YES! 13+ House members tell Mitch McConnell (and Chuck Grassley) deal with us or kiss off

Posted on December 22, 2022 by Designated2
  • Telling the Senate Republicans in support of the 1.7 trillion dollar spending atrocity ~~  pass this assault on American culture and we will “veto” stop your favorite porkadillos in the future, period.
  • Speaker wannabe Kevin McCarthy has at least (and at last) made a good move endorsing the effort by the thirteen who are actually saving the House and the country

They won’t let McConnell’s and Grassley’s 30 pieces of silver buy them or harm so much more than the country’s fiscal solvency.  That small group are in a position to tell McConnell and Grassley to pound sand on any future legislation they sponsor.

It is not irresponsible on the thirteen’s part, it is what mature leaders do when they see immature destructive behavior . . . they send the overindulged, glutinous, bratty child to their room to think things over.

Read more about their effort here, looking past The Hill writers bias. More on this later

Senate GOP pans ‘immaturity’ by House Republicans with omnibus threat

 

0
Posted in UNCATEGORIZED | 1 Comment

Area Physician Goes to Bat Against Bureaucratic Tyranny

Posted on December 21, 2022 by Designated2
  • And he is taking the bat into the bar on his own.
  • Supposed health related boards are more about their own biasis than patient health 

Below is the pro se lawsuit (representing oneself without an attorney and not as a formal class action but with implications for those similarly situated) undertaken by local physician and former state senator David Hartsuch. His personal experience and ability to articulate the issues make this champion for people’s health the right person to make the case.  His press release and the filing are self explanatory as to the crux of the matter.

For Immediate Release.  

Date: 12/19/2022
From: Sen David Hartsuch, MD MS

Iowa Doctor-and Former Senator
Accuses Boards of Unlawful Activity
Former Iowa Senator, David Hartsuch, MD Filed lawsuit today against the Iowa Boards of Medicine and

Pharmacy hoping to protect the rights of Iowa patients and their physicians from unlawful Board activity.

The Iowa Boards is unlawfully suppressing physician speech and prescribing in order to promote the State narrative surrounding COVID-19 and prevent patients from receiving early life-saving treatment.

In March of 2020, the Boards emailed a joint statement to physicians and pharmacists to discourage patients from receiving treatment with hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) or Azithromycin (a common antibiotic used to treat bronchitis which frequently accompanies the disease.)

When Dr. Hartsuch noticed that the original statement was sent out without Board approval, he petitioned the Board to formally consider the matter and provided scientific information which supported the importance of early intervention with HCQ.

In October 2020, the Boards issued a revised joint statement allowing the use of the drugs. However, then Director of the Board of Medicine, Kent Nebel, refused a request of Dr. Hartsuch to directly inform all licensees of the change in Board policy. The Director also ignored certain FOIA requests by Dr. Hartsuch requesting the scientific basis for their original policy. Dr. Hartsuch, was shocked to discover that despite the Board’s policy allowing this prescribing, they were carrying out investigating physicians who treated their patients this way.

Similarly, the Board of Pharmacy has refused to enforce Board rules prohibiting discrimination based upon disease. As a result, pharmacy chains have unilaterally denied patients with COVID-19 right to access these life-saving drugs.

Dr. Hartsuch said, “Patients rely upon State Boards to protect their health rather than restrict access to care. Instead, these Boards have tag-teamed patients with a simultaneous body slam; The Board of Medicine silenced doctors by threatening their doctors while the Board of Pharmacy prevented patients from receiving early life-saving treatment.

For over two years, they have assaulted patients and as a result people have died. I am hopeful that this lawsuit will shed light into this dark area of government and bring the action of the Boards into conformance with Iowa Law. I am hopeful that Governor Reynolds will now intervene. Patients need tagging out.”

Dr. Hartsuch can be reached for comment at 563-508-9266.

