Star Wars Conspiracy: Does Fear Cost Us Our Liberty?

Hölderlin Quote

Beth Cody on Prostitution Laws

"It's time to strike down these inappropriate, over-reaching and needlessly damaging laws. Just as modern societies now understand that arresting people for the 'crimes' of homosexuality and interracial sexual relations is both barbaric and not beneficial to society at all, so should the antiquated and inhumane laws against prostitution be struck from the books."

Read Beth's excellent article here for the reasons why she believes "we should leave this archaic law behind."

Iowa In Top 15 Freest States

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."

Four Minutes For Freedom

"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

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."

Happy Birthday America and (Hopefully) Many More!

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."

The First TING's of Spring

What a beautiful day in Iowa! It was 77 degrees when I got off work. (Thank you global warming!) My wife and kids weren't home when I got there, so I decided to head down to the local shooting range.

I shoved my homemade steel silhouette target in the trunk, my .45 auto in my belt and headed out. I didn't want to be gone long and only brought about 30 rounds with me. I didn't do anything fancy, I just enjoyed the fresh air and the "ting!" of copper-jacketing on steel.

It's good to be an American, armed and free. Let's keep it that way.

Embracing Little Brother or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Electronic Surveillance

A recent Cedar Rapids Gazette article says that downtown Iowa City businesses, tired of “bad behavior” on the pedestrian mall, will be installing surveillance cameras outside their buildings to discourage crime. Ben Stone of the American Civil Liberties Union of Iowa said that the group does not support the move. While the ACLU would be right to oppose more government surveillance (as they often do), in this instance I don‘t think electronic surveillance is all bad.

We should oppose more government surveillance because we already have so much of it. Some would argue that we already live in an Orwellian surveillance state. In Privacy International’s 2007 ranking of 47 industrialized nations, the United States ranked near the bottom for privacy protections, falling into the “Endemic Surveillance Societies” category. Only Thailand, Taiwan, United Kingdom, Singapore, Russia, China, and Malaysia tied with or scored lower than the United States. If the American public is already under the government’s microscope, how can we justify more private surveillance?

Firstly, it matters who is doing the surveilling and where. The businesses on Iowa City’s ped mall, for instance, shouldn’t be able to place cameras where there is some expectation of privacy, such as in dressing or restrooms, but why NOT facing the public walkways around their property? When we are in public areas we can have no expectation of privacy from being seen or photographed. Image if a photographer, taking a wide shot of Times Square in New York, had to get release forms signed by everyone of the thousands of people who may be in the photo. They don’t have to because such a requirement would obviously be impractical. The same principles apply with other forms of observation technology.

Private security cameras and portable recording devices are becoming more and more prevalent with business owners and private citizens. If we call the government’s surveillance organization “Big Brother,” perhaps we can call these private efforts “Little Brother.” (I didn’t come up with that term, I read it somewhere.) Little Brother often helps the government, by supplying video of bank robbers or shoplifters for instance, but it can also keep an eye on the government as well.

The first example of Little Brother watching government officials that springs to my mind is the famous Rodney King beating video. In this footage shot by a bystander with a video camera, several Los Angeles police officers are seen beating Rodney King after he led them on a high-speed chase. King was a drunken convict who was resisting arrest, so whether or not he deserved a few love taps remains open for debate. Regardless, the incident was widely seen as blatant police brutality when it was shown repeatedly on television and led to the 1992 Los Angeles riots and federal charges against four officers.

Another, more recent, example was during the 2009 Iranian election protests. While the traditional media was largely blacked out by the Iranian government, protesters with cell phone cameras were able to record the governments brutal suppression of the protests and transmit the images to the world with some help from social networking sites.

A less epic example occurred during Washington D.C.’s recent blizzards. Some D.C. locals got together for a snowball fight after the idea spread on the internet site Twitter. Things went alright at the snowball fight until a red Hummer passing by got zinged with a snowball. A plain clothes D.C. police officer, Mike Baylor, hopped out and confronted the revelers without identifying himself as a cop. Baylor pulled his sidearm which caused several bystanders to call 911 about an armed man. This caused more police to show up, at least one of whom also drew his pistol.

Despite many cell phone videos of Baylor waving his pistol available on the internet, Assistant Police Chief Pete Newsham stated that, “There was no police pulling guns on snowball people.” He repeated that lie to several news outlets. Mainstream media like The Washington Post unquestioningly declared Chief Newsham’s version to be the official truth. The Post even ignored the eyewitness account of one of their own staffers who was present at the snowball fight. Luckily, bloggers and smaller newspapers like the Washington City Paper, actually investigated the story (imagine!) by watching the videos and interviewing witnesses (including the Post employee) and exposed Newsham’s story as the deceitful cover-up that it was. Score another one for Little Brother!

We will always need to guard against egregious abuse of our privacy by Little Brother, just as we need to roll back Big Brother’s surveillance state. I don’t want Little Brother tapping my phone or ransacking my house any more than I want Big Brother to. But when Big Brother menacingly warns, “We’re watching you,” I want Little Brother to confidently reply with the same phrase.

