord, the opening battles of the American Revolution. These fights arose when British authorities attempted to confiscate American weapons and gunpowder. These historical events were mentioned by several of the event's speakers.

These speakers included: Brenna Findley, GOP candidate for Iowa Attorney General; Dave Funk, GOP candidate for Leonard Boswell's 3rd District seat; Kim Pearson candidate for Iowa House District 42; Rod Roberts, GOP candidate for governor and Sean McClanahan, President of IowaCarry. I saw at least two TV cameras at the event and Radio Iowa was there.

All in all attendance could have been better, but it was a good event nonetheless. Thank you to Robert Fowler for all his hard work. A special thank you to Dave, Sharon, and Jenn who let me ride down with their family.