COMES NOW Plaintiff, David Hartsuch, M.D., pro se with his petition in equity for injunctive relief and in support thereof states to the court as follows:

  1. That Plaintiff, David Hartsuch, M.D., is a practicing emergency medicine physician residing at 2127 Nicholas Court, Bettendorf Iowa, 52722 located within Scott County Iowa. He is a licensee of both The Iowa Board of Medicine and The Iowa Board of Pharmacy.
  2. That Defendant, The Iowa Board of Medicine is an agency of The State of Iowa responsible for determining the qualification and fitness of physicians to practice medicine in The State of Iowa and has a duty to uphold the ethical practice of medicine. The Iowa Board of Medicineis domiciled in The State as is headquartered at 400 SW 8th St., Des Moines, IA 50309.
  3. That Defendant, The Iowa Board of Pharmacy is an agency of The State of Iowa responsible for determining the qualifications and fitness of pharmacists to fill prescriptions in The State of Iowa and has a duty to ensure that pharmacists do not discriminate against patients based upon disease state. The Iowa Board of Pharmacy is domiciled in The State as is headquartered at 400 SW 8th St., Des Moines, IA 50309.
  4. That both Defendants operate under Iowa Administrative Rule §17A.
  5. That the Court has subject matter jurisdiction by Iowa Administrative Rules §17A.19 Plaintiff to appeal this Board action to the Iowa District Court.

Vs. )
) PRACTICE OF MEDICINE AND

PETITION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF TO

EXPUNGE RECORD, AND TO REQUIRE ) DEFENDANTS TO ENFORCE

IOWA LAWS CONCERNING THE PHARMACY

page1image20589536

Page 1 of 6

  1. That the Plaintiff has exhausted all administrative remedies, and The Board of Medicine has issued their decision and closed the Plaintiff’s case file. (See attached “Warning” Letter)
  2. That the Plaintiff is an aggrieved party with an actual judiciable controversy.
  3. That the “Warning” letter is actually a penalty as described in paragraph 27 below.
  4. That Defendant Boards have taken joint and separate actions to discourage Plaintiffs patients from receiving certain lawful prescription drugs in order to treat COVID-19, and tortiously interfered with the Plaintiff’s right to treat, and his Patient’s right to receive treatment for COVID-19.
  5. That On March 26, 2020, The Defendant Boards issued a “Joint Statement” discouraging the prescribing of Hydroxychloroquine as well as Azithromycin (a common anti-biotic used to treat bacterial co-infection common with viral illness such as COVID-19).
  6. That this “Joint Statement” was communicated to licensees via email. (See attached Original Joint Statement.)
  7. That the Plaintiff successfully petitioned the Board of Medicine to amend their policy for the use of Hydroxychloroquine.
  8. That on Sept. 11, 2020, the Defendant Boards issued a revised joint statement allowing physicians to prescribe Hydroxychloroquine without incurring disciplinary action by the Boards. (See attached Revised Joint Statement)
  9. That, the Director of the Board of Medicine, then Kent Nebel, refused a request by the Plaintiff to inform all physicians by email of the new policy in the same manner as the original Joint Statement.
  10. That this left most Iowa physicians and pharmacists unaware that it was permissible to use hydroxychloroquine, Azithromycin or other “off-label” drugs to treat COVID-19.

Page 2 of 6

  1. That The Iowa Board of Pharmacy worked to discourage pharmacists from filling prescriptions for these life-saving drugs. This was done without any assessment by the Board of the Safety or efficacy of these drugs.
  2. That as a result, Iowa Pharmacists discriminated against patients with COVID-19 by refusing to fill lawful prescriptions for Hydroxychloroquine and Ivermectin to treat COVID-19.
  3. That one of the Plaintiff’s patients filed a complaint with The Iowa Board of Pharmacy against a licensed pharmacist who refused to fill a prescription for Ivermectin solely because the drug was used to treat COVID-19 in violation of The Iowa Board of Pharmacy rule §657 8.11 (3) for discriminating against patients based upon disease state. (See Patient Complaint.)
  4. That shortly thereafter, The Iowa Board of Pharmacy informed the complainant that the Board of Pharmacy was not going to take any action.
  5. That shortly thereafter, The Iowa Board of Medicine informed the Plaintiff that they initiated an investigation of a complaint received from the pharmacist. (See Investigation Letter.)
  6. That in comparison to the Board of Pharmacy’s very brief non-investigation of a legitimate violation of law, The Board of Medicine undertook a lengthy 9-month investigation against the Plaintiff.
  7. That the Plaintiff denies the factual basis of the complaint and asserts that there was no available predicate for the investigation.
  8. That the investigation was itself was Ultra Vires due to a lack of predicate contained within Iowa Law, and that it had a “chilling effect” on the rights of the Plaintiff and his patients to free speech and to petition for the redress of grievances.
  9. That the Iowa Board closed Plaintiff’s investigation file and issued a “Warning” Letter.