Commission Says: "Regulate, Don't Ban Everclear"

In my post Everclear and Present Danger I wrote that the Iowa Alcoholic Beverages Commission was mulling over whether to ban or increase regulations on the sale of highly concentrated alcohol (HCA), such as Everclear, after a Drake University student was hospitalized for alcohol poisoning from overindulging on it. Thursday the commission announced its recommendations. Although they did not recommend an outright ban on HCA, their recommendations can hardly be seen as a victory for those who support freedom of choice for Iowa consumers.

IABC's website lists the commission's four recommendations as follows:

1. Limit products over 100 proof to one listed size [750 ml for Everclear]
2. Look into drafting a rule to require registration (similar to pseudoephedrine) for products over 100 proof
3. Education - investigate opportunities for education on HCA in college communities, as well as design educational materials to be applied to bottles for distribution.
4. Limit products to no higher than 151 proof

Since the recommendations all increase government regulation, no doubt they will be pencil-whipped through and adopted quickly. (In contrast, any deregulation would require an uphill, tooth and nail battle.)

Supporters of regulating Everclear and other HCA's no doubt would argue that the state has a compelling interest in doing so since the state often has to assist those who injure themselves or others or ruin their own lives abusing the stuff. That is another perfect example of how government "assistance" always begets government intrusion into our lives. (In order to get rid of the intrusion, we must get rid of the assistance as well.)

Another troubling aspect of such regulation, if we follow the government's logic to its ultimate conclusion: If the state of Iowa can't trust its adult citizens with such a mundane decision as what size bottle of booze to buy, how can they trust us with self-governance, arms bearing, child rearing or any other activity upon which a free society depends?

Everclear and Present Danger

In its never-ending quest to keep its citizens safe from their own actions, by treating them all like idiot children, the state of Iowa is investigating whether to ban or severely regulate the sale of Everclear, a highly concentrated alcohol (HCA) beverage. In other states Everclear is available up to 95% alcohol (190 proof), but last year Iowa officials limited Everclear sold in this state to 75.5% alcohol (151 proof).

The Iowa Alcoholic Beverages Commission recently held a meeting at Drake University to hear public opinion on the topic. In November 2009 a Drake student was rushed to the hospital for alcohol poisoning after consuming copious amounts of Everclear, creating the massive debate about the drink in Iowa. Since one young college punk got sick on the stuff, obviously the state needs to make new regulations to restrict the freedom of three million other Iowans. After all, it wasn't that kid's fault, the other kids "made" him do it.

Holding its hearing at any college campus, much less one recently rocked by the near-death of one of its students, is probably not the best place to hear dispassionate and well-reasoned arguments calling for government restraint. The Commission probably doesn't want to hear those anyway.

If you would like the Commission to hear some, you can email comments on the topic to dusold@iowaabd and read public comments for and against increased regulation of HCA's at the Iowa Alcoholic Beverages Commission's website.

Life, Liberty and Property in '09

It's time once again to examine the old year and hope for a good new year. Let's review some of the top developments in 2009 in the Lockean categories of life, liberty and property.

Life

According to the FBI's preliminary report, murders in the first 6 months of 2009 were down 10% compared to the previous year. Final crime rates for 2009 won't be released until sometime in 2010, but if the trend continues throughout 2009, it would be the biggest one-year decrease in murders since at least 1960, the earliest year for which Bureau of Justice Statistics data is available. It would also give 2009 a per capita murder rate 51% lower than the all-time high in 1991.

During the same time six-month period, U.S. gun sales (as measured by the number of transactions on the FBI's National Instant Criminal Background Check System [NICS], the "background check" when a gun is purchased from a dealer) were up by about 24%. As the National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA) points out, the number of privately owned firearms in the U.S. rose by about 2%, to record levels. NRA-ILA also stated: "[T]he firearms that were most commonly purchased in 2009 are those that gun control supporters most want to be banned – AR-15s, similar semi-automatic rifles, and handguns designed for defense."

In a nutshell, in the last several years gun ownership has reached all-time highs while crime rates remain at or near record lows. "What this shows," said Alan Gottlieb, Executive Vice President of the Second Amendment Foundation, "is that gun prohibitionists are all wrong when they argue that more guns result in more crime. Firearms in the hands of law-abiding citizens are no threat to anyone. Perhaps violent criminals were actually discouraged by all of those gun sales earlier this year, because the media made a point of reporting the booming gun market.

He continued: "Anti-gunners have lost another one of their baseless arguments. Millions of Americans bought guns during the first six months of [2009], many of them for the first time. Yet with all of those new guns in circulation, coupled with an increased demand for concealed carry licenses around the country, the streets have not been awash in blood, as gun banners repeatedly predict."

