Gov. Branstad stands up to US Attorney General

Iowa Governor, Terry Branstad, stood up to US Attorney General Eric Holder yesterday over Holder's comments regarding his opinion that felons should be able to vote after they serve their sentence. (No word about his concern that felons should be able to have their 2nd Amendment rights restored after they serve their sentences.) The money quote:

“I’m disappointed that the attorney general of the United States who also was involved in that ‘Fast and Furious’ project to give guns to drug smugglers in Mexico would criticize Iowa without even knowing the Iowa Constitution,”

In other words: "Stick it."

I'm curious that Branstad would use that dig against the AG. While viewing this report on the TV they hoisted a typical barb from the Iowa Democrat party: whining about the drive to require IDs to vote. (No word about the requirement to provide an ID in order to purchase a firearm from a dealer.)

Democrats always provide the best hypocrisy.

Nothing to see here, move along

Does that name mean anything to you? Maybe it should re-phrased and say that the person who owns the company that is solely in charge of this multi-million-dollar transaction is Richard Blum the husband of Senator Dianne Feinstein.

Reported and confirmed by Snopes that the firm run by the husband of rabidly anti-gun senator Feinstein will make millions for brokering land deals for the United States Postal Service.

 Would that a commoner get that same sweetheart deal...

Via Burlington Derailed

Senate Candidate forum

Iowa will be selecting a new senator next year with Tom Harkin's retirement after way too many years in office.

This is an opportunity to check out the Republican declared candidates and everyone can offer up questions for them.

Submit your questions here.

Ron Paul backers take the state GOP by storm

The Paul campaign strategy has been to concentrate on caucus states and to nominate and support delegates out of the precinct level and on to the county, district conventions and then to the state committees.

Iowa GOP district committees met on Saturday, 4/21 and it's looking like that strategy is working.

Iowa’s 28 delegates are all “unbound,” meaning they can individually decide which presidential candidate to support. To stop Paul supporters from controlling the Iowa delegation, Romney backers in Iowa said they will likely focus on teaming up with Christian conservatives here.

Paul loyalists did well in getting their supporters onto the GOP’s “state nomination committee,” which will nominate Iowa’s 13 at-large national delegates. Another 12 district delegates will be selected June 15. The GOP chairman and Iowa’s two Republican National Committee members are also delegates.

The ultimate outcome could be that neither Romney (original winner of the Iowa Caucus) nor Santorum (the declared winner) will end up with the majority of delegates out of Iowa.

Watch the sausage factory

January 4, 1904, Statehouse fire

At the Iowa Statehouse

The Iowa House introduced live streaming video so we have a chance to watch the crap-fest that goes on under the golden dome. Otherwise it's a great opportunity for use to keep an eye on those who intend to raise our gas tax, car tags, state park use fees, and assorted other "contributions" to state revenue.

Those of us who work for a living with day jobs won't be able to keep an eye on them unless your employer has a liberal internet policy.

2012 Iowa Caucus Follies

My Precinct:
Paul - 22
Romney - 19
Santorum - 17
Gingrich - 6
Perry and Bachmann - 4 each
Huntsman with a big fat 0

A fair turnout for our precinct but what's the deal with only having 2 county delegates?

Another thing. If you are going to give a passionate appeal for your candidate, don't just read off a campaign form letter or press release. C'mon people, if you can only say something that regurgitates from the home office, then shut up.

(We could only have one speaker for each candidate and the guy who spoke in favor of the guy I was caucusing for just read from the same email of suggested speeches that I got. Lame. Especially since he was the county chair for the candidate.)

Not all of the state-wide numbers in but looks like a toss-up between Santorum and Romney with Paul in third.

Adventures with pollsters

During the run up to the 1996 presidential caucuses, I had so many pollsters call that I gave up and just started a list and each time one called, I supported the next candidate on the list. When I got to the bottom of the list, I started all over again.

A few years ago I started messing with them. Asking me questions about a gubernatorial race one year:

Pollster: What's the most important issue? Is it the economy? Unemployment? Abortion? Blah, blah?

Me: None of those.

Pollster: What is your most important issue?

Me: Does a condidate running for office know and understand our state motto.

Pollster: That's intersting.

Me: Do you know what Iowa's state motto is?

Pollster: No.

Me: "Our Liberties We Prize and Our Rights We Will Maintain"

Pollster: That's a very good question to ask.

I've asked candidates that question, and surprise, most don't even know what our motto is.

This caucus season, we've been averaging 3 polls a night and last night was one of those lengthy multiple question polls that appeared to have been commissioned by Newt Romney but I'm not positive.

Many of the questions were just stupid but one stood out: "Which one of the candidates will get more done as president?" "Get more done?" My reply: They'll all get things done and most of what any of them get done will be to make things worse. Besides, they can't get anything done without Congress and don't get me started about "Executive Orders."

We settled that it was an invalid question and I refused to answer it.

One question was asked if I supported the position that a president had the authority to reject a Supreme Court ruling?

Me: The people have the right to reject court rulings and laws through jury nullification.

Pollster: But the question was regarding the president.