Page 3 of 6

  1. That this “Warning” is a per se violation of the right to free speech and legitimately places the Plaintiff in fear of communicating with any pharmacist at all.
  2. That the Plaintiff also alleges that the Board has deprived him of the right to Procedural and Substantive Due Process by imposing a penalty without a contested hearing and based upon an Ex Parte hearing of the investigatory file.
  3. That this “Warning” is an actual penalty due to certain disclosure requirements of the Board.
  4. That the Board of Medicine has adopted disclosure policies and required the Plaintiff to disclose the “Warning” contrary to IAC 652—24.2(5) which states, “A letter of warning or education is an informal communication between the board and the licensee and is not formal disciplinary action or a public document.”
  5. That Plaintiff alleges that the Board has established Board Rule 653 – 2.10 that allows for sharing disciplinary and investigative information including the “Warning” in question without the Plaintiff’s knowledge to a broad list of the private, including the American Medical Association, the Federation of State Medical Boards, the Iowa Medical Association, etc.,
  6. That such disclosure is a violation of Iowa Code 652—24.2(5) and these outside organizations have no legal duty to maintain this information in confidence.
  7. That disclosure to these organizations encumbers the Plaintiff’s professional life and might result in employment or other losses to Plaintiff.
  8. That the disclosure requirements imposed by the Board make the “Warning” the professional equivalent of a scarlet letter to publicly embarrass the Plaintiff.
  9. That The Board said that it “reserved the right to take this matter up again if necessary” without a real conclusion to the investigation

Page 4 of 6

  1. That the “Warning” letter did not address other charges which the Board of Medicine might want to pursue in the future.
  2. That the status of these other items greatly impairs the Plaintiff’s ongoing free speech on subjects including treating COVID-19, giving informed consent about the COVID-19 vaccine, petitioning for redress of grievances, and sharing scientific and medical knowledge with other interest parties including patients.
  3. That these Joint and separate actions of The Defendant Boards constitute an ongoing violation of the First Amendment and other rights of the Plaintiff and his patients.
  4. That Plaintiff requests the court to expunge the “Warning” from his otherwise spotless record and seeks to have the entire complaint closed without prejudice so that he can resume the practice of medicine without a cloud of impropriety.
  5. That Plaintiff requests the court to enjoin the Board from releasing the “Warning” to any outside parties including other government agencies in conformance to IAC 652—24.2(5).
  6. That Plaintiff further asks the court to require the Defendant Boards to inform all licensees byemail of the Boards’ Revised Joint statement dated September 11, 2020 revising their original“chilling” language against the use of Hydroxychloroquine.
  7. That Plaintiff seeks an injunction to prevent The Iowa Board of Medicine from performing anyinvestigations of himself and other licensees without a proper investigational predicate and to require the Defendants notify all investigation subjects of the grounds for disciplinary action listed in Iowa Code §148.6 or other Code which constitutes the basis for the investigation.
  8. That Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to require that The Iowa Board of Pharmacy to equally enforce the provisions of pharmacy rules Sec. 657 8.11(3) regarding non-discrimination on the

Page 5 of 6

basis of disease state and to require that pharmacies fill prescriptions for hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin like all other prescription drugs.

  1. That the actions of the Defendant Boards significantly transgressed Iowa Law and theConstitution, interfered with the proper medical treatment of his patients, and impaired the civil rights of Dr. Hartsuch and his Patients protected by the First Amendment including the right to petition for redress of grievances.
  2. That granting of the requested remedies is consistent with Iowa Law and will mitigate the irreparable injury to the Plaintiff, his patients, and the public at-large.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, David Hartsuch, M.D. prays that this Honorable Court will expunge the Plaintiff’s record and close his case without prejudice, enjoin the Boards from releasing information about this case including the “Warning”, require that the Boards inform all licensees by email of the Boards’ Revised Joint Statement dated Sept. 11, 2020, enjoin the Boards from engaging in investigations against the Plaintiff or other licensees without a proper investigational predicate, require that the Iowa Board of Pharmacy equally enforce the provisions of Iowa Pharmacy Board Rule Sec. 657 8.11(3) regarding discrimination based on disease state, and such further relief as this honorable Court deems just and equitable in the premises.

Respectfully Submitted:
___/S/ David Hartsuch M.D.______

David Hartsuch, MD, Pro Se 2127 Nicholas Ct. Bettendorf, IA 52722
Ph: 563-508-9266

Fax: 563-202-7302
Email: [email protected]

page6image20579552

Page 6 of 6

0
Posted in UNCATEGORIZED | 1 Comment

Dear Senator Ernst: Being condescending is not a good defense for a bad vote

Posted on December 20, 2022 by Designated2

Iowa Junior Senator Joni Ernst was one of the 12 Republicans who pushed the so-called Protect Marriage Act, indeed made it happen.  Iowa’s Senior Senator Chuck Grassley past Chairman and Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee voted in opposition to the legislation along with 75% of the Senate Republican caucus.