In a slightly different vein (yet still in the life category), for the first time since the Gallup Poll began asking the question in 1995, a majority of Americans (51%) called themselves "pro-life" in 2009. According to Iowa Right to Life the number of abortions performed nation-wide peaked at about 1.6 million in 1990 (almost the same year as the all-time high murder rate mentioned above, hmm...) but has been trending downward since. It was at about 1.2 million in 2006 and is "back to levels not seen since the late 1970s."

Iowa had 5,888 abortions in 2005, 6,728 in 2006 and 6,649 in 2007. I haven't read any hard numbers for '08 or '09, but I would imagine they remained in that same range.

Liberty

The big news in Iowa this year was that Iowa became the third state to legalize gay marriage. The Iowa Supreme Court issued a ruling in April on the case Varnum v. Brien. It was argued that Iowa's law violated same-sex couples rights to equal protection and due process.

Not everyone was happy with the decision however. “A handful of people who were not elected to office — they were appointed — have rendered a decision, a decision that is contrary to the will of the people, it is contrary to God’s law and it’s time for the people through their elected officials and elected representatives to decide what the law is going to be in this state,” said Danny Carroll, chairman of the Iowa Family Policy Center’s board of directors.

But government exists to protect the rights of individuals from tyranny (even tyranny of the majority). Regardless of whether you morally approve of homosexuality or not, the ruling is certainly good for individual rights in Iowa. The argument made by social conservatives, that gay marriage is destructive to society, doesn't seem to be resonating with anyone but conservatives themselves. Nonetheless, efforts are underway to reverse the ruling.

Second Amendment supporters ended the year with more friends than they started with. This summer the gun control group Iowans for the Prevention of Gun Violence (IPGV) dissolved due to lack of funding. However, a new group of Second Amendment defenders sprung up in the state. The group Iowa Gun Owners was formed in January '09. In their first year in existence they managed to get a "Vermont/Alaska style" right-to-carry bill introduced in the Iowa legislature and earned it a tied procedural vote (to proceed, not be enacted) of 49-49 in the Iowa House. Not a bad first showing.

There was some work done on legalizing medical marijuana in Iowa in 2009. In July the Iowa Board of Pharmacy began holding hearings on the issue, but has not yet voted on its recommendation to the state legislature. In March a state Senate subcommittee held a hearing on medical marijuana bill, but the bill didn't advance out of the subcommittee. Although it remains to be seen what will happen, at least there is discussion of legalizing the pharmaceutical use of a drug that is less dangerous and addictive than many other commonly prescribed drugs.

In 2009 storm clouds continued to gather at the national level, with healthcare "reform" set to mandate insurance coverage and involve the government in some of our most personal decisions.

Property

In June I reported on a county government flanking maneuver to circumvent the state's anti-Kelo eminent domain law. The Clarke County Reservoir Commission voted to condemn the farmland of two dozen families in order to build a new 900-acre reservoir near Osceola. Critics have charged that planners have inflated the areas water needs in order to justify the new reservoir. In August the Clarke County Farm Bureau stated that they would NOT be helping the landowners whose land will be taken. Construction of the lake has not yet begun at this time.

In Washington and Des Moines our elected officials continued to bury this and future generations in debt in 2009. Since this will have to be paid back (with interest) it will obviously cost Americans a lot of money, therefore leaving less money available to us to acquire property (and less to pursue happiness with as well).

Governor Culver signed bonding issues adding almost $1.7 Billion in state debt, despite the fact that a Des Moines Register poll showed that 71% of Iowans opposed it. In D.C., President Obama and the Democrat Congress added about $1.45 Trillion in U.S. debt in 2009 alone. The U.S. public debt currently stands at over $12 Trillion. Our total unfunded liabilities amount to almost $107 Trillion.

So 2009 was a mixed bag for freedom lovers. Unfortunately, I think the few advances in personal freedoms are vastly overshadowed by the fiscal crisis looming on the horizon. Will we draw that crisis closer or will we begin to back away from it in 2010? I'll tell you next year.

Fight Terrorism With Freedom

Once again I'm responding to a column in the newspaper. I sent the following to my hometown paper:

I felt compelled to respond to the recent column by retired Army Colonel Clyde Meyer about militant Islam. I agree with Col. Meyer that Islam has a long history of violence. I also agree with his point that throughout history there have been fanatics from all religions who have used violence to advance their cause. Where I begin to disagree with the good Colonel is how best to fight Islamic extremists today.

Let me preface this by saying that, as a former military member myself, I am not reflexively anti-war. I understand its utility and occasional necessity, but I am not reflexively for war either. While I’ll leave the foreign policy side of the debate for another day, I would encourage anyone interested in the subject to read the book Imperial Hubris by CIA veteran Michael Scheuer for a thoughtful analysis of the motives of the Islamic terrorists.

Colonel Meyer states that since some terrorists have reached American soil they need to be “weeded out” through “counter-insurgency measures.” He casually shrugs off potential violations of the U.S. Constitution that he once swore an oath to defend. (As Republican activist and former-Marine Bill Salier likes to point out, that oath has no expiration date.) Meyer writes that the measures he endorses include “the control of people and resources and can infringe on some of the individual rights to which we are entitled by our constitution.”