Me: Okay, if it was good enough for Andrew Jackson, when he told the court to enforce its own ruling, then I guess I can see the point.

Pollster: Do you support the president having the authority?

Me: (Thinking in my mind about separation of powers and the House of Representatives has the power of impeachment of judges) The constitutionality of a law should not rest solely on 9 black robed elitists.

Pollster: But about the president?

Me: Hmmm, okay. Yes I can agree on this point.

I just can't give them straight answers.

When asked if I described myself on a scale of liberal vs conservative, I replied that I was libertarian (small "l"). But he didn't have a space to put that in. Was I a Tea Partier? A Born-Again Christian?

What was my most important issue? The Bill of Rights and the Constitutional principle of Original Intent. He didn't have a space for that one.

He made the mistake of asking what I thought about Gingrich and a few moments later he begged me to slow down because his typing skills wasn't good enough to keep up.

After about 15 minutes we were done and I asked who commissioned the poll (as I always do) and he replied that he didn't know who commissioned it but from the way the questions were phrased...

I told him I had a good idea who as I wasn't a political neophyte, to which he laughed and I told him that the next poll he works on should have better questions. He agreed that this was not one of the better set that he's worked with. He said good night and I wished him a Merry Christmas.

On my next pollster call, I can now support the next one on my candidate list.

But Cain isn't on the running anymore.

Ron Paul's foreign policy

What we have today is because we've relied on "experts" to conduct foreign policy based on economic reasons instead of truly security reasons. Why are we still "protecting" Japan and Germany (Western Europe by extension)? If anyone wishes to invade France, they can keep them.

My objections to Dr Paul is dissipating because of information like this, because I thoroughly believe our government has wasted some of our best and brightest in useless conflicts because of someone's dumb-assed foreign policy.



We're not called the Great Satan for nothing.

Via David Codrea's War on Guns

Van Buren County Tea Party

I've been catching up on emails instead of working today and read one from Randy from Southeast Iowa. He's involved in county and local politics and I found several interviews of the local school board candidates that was posted on his blog, Van Buren County Tea Party.

From his email

We have started a local Tea Party group with the intent of taking on our local governments and their foolish use of our money.

Here's a shout of encouragement, Randy and I apologize for not getting to this sooner.

*Of note: My brother taught elementary school at Douds in the early 80's.

Guns Owners for Ron Paul

A press release by the Ron Paul campaign announcing a national effort for gun owners to support Ron Paul's campaign for the presidency.

Former Iowa Congressman urges ATF oversight

Former congressman urges ATF oversight hearings

Former Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman Jim Lightfoot urges ATF oversight hearings

Pick one or two agencies for the 'Mr. Clean' treatment. Go after them in high profile. You will be surprised how many other agencies will start to clean up their acts.

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) would be a good place to start. It is one of the smaller agencies, therefore completing the audits and investigations will take less time. It is an agency that has drifted for nearly 6 years without a permanent Director.

Sounds good to me.

I wondered what happened to old Jim Ross.

Voting is not a right.

It is a duty, it is a responsibility of the citizens of our county.

Allowing non-citizens the ability to vote?

Via Jeffersonian

At the debate, Culver eats Branstad for lunch

Rather, Culver eats Branstad's lunch or maybe Branstad himself.


Doesn't Culver look huge next to Branstad?

Third District candidates spar

Boswell, Zaun race gets hot in IPTV interview

Boswell, Zaun offer stark contrast

Conservation trust fund gets some press

I've been hearing commercials of a citizen in favor of this bureaucratic hammer saying it wouldn't raise our taxes. As I've posted before, Iowa outdoor trust amendment, that ain't so.

A "yes" vote would create the protected fund, but put no money into it. Supporters hope a future Legislature will take the next step - raising the sales tax. State law would then funnel the equivalent of a three-eighths of 1 percent sales tax into the fund, an estimated $150 million a year. Private donations could be deposited, too.

Conservation trust fund amendment to go before Iowa voters

An unfunded (for now) mandate that will empower a state agency not yet materialized, to bully, coerce, and litigate the landholders in this state.

Not all of us have been good stewards but the changes in last 40 years in reducing soil runoff has improved river quality. Very few farmers even own a plow and no-till is nearly the standard farm practice.

More trees are growing in the state than 80 years ago. I've personally planted hundreds of hardwood trees on my fathers' land and acres owned by my brother.

So what's really at issue?

The groups pushing this seem to have a connection to hunting.

Supporters of the Natural Resources and Outdoor Recreation Trust Fund say it would improve water quality, save soil and help restore grasslands needed to return Iowa's shrinking pheasant population to levels that made it a draw for hunters years ago.

Pheasants Forever has been purchasing land in this and the surrounding counties and I applaud their effort as a private organization in doing so.

But in order for this trust fund to be truly effective is to give it club. One that will be used against private land owners. State-wide rural zoning for land use would be in place to use against someone in order to increase game birds.

This is a form of "taking" of one's land without due process and soon you wouldn't be able to build your dream home on that 5 acres your uncle gave you in his will. You might be able to hunt dear on it. That is, if it isn't in a deemed "wetland" and the state removes the levee.