In radio and newspaper interviews Senator Ernst said and implied that citizens criticizing her actions had not read the bill ~~ otherwise they would understand how the bill protected marriage or something.

So Senator Ernst are you saying that Chuck Grassley (a constituent of yours as well) or the staff provided him as a former Chairman of the Judiciary Committee and current Ranking Member had not read the bill, nor the 90% of the other Republicans on the Judiciary Committee or their staffs,  nor did the 75% of the Republican Senate caucus and their staff who opposed it?

Among those in opposition were graduates of prestigious law schools, former Supreme Court or Appellate Court clerks, a former State Attorney General or two, and a noted constitutional scholar . . .  such as Ted Cruz, Tom Cotton, Josh Hawley, John Kennedy and Mike Lee. Their votes were just knee jerk votes but your vast experience in litigation strategy and legal language and history regarding the matter was exceptionally (as compared to the rest of your caucus) clear headed and insightful?

So organizations with decades of legal experience fighting for their adherents religious liberties and have extensively authenticated issues with the inadequacy at best of the language of the act along with the implications of the refusal of the majority to pass clarifying amendments — they too are just knee jerk ignoramuses who had not read the bill . . . and their rube followers in your state should not trust them but should trust your scholarship on the matter?

We should not trust Chuck Grassley, the Heritage Foundation, The Family Resource Council, Lutheran Church Missouri Synod, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, The Southern Baptist Convention and so many other cultural conservative organizations with skin and experience in the game . We should trust you because you read the bill but don’t trust them because they didn’t ???

Am I being snarky?  Yes, but she started it. Simon Conway’s December 8 interview with her on radio station WHO had the worst exasperated condescending tone emanating from her, totally unbecoming the deep cultural issues at stake.

Senator Ernst vote was a serious betrayal of the Republican platform (not some quirky codicil), common human understanding about the difference of the sexes and importance of that to the culture of the family and psychological well-being of children.

Senator Ernst voted to inculcate anything goes “marriage” between two people as a matter of federal law and set the stage for further corruption and litigiousness harmful to religious liberty.  The act has no other purpose than that. Know that is true by the Democrats in support — their leadership cares not one twit about religious freedom, they prefer intimidating believers and tearing protections down.

Supporters of the act claim it protects institutional religions but it must be understood they rejected amendments that would have more clearly and definitively protected those institutions to receive federal funds for services to the community including by connected organizations without fear that they will be adjudicated as a state actor as such and consequently controlled by the act. Even more egregiously the act fails to definitively protect the religious liberties of individuals who own and operate private businesses.

The Republican platform for Iowa which ought to be a loadstar for Sen. Ernst) and those from congressional districts and probably just about every county call for support for marriage as an institution between one man and one woman. What Sen. Ernst voted for flys in the face of those.

Her vote has been met with justifiable sense of outrage from Republicans across the state. To date at least seven county central committees have censored her, issuing condemnation  resolutions for her regrettable vote. Such resolutions should happen in more county organizations as they meet in January, indeed the State Central Committee when it convenes.  There is no timeline for when such resolutions can and ought to come up.

Ernst has been the recipient of opprobrium on the matter because of her collaboration with a small number of Republicans, for the most part the usual suspects, contra the great majority of the Republican caucus (she scathingly condemns by inference as if her posse are the only ones serious enough to read the bill) and the GOP platform. The vote was no profile in courage, more like weak staffing or inability to read between the lines of legislation herself.

As this pains us to write please be assured we are able to generally and genuinely respect Senator Joni Ernst when she protects conservative values. But on serious deeply cultural matters affecting religious liberty, when she is wrong she needs to be called out from every corner of the state.  Same for Grassley and the House delegation on their serious apostasies. That Democrats are far worse is well understood.  But we can find other Republican leaders to fight these important battles through the primary process.  It is rather pathetic to think or fear we are beholden to them. They succeeded from political obscurity because republicans trusted them to be a standard bearer not lower cultural (and economic) standards.

Here are some excerpts regarding marriage and religious liberty issues from the Republican Party of Iowa 2022 Platform  and the 2016 – 2024 GOP national platform:

https://www.iowagop.org/about

Liberty

1. We call for the repeal of sexual orientation and gender identity as a protected class in the Iowa Civil Rights Code and reject any additional similar legislation to Local, State or National Code.