Before we unleash the counter-insurgency tactics that we employed in Vietnam and Iraq on the American public, perhaps we could try something else: Freedom. I believe that we can defend ourselves against those who would harm us not by destroying our individual liberties but by defending them and expanding them.

For instance, Meyer mentions the recent Fort Hood attack by a suspected jihadist. Soldiers on that base were, as a matter of policy, denied the Second Amendment right to carry firearms that people elsewhere in Texas and 39 other states currently enjoy. That section of Ft. Hood (like Columbine and Virginia Tech) had become a “gun-free zone,” a proven magnet for mass murderers.

The same could also be said of the September 11th attacks. Government restrictions on the rights of Americans turned airliners into “gun-free zones” and government policy dictated that crews and passengers not resist hijackers. If people had been allowed to resist (as those on Flight 93 did anyway) or if the pilots had been allowed to keep pistols in the cockpit (as was common practice until the 1960’s) then 19 terrorists probably wouldn’t have been able to kill 2,976 Americans armed only with box cutters.

These are just two quick examples of how the answer is more freedom, not less. On this issue, as on many issues, the best thing the government can do for the American people is to stay out of our way. Surrendering our freedom and power to the government in exchange for promises of security ensures that the government will always find new threats so as to expand its power.

The Great Debate, Part 3: What Now?

In the last two posts we’ve analyzed the ongoing Constitutional debate of: “Is the federal government to be a small government with a few enumerated powers or an expansive government with a few enumerated restrictions?” We’ve looked at how those who want an expansive federal government have used imaginative interpretations of the Constitution’s general welfare and commerce clauses as the basis of their expansion.

But what about those of us in the first camp, who believe the Constitution outlines a small, restrained federal government? Although things may look bleak (what with massive new government bailouts, “stimulus,” entitlements and corporate takeovers from both major political parties), there is reason to believe that the government expansion pendulum may be reaching its apogee.

Firstly, there is the cost of unfettered government. The federal government is currently $11.8 trillion in debt. Social Security and Medicare spending are set to rise as baby-boomers age and retire. Both of the big-box parties have shown no willingness to curb spending. To put it mildly, this is unsustainable. Something WILL change, one way or another, and it probably won’t be pretty when it does.

Secondly, as I noted in the previous post, many people are getting fed up. They are increasingly protesting the federal governments policies, be they seemingly never-ending wars, taxes or government controls. They are quite literally marching in the streets. And although it’s not usually the topic of polite political conversation, with some 70 to 80 million of them bearing arms, the American people are not a force to be trifled with.

Voters gave Republicans control of Congress in 1994, then the Democrats in 2006, showing a “throw the bums out” attitude both times. (Hopefully this continues and the current batch of bums will get their walking papers in 2010.)

Thirdly, the Supreme Court has lately begun to recognize at least some limits upon federal power (as also noted in the last post).

Lastly, the states themselves seem to be awakening against federal usurpation. With or without the aid of the Supreme Court, they may well be able to push the federal government back within its Constitutional bounds.

The “Real ID Act,” a Bush-era security measure mandating federal standards on state-issued IDs, never got off the ground because too many states simply refused to comply with it. Short of sending in troops, what were the feds to do?

More recently many states have introduced “state sovereignty resolutions” declaring their rights under the Constitution’s Tenth Amendment. They have passed in at least two states so far. These are, however, mostly symbolic declarations with no enforcement mechanisms.

Besides ad hoc noncompliance and symbolic gestures, the states have the old legal theories of nullification and interposition at their disposal. These ideas were most famously articulated in the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions of 1798, state protests against the federal “Alien and Sedition Acts.” Later, northern states used nullification to disregard federal fugitive slave laws that they found odious.

The theory holds that the states, as the creators of the Constitution, are the ultimate judges of a law’s constitutionality, not the Supreme Court. Laws introduced in several states may soon test these theories or at least get the Supreme Court to reexamine it’s interpretation of the commerce clause.

Montana passed the Firearms Freedom Act, which states that firearms manufactured, sold and used only in Montana are exempt from federal firearms laws, since they don’t involve interstate commerce. Tennessee also passed similar legislation and it has been introduced in at least five other states. Gun rights groups are already preparing for the court battles.

Red and blue states alike seem to have federal intrusions they don’t like. California is poised to pass a resolution demanding the federal government stop meddling in the state’s medical marijuana laws. Arizona, Georgia and several other states have proposed plans to opt out of any national health care plan.

If you add up all these elements it’s easy to see that, despite the appearance otherwise, the era of big government may finally be set to ebb. But, no doubt, this great debate over the role of government in our lives will rage on indefinitely.