But that would never happen.

The consequences of the Environmental Protection Act is that it gave standing in the courts to animal species and the same will happen here. The ducks, pheasants and maybe the land itself will have a state paid advocate to "protect" them from the evil developer or those rich farmers.

I'm voting against it.

U of Iowa homecoming parade

I missed this from a couple of weeks ago.

Pictures of University of Iowa, Hawkeyes homecoming parade.

Governor candidate, Branstad is all smiles:


Gov Chester and his mom, Lt. Gov Patty Judge:


Senatorial candidate, Roxanne Conlin, seems confused by wearing Iowa State colors in the U of I parade:


And these kids were obviously impressed by the pandering politicians:

The week in review

Yep, my week has kind of been like this.

What takes time to build, lasts a second or a lifetime and can easily be lost?

Trust.

The two engineers from the photo, they trusted the other to not be on the same track. Trusted someone to throw the switch correctly. Trusted themselves that they were headed in the right direction.

I lost trust in someone this week and I'm of the notion that rebuilding trust takes 5 times longer than the first time around. If at all.

Expanding on this, why do we trust professional politicians? Sure they lie and manipulate the voting public for their re-election pleasure, so why do we put them back in office?


Sweep the Congress clean, Clean out the Statehouses - No Incumbents.

NJ governor testing the waters?

New Jersey Governor, Chris Christie, who's probably about the same size as our governor Chester, was in West Des Moines for a fundraiser Monday.

Governor Christie ignoring Republican Gubernatorial candidate Terry Branstad on his way to the buffet. "Nice to meet ya. Where's the prime rib?"

Just kidding. But it does look like Christie is giving him the old campaign glad hand and moving on.

Gun endorsements for governor

This is no surprise because of Chester's signing of SF2379 into law that changed our permit process to make it more uniform from county to county. The law will reduce, but not eliminate sheriff's discretion when issuing concealed carry permits.

In a Des Moines Register article: NRA will urge Iowans to vote for Democrat Chet Culver we also find a list of other big name candidates the NRA had endorsed this year.

A new ad campaign has been released by Chris Cox of the NRA. Really it's just a parody, or maybe it isn't. You be the judge at Cliffs of Insanity, I'm the NRA!

In other news, Iowa Gun Owners has endorsed former Gov Branstad because he returned a questionnaire to their 100% satisfaction, while Chester didn't return one. Iowa Gun Owners endorses Terry Branstad, criticizes Chet Culver

And a final note, the coveted and irrelevant Stranded in Iowa endorsement goes to ...

Neither. I have no plans to vote for either one of them.

In my search for a candidate that I can vote for (as opposed to against) I'm looking at the independent candidates that are running.

And I'm waiting for the questionnaire created by David Codrea to be returned.

Iowa Outdoor Trust Amendment

On November Second, we Iowans have a choice not only for the candidates for office, but there are several other issues we voters need to decide upon.

We can decide if we want our lifetime-appointed judges should be retained to sit on the bench - I always vote to recall out of principle that judges should be termed and not there until they retire or whither away.

We also have a rare amendment to vote on: Iowa Outdoor Recreation Trust Fund Amendment, also known as Measure 1.

If passed by a simple majority, when the legislature approves a sales tax increase, 3/8ths of a cent will have to go into a trust fund to be used around the state for conservation efforts... or recreation... or tourism... or...

Considering that fees used for hunting and fishing in the state was supposed to be used for conservation, additional funds could go even further.

Has there ever been a state run trust fund that wasn't used as a slush fund for political cronies? If not, please name it.

Will this money be siphoned away (see the Social Security "lock box" - it's empty) for pet projects or the general fund? Other funds were raided during the Vilsack tenure and I'm sure both Branstad or Culver would do the same.

In-state groups like Pheasants Forever and Ducks Unlimited, as private groups, have purchased land for conservation efforts without the state interfering. Why mess that private effort up with a layer of bureaucrats?

My concern is that the natural progression of a bureaucracy would end up forcing private landholders into what they can and cannot do on their own land. Build a pond, or terrace? Not without permits and permission by a Des Moines clerk. They could go the opposite and order the landholder to build a watershed at his/her own expense. Why not? They will have the power of the state to back them up.

The short-term advantages of rebuilding habitat (that may eventually be off limits to hunters) could have the longer-term consequences of another arm of the DNR (aka Damn Near Russia) regulating land to the point that a farmer would not turn a profit, deny access to one's land, or deny repair of a levy to return farmground to a more natural state. This happened in Louisa county after the floods of 93 and 08.

Many have visions of abundant game and expanding hunting seasons, cleaner water and large catches of fish.

I have a vision of some bureaucrat sitting on their hind-end who has never raised a shotgun to bring down a bird, setting rules how my land (if I had any) or my neighbors' land should be used for conservation purposes.

Not that hunting should be a prerequisite for this trust. I'm sure all that book lernin' up at that state U makes up for that.

But those of us who are the closest to the land, who have toiled to make a profit or walked it in search of game, are some of the best stewards we have here.

I don't think we need another state agency telling us what to do.