6. We support “Conscience Clause” legislation so that no person, business, or organization can be penalized for its exercise of religious freedom by not providing services that violates their religious beliefs.

12. We recognize only two biological sexes, male (XY) and female (XX). Biological sex at birth shall determine one’s participation in or use of restrooms, locker rooms, sport teams or other such accommodations or institutions.

13. We believe that traditional, two parent (one male (XY) and one female (XX)), marriage based families are the foundation to a stable, enduring, and healthy civilization. We encourage the repeal of any laws allowing any marriage that is not between one natural man and one natural woman.

GOP National Platform (effective 2016 – 2024)

https://www.ogop.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/GOP-full-platform.pdf

We the people —

(believe) that man-made law must be consistent with God-given, natural rights; and that if God-given, natural, inalienable rights come in conflict with government, court, or human-granted rights, God-given, natural, inalienable rights always prevail; that there is a moral law recognized as “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God”; and that American government.  . . .

We affirm that all legislation, regulation, and official actions mustconform to the Constitution’s original meaning as understood at the time the language was adopted. Traditional marriage and family, based on marriage between one man and one woman, is the foundation for a free society and has for millennia been entrusted with rearing children and instilling cultural values. We condemn the Supreme Court’s ruling in United States v. Windsor, which wrongly removed the ability ofCongress to define marriage policy in federal law. We also condemn the Supreme Court’slawless ruling in Obergefell v.Hodges, which in the words ofthe late Justice Antonin Scalia,was a“judicial Putsch” — fullof “silly extravagances” — thatreduced “the disciplined legal reasoning ofJohn Marshall andJoseph Storey to the mysticalaphorisms of a fortune cookie.”In Obergefell, five unelectedlawyers robbed 320 millionAmericans of their legitimateconstitutional authority to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman. The Court twisted the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment beyond recognition.  . . .

Ongoing attempts to compel individuals, businesses, and institutions of faith to transgress their beliefs are part of a misguided effort to undermine religion and drive it from the public square.   . . .

We pledge to defend the religious beliefs and rights of conscience of all Americans and to safeguard religious institutions against government control. We endorse the First Amendment Defense Act, Republican legislation in the House and Senate which will bar government discrimination against individuals and businesses for acting on the belief that marriage is the union of one man and one woman. This Act would protect the non-profit tax status of faith-based adoption agencies, the accreditation of religious educational institutions, the grants and contracts of faith-based charities and small businesses, and the licensing of religious professions — all of which are under assault by elements of the Democratic Party. We encourage every state to pass similar legislation. We likewise endorse the efforts of Republican state legislators and governors who have defied intimidation from corporations and the media in defending religious liberty. . . .

We pledge to defend the religious beliefs and rights of conscience of all Americans and to safeguard religious institutions against government control.   . . .

Our First Amendment rights are not given to us by the government but are rights we inherently possess. The government cannot use subsequent amendments to limit First Amendment rights. The Free Exercise Clause is both an individual and a collective liberty protecting a right to worship God according to the dictates of conscience. Therefore, we strongly support the freedom of Americans to act in accordance with their religious beliefs, not only in their houses of worship, but also in their everyday lives.

We support the right of the people to conduct their businesses in accordance with their religious beliefs and condemn public officials who have proposed boycotts against businesses that support traditional marriage.

0
Posted in UNCATEGORIZED | 1 Comment

Boehner been there for Pelosi

Posted on December 15, 2022 by Designated2
  • GOP needs an enema to rid itself of uni-party ordure
  • None more odiferous then Big John
  • It seems the only thing not stiff with John in the presence of Nancy is his upper lip
  • Its old home week for John, one big happy family
  • Lots of hugs, back rubs and vino together over the years
  • No war cry, just blubbering in the presence of evil

Story here: Former House Speaker John Boehner tears up at Pelosi portrait unveiling

Sir, have you no composure, shame or sense of rectitude in the company of two people intent on destroying so much of American culture. So your daughters are Democrats, just like the Bush daughters. Does that come from not being around them enough or being around them too much? Asking for a friend.

Related reading:  Gary Bauer at American Values tears into Boehner regarding his tears soaked paean to Pelosi — Cry Me A River

0
Posted in UNCATEGORIZED | Leave a comment

Old school liberal in Australia warns surveillance state is there and here

Posted on December 13, 2022 by Designated2

This cooee from SF is dead on mate.  Seriously dead on.  Every description is happening now, here, in the land of the free and home of the brave.  It’s all about safety don’t you know. The woke crowd who push this stuff, how woke are they when they do not understand the use of these tools and themselves as tools.  There is an embedded Youtube video of the same Australian Senator at the end of the letter expanding on the points. Thanks to SF for the forward.