Declaration of Independence: The Reason for the Season

Most of the time growing up, like a lot of people, I thought that the Fourth of July was about fireworks and barbecues. I knew it was "America's birthday," but I didn't really understand how that birth came about or how it was unique. It was only after I ended my "formal" education that I began to read a lot about the founding of our country and the importance of the Declaration of Independence.

When I attended the Fourth of July parade and festivities in my birth town of Independence, Iowa last year, I was pleasantly surprised to hear the Declaration being read aloud in its entirety over loudspeakers to kick off the celebration. Perhaps the Declaration hasn't been entirely forgotten after all.

The Declaration is revolutionary in the truest sense of the word. Thirteen political subdivisions that thought they weren't getting a fair deal from their own government, the existing government that our founders all had been born into, declared to the world that they were free of that government. When you think about it, it's extraordinary.

As I read the declaration today, particularly the list of specific grievances against the British crown, I'm struck by how they resemble some of our own grievances with our various governments today:

"He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance." Yep. Sounds like the countless alphabet soup federal agencies regulating every aspect of our existence and taking our money.

"He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power." Seems like a liberal critique of President Bush, with his military tribunals.

"He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation[.]" Two words: United Nations. There are a host of other sovereignty-destroying organizations that many of our own elected officials are working to subjugate us to.

"For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent[.]" Our children are being passed a suffocating level of debt (which will have to be paid by them through extensive taxation) by politicians they couldn't vote for or against.

Anyway, I won't analyze it all into the ground. I hope that you'll take a few moments to read the Declaration of Independence with fresh eyes and think about what it means. It is, in effect, America's mission statement. [You can also listen to an audio version here.]

IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

Georgia: Button Gwinnett, Lyman Hall, George Walton
North Carolina: William Hooper, Joseph Hewes, John Penn
South Carolina: Edward Rutledge, Thomas Heyward, Jr., Thomas Lynch, Jr., Arthur Middleton
Massachusetts: John Hancock
Maryland: Samuel Chase, William Paca, Thomas Stone, Charles Carroll of Carrollton
Virginia: George Wythe, Richard Henry Lee, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Harrison, Thomas Nelson, Jr., Francis Lightfoot Lee, Carter Braxton
Pennsylvania: Robert Morris, Benjamin Rush, Benjamin Franklin, John Morton, George Clymer, James Smith, George Taylor, James Wilson, George Ross
Delaware: Caesar Rodney, George Read, Thomas McKean
New York: William Floyd, Philip Livingston, Francis Lewis, Lewis Morris
New Jersey: Richard Stockton, John Witherspoon, Francis Hopkinson, John Hart, Abraham Clark
New Hampshire: Josiah Bartlett, William Whipple
Massachusetts: Samuel Adams, John Adams, Robert Treat Paine, Elbridge Gerry
Rhode Island: Stephen Hopkins, William Ellery
Connecticut: Roger Sherman, Samuel Huntington, William Williams, Oliver Wolcott
New Hampshire: Matthew Thornton

This Land Is Your Land, But Now It's OUR Land

Eminent domain abuse in Iowa?

The fact that Iowa passed a law affording property owners additional protections, in response to the landmark Kelo decision by the U.S. Supreme Court, may be of little comfort to about two-dozen Iowa families who may soon be forced off their own land.

The high court's ruling in Kelo v. City of New London was handed down June 23, 2005. In it's decision the court ruled that local governments could take land from one private property owner, just to give it to another, who may generate more tax revenue with the property. The court ruled that it was permissible under the "takings clause" of the Fifth Amendment.

That clause reads, "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." Before the Kelo decision, "public use" was generally understood to mean something open for the use of the general public, such as roads or schools. After Kelo, local governments could take private land from one owner (a farmer for instance) and give it to another (a real estate developer perhaps). The decision caused considerable public backlash across the country.

Here in Iowa, the Legislature responded by passing an anti-Kelo law in 2006 which tightened the state's laws protecting landowners. Then-governor Tom Vilsack vetoed the bill, but the Legislature overrode his veto by wide margins. (After sticking his thumb in the eye of Iowa's farmers and property owners on his way out of office, Vilsack now serves as Obama's Secretary of Agriculture.) Three years later, Iowa's eminent domain law may face it's first real test.

Recently the Clarke County Reservoir Commission voted to condemn farmland in order to build a new 900-acre reservoir north of Osceola. Osceola City Administrator Bill Kelly said that the area's current reservoir has about 7 percent capacity remaining. When that's completely tapped, it may hamper efforts to develop a new hotel and upscale subdivision that the town wants. The reservoir would also have a 300-foot beach, boat ramp and campsites, which supporters hope would help draw tourists to the area.

It sounds like a nice idea, but Clarke County has the same dilemma that Harvey Corman's character did in "Blazing Saddles" when he said, "Unfortunately there is one thing standing between me and that property: the rightful owners." About two-dozen rightful owners actually.

The landowners (many of whom live on the soon-to-be-submerged land) and their friends don't plan on going down without a fight. Opponents of the lake allege that supporters have exaggerated the area's water needs. Either way, the project puts the needs of future development over the welfare of current tax-paying property owners.

Representative Jodi Tymeson, a Winterset Republican and reservoir opponent, points out that many members of the Clarke County Reservoir Commission are unelected representatives of local developers and a local water association, who stand to gain from the project. "Iowans understand eminent domain for real public uses, but private property ownership is just basic to our individual liberties," said Tymeson.

The project sidesteps Iowa's anti-Kelo law since it does not take land and give it directly to private developers. Instead it takes the land and uses it for the direct benefit of those developers, at the expense of the rightful owners. "This is a deliberate attempt to get around our law,” said Rep. Jeff Kaufmann, R-Wilton, who helped pass the 2006 law.

The county government has deeper pockets than the rural residents that it seeks to dispossess, leaving Kaufmann hoping that an attorney might provide pro bono legal services for the group. If this lake project proceeds, opponents fear that it may encourage the use of eminent domain for other development and recreation projects. “I’m not sure anyone in Iowa is safe,” Representative Tymeson said.

This project may not be as an egregious case of eminent domain abuse as that which is now enshrined by the Kelo decision, but that doesn't mean it's fair.

Getting A Carry Permit

The last Sunday in April I took my county's class to get a permit to carry concealed weapons. I'm new to all this, so I thought maybe others who were thinking about getting an Iowa weapons permit (which according to a recent Cedar Rapids Gazette article, is an increasing number of you) might want to see what it's all about, from the vantage point of a fellow newbie. You old pros, who have carried for years, will have to bear with me.

Firstly, In Iowa there are two types of civilian permits dealing with handguns: the "permit to acquire pistols and revolvers" and the "permit to carry weapons." The names are self-explanatory.

The permit to acquire only requires that you fill out a form at your county sheriff's office, pay a small fee and submit to a criminal background check. This will allow you to purchase handguns, but is not needed for long arms.

To carry a gun in public, you'll need a permit to carry weapons. Although the law doesn't say the weapon has to be concealed, it's generally understood to be a good idea, to avoid "scaring the horses." A permit to carry also functions as a permit to acquire.

Here's where things get confusing because Iowa leaves each county sheriff with wide discretion as to how or even if permits to carry are issued to the citizens in each county. Essentially, Iowa has 99 different policies on carry permits. Efforts by gun rights advocates to establish a uniform statewide standard for carry permits have met with surprising resistance in the Iowa legislature.

So getting a carry permit in your county may well be different than it was for me. Some sheriffs refuse to issue them even to legally qualified applicants. Luckily, my sheriff in Jones County does.

I visited the sheriff's office and filled out the requisite paperwork to allow a background check and paid $25 for the required class. In the short time I was there, there was an older married couple in line ahead of me, also signing up for the class, and one guy came in behind me to sign up. The 30 slots in the class filled up fast.

A few weeks later I arrived at the local shooting range where the class was held. I knew that there would be a written test as well as a live-fire proficiency test with my pistol. Besides that, I didn't know what to expect.

First Sheriff Mark Denniston addressed the class, which was composed of a fairly diverse mix of young and old, male and female. The sheriff told the applicants what was expected of them if they got their permits. Then he turned the class over to the two professional firearms instructors who the sheriff's department contracts with to teach the class: Mike and Ernie.

Mike Sieverding is CEO of Sieverding Engineering Enterprises and Chief Firearms Instructor for F.I.E.R.C.E. (Firearms Instruction for Every Responsible Citizen Everywhere). Ernie Traugh is an instructor and the owner of Cedar Valley Outfitters, a gun and shooting supply shop in Marion. Both men are also reserve police officers.

Most of the class dealt with the legal aspects of having the permit. Mike and Ernie did a good job on what could have been a rather dry subject. They also reminded the class what a truly grim situation a defensive shooting would be if, God-forbid, anyone did have to use their weapon. They really drove home the point that things don't play out as they do in the movies. They also encouraged everyone to continue to practice with their own weapons and take further firearms instruction classes to increase proficiency.

After about 5 or so hours in the classroom and after completing the written test on the subjects addressed by Mike and Ernie, it was time for the range test. I have to admit, I was a little nervous about the shooting test. After pheasant and squirrel hunting growing up and 6 years in the infantry, I have spent much more trigger time with rifles and shotguns than with pistols.

It turned out I was sweating for nothing. I knew that the test was at 10 yards with FBI silhouette targets. I spent the month before the class practicing with my .45 (at the very shooting range where the class was held, coincidentally). Once I knew I could hit the target at 10 yards, I practiced at 15 and 20 yards as well, just for my own satisfaction.

I ended up getting 100% on the shooting test. Still, I would like to take some of Sieverding's other pistol courses to break myself of some of the bad shooting habits that I have no doubt picked up from pistol plinking with "the guys."

That was it. I waited a week then called the sheriff's office. I'll pay a $10 license fee when I pick it up tomorrow.