Dear ,

These days it seems Australia’s fate is made in China, and we can thank the rise of “smart” technology.

Have you heard of “smart lights”, “smart poles”, “smart meters” and “smart appliances”?  

How about “smart grids,” “smart homes”, “smart neighbourhoods” and “smart cities”?

It’s time to come to grips with the danger of these “smart technologies” because governments are rolling them out at terrifying speed.

What’s so smart about this technology?

They’re mostly made in China and are loaded with sensors, cameras, microphones and they’re designed to watch, listen and track your every move.

Last week I did a breakdown of how this technology is being rolled out in our cities as we speak.  You can view that video on my YouTube page here:

The new “smart streetlights” and “smart poles” are all connected over a wireless network and allow the government an unprecedented intrusion into your life.

Some even have public address speakers to give instructions on how to behave.

In the UK and US, “smart poles” even have facial recognition, licence plate recognition and behaviour prediction software.

How long will it be before you have to assume that the streetlights and poles in your street are spying on you?

The new “smart meters” being pushed by governments allow energy companies to cut off your power when they think it’s necessary.

How convenient when the grid is under pressure from weather-dependent solar panels and wind turbines.

Think of all those Teal MPs who won’t be able to charge their electric vehicles!

Then marry this up with your new digital identity, the coming digital currency system our banks are pushing and a Chinese-style social credit system; and there you have your “smart city”.

Every move you make will be tracked.

Every transaction you make will be monitored.

Every time you criticise the government online or refuse to get your monthly “booster” injection, your social credit score will be docked.

…and with a poor social credit score; good luck travelling, getting a loan, or going for a beer with your mates at the pub.

This is the digital prison the globalist elites want us to live in.

The technology is already in full flight in China, where the Chinese Communist Party has deployed it in a brutal crackdown against lockdown protests these past few weeks.

Don’t be fooled by all this talk of “smart” technology – it’s there to monitor you, and no emergency justifies a CCP-style permanent government intrusion of your private lives.

We must resist the beginnings of this before their “smart technologies” make it impossible for us to do so.

The clock is ticking.

Yours sincerely,

Alex Antic
Liberal Senator for South Australia

0
Posted in UNCATEGORIZED | Leave a comment

State policy set at the federal teat

Posted on December 1, 2022 by Designated2

Not really, but it makes a nice state flag banner slogan

This came over the transom from DH, former Iowa State Senator. It explains a lot

If you wonder the influence the federal government has on the State of Iowa

Consider Iowa Code section 17A.21:

  17A.21 Inconsistency with federal law. If it is determined by the attorney general that any provision of this chapter would cause denial of funds or services from the United States government which would otherwise be available to an agency of this state, or would otherwise be inconsistent with requirements of federal law, such provision shall be suspended as to such agency, but only to the extent necessary to prevent denial of such funds or services or to eliminate the inconsistency with federal requirements. If the attorney general makes such a suspension determination, the attorney general shall report it to the general assembly at its next session. This report shall include any recommendations in regard to corrective legislation needed to conform this chapter with the federal law. [C75, 77, 79, 81, §17A.21]

Basically, if challenging an agency law requires us to lose federal dollars, the federal law prevails and we lose.

Our Liberties We Prize but our Federal Dollars We Prize More

Would love to have the time to research this more as to other states, (I would bet it is common – of the uniform code variety corruptions inculcated into so many states) the actual legal effect and the history of any formal application (or is just the fact it is on the books enough for bureaucrats and politicians to say their hands are tied?).

One thing I did find out — it has long been on the books — corresponding to the federalization of just about everything, with Republicans willing to go along. The Iowa Code section 17A.21 first appeared in the 1975 Iowa Code. Republican RINO Robert Ray was governor with Democrat Dale Cochran Speaker of the House and Democrat George Kinley Senate Majority Leader.

The current Republican leadership (they are in control) ought to have the guts to remove it and deal with the federalization case by case.

0
Posted in UNCATEGORIZED | Leave a comment

The Trump disease — gravitating to celebrity — ignoring substance

Posted on November 29, 2022 by Designated2
  • Nick Fuentes is the young punk racist provocateur who weaseled  his way into dinner with Trump causing quite the stir including from