If the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms is something you really believe in and being able to protect your family while away from home is truly important to you and if you're comfortable with the idea, I encourage you to investigate what it takes to get a carry permit in your own county. The folks at the local gun shop or shooting range and IowaCarry.org can point you in the right direction. The rest is up to you.

Beth Cody on Gay Marriage

As the issue heats up in Iowa, Iowa City Press-Citizen writer Beth Cody weighs in on her website:

"Conservative Republicans have traditionally upheld personal freedoms and limited government (which is why I am still a registered Republican).

"Insisting that government get out of the marriage business is the only opinion that is consistent with Conservative belief in limited government.

"How could any advocate of Constitutional freedoms believe otherwise? Just as freedom of speech is not limited to speech that the majority finds agreeable, freedom to associate is not limited to majority-approved groups.

"Whether or not one personally approves of homosexual relationships, no rationale exists for government interference in such personal matters.

"As government once prohibited men and women of different races from marrying, now government appointees and bureaucrats believe they are wise enough to decide whether same-sex couples should be allowed to marry.

"Why is it that people invariably look to government to help them, when government is nearly always the main force to be overcome in the pursuit of happiness?

"Marriages should be private contracts between individuals of legal age. Government would simply record civil union contracts as they occur, and enforce them like any other contract.

"Whether to call such unions “marriages” would be decided by couples, their families, their churches – not by government.

"Other people and businesses should be free to recognize (or not) these marriages; and churches not required to marry any specific couples.

"No matter how the Iowa legal case is decided, we will have made little progress toward real freedom from our government masters. I believe it will be up to Constitutional Conservative groups to ask the real question: who should control marriages: the state or free individuals?"

Read the entire article here.

How About A Little Separation Of Church And State?

Christian conservatives and the ACLU get along almost as famously as the Hatfields and McCoys. However, it appears the two may have to grit their teeth and work together to oppose a legislative bill here in Iowa.

The religion clause of the First Amendment reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof[...]." The ACLU focuses on the first part of the clause, the religious right focuses on the second part. (Libertarians like to focus on both parts.)

The ACLU often defends the First Amendment's supposed "wall of separation" between church and state. The Christian right likes to point out that the First Amendment mentions no such wall and concludes that the ACLU is merely trying to keep Christians from participating fully in the public realm. Now however, Christians may be willing to step into a breach in that wall of separation with the ACLU to fight House File 179.

HF 179, “An Act including members of the clergy as mandatory reporters of child abuse, and making penalties applicable,” was introduced into the Iowa legislature by a Republican and a Democrat. The sponsors are supposedly an evangelical Christian and a Baptist, respectively. The bill would require members of the clergy to be mandatory reporters of child abuse, just like doctors, teachers and cops are now. There is an exception for information obtained during religious confession.

Nobody wants children in Iowa to be abused, so what can the problem be with this proposed law? The ACLU of Iowa lists several.

For one, ACLU-IA explains, the bill makes an exception for "penitential communication", which means "confession." Since the Catholic Church is the only one that has formal rules about seeking penitence through a clergy member, religious counseling in other religions would be open game. (This may be why the Catholic Conference is the only religious group to have endorsed the legislation so far.)

Since Iowa is always shorthanded on psychiatrists and family counselors, the minister is often a small town’s first responder for family crises. Do we really want to discourage people from talking to their minister for fear of immediate police involvement?

Another problem is, what is “a member of the clergy?” The bill defines it as “a person authorized by ordination, licensing, or other form of entitlement of the religious group or sect with which the person is affiliated to provide pastoral care and counseling to the group, sect, or others.” Huh?

Some churches have more formal training and accreditation procedures for their clergy than do others. In some churches all members are considered “ministers.” In the end, the state would have to issue some kind of standards on who is and who is not clergy, if the law is to be enforceable. See the wall crumbling?

All in all, the bill would open up a huge can of First Amendment worms regardless of what clause your group likes to focus on. Let’s hope that these two unlikely allies, conservative Christians and the ACLU, like Churchill and Stalin, can crush the common threat. Then they can get back to clobbering each other.

Out With The Old In With The... Old

It’s obviously the time of year to write a retrospective of the old year and predictions for the new. The retrospective is easy. Not to put too fine a point on it, 2008 sucked.

Here in Iowa, we started 2008 buried in snow and ice. By June that had turned to tornadoes and floods. Not just any tornadoes and floods, but Iowa’s worst tornado since 1976 and our worst flooding in recorded history. The political climate didn’t prove any better than the weather.

Despite starting the year optimistic that libertarian Republican candidate Ron Paul would do well in the Iowa Caucus and New Hampshire primary, giving him a bounce into a credible run for the GOP’s nomination for president, the Republicans instead nominated another big government neo-conservative. Although I myself have been lulled into the “lesser of two evils” mindset in previous elections, I could never vote for John McCain because I don’t believe he is any "lesser." For the first time in my adult life, I truly didn’t care whether the Democrats or Republicans won the Whitehouse.

Let’s look at what went on in the categories of personal and economic freedom.

2008 Economic Freedom

On the national front we saw the emergence of a strong new socialist leader who led the country toward nationalization of several major industries. To my chagrin it was not Barack Obama but “free-market Republican” President George W. Bush who has marched us hip deep into socialism. On an encouraging note, however, the RNC is poised to issue a rebuke to Bush and congressional Republicans for the massive “bailouts.”

In my state of Iowa, the Democrats, who control the statehouse and governorship, went into a holding pattern after hiking the minimum wage in 2007 (which went into effect Jan.1, 2008). However, they replaced the 1% SILO (School Infrastructure Local Option sales tax), which had to be occasionally approved by voters in each county, with a “Statewide Penny Tax,” thereby taking the decision away from local voters who might be too dumb to constantly reauthorize it. Lobbyists and politicians in Des Moines are already proposing other uses for this “school infrastructure” money.

In similar disdain for democracy, when voters in two Iowa localities (a county and school district) voted down tax increases, the respective governing bodies rescheduled special elections to vote on the same measure. The elections will be held after the county and school board have had time to properly “educate” voters on the issue. Sounds like, heads we win, tails we flip again, to me.

In December, Governor Culver announced his pragmatic move to cut state spending by 1.5 percent across-the-board. This is a nice departure from the usual Democrat idea to increase government spending during economic downturns. It leaves libertarians wondering why it takes a recession to get that done, however.

2008 Personal Freedom

Gun owners got a needed boost when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in June that the Second Amendment protects an individual, as opposed to collective, right to own firearms. This led to several U.S. cities dropping gun ban ordinances.

Gun owners in Iowa, however, had a setback when a modest bill to standardize training and issuance of concealed-weapons permits died in the legislature in April.

Personal freedom also took a hit when a statewide smoking ban went into effect in July. This lessened the liberty of Iowa’s smokers as well as its business owners.

2008 marked the first year that voters could register as Libertarian Party members on Iowa's voter registration forms. As of July, however, only 150 had officially done so, although party membership is much higher. The Party's presidential candidate, former congressman Bob Barr, received 4,608 votes statewide.

Peering into my crystal ball (which are issued to all bloggers), let’s examine the trends for 2009.

2009 Economic Freedom

This year will probably be more of the same, or worse, for proponents of small government and free markets. President Obama and the Democrat Congress will no doubt treat Bush’s socialist power grab in the market as a floor, not a ceiling. Expect massive amounts of new regulations, new taxes, and scores of new bureaucrats administering it all. I think we’ll see a lot of that at the state level also.

The state of Iowa already has income and sales taxes and localities have sales and property taxes. A new proposal by some Iowa legislators would allow Iowa cities to also levy a tax on their denizens’ incomes. This is being sold largely as “property tax relief.” Ed Failor, Jr., President of Iowans for Tax Relief said: “Iowans are smart people, and we are smart enough to understand a new tax to reduce reliance on another tax is how politicians describe a tax increase.” The new income taxes will be around longer than any short-lived “relief” in property taxes.

There is also the ongoing chatter about getting rid of the deductibility of federal taxes on Iowan’s state income taxes. Essentially this would require Iowans to pay taxes on money that goes directly to the federal government that the wage earner never even sees.

2009 Personal Freedom

This will be hit and miss depending upon whether you are in a group favored by liberal Democrats, but I would say the general trend is downward.

Hopes that Obama would do better on civil liberties than Bush, faltered somewhat when Obama supported a sweeping intelligence eavesdropping law opposed by his own party. Police state policies don’t look so bad when you will be the one wielding them. Civil libertarians should brace for more such letdowns.

Gun owners should follow the advice of Samuel L. Jackson in “Jurassic Park” and, “Hold onto your butts.” At a minimum we should expect federal efforts to resurrect and expand the ban on so-called “assault weapons,” banning of gun shows, gun storage laws and gun owner harassment.

Since the Iowa legislature has shown itself to be willing to regulate any human activity in the name of “public health,” Iowans can expect efforts to strengthen the smoking ban, bans on drink specials at bars, and bans on junk food in schools. All of these are already in discussion. A new mandate that only self-extinguishing “fire safe” cigarettes be sold in Iowa went into effect January 1st, despite complaints by smokers that they are hard to smoke and taste bad. (No, I don’t smoke. I just hate unnecessary regulation and meddling.)

The Iowa Supreme Court may rule soon on gay marriage in Iowa. A lawsuit against Iowa’s unfair concealed weapons issuance law may be advanced this year. Both could either help or harm their intended beneficiaries.

Not counting the weather, I believe 2009 will be about the same as 2008. The few glimmers of hope for personal freedoms will largely be extinguished by massive reductions in economic freedom. Since these infringements upon economic freedom will also have a negative effect upon the economy as a whole, more people will be harmed than helped and the recession will be longer than it needs to be.

Of course, I’ve been wrong before. Happy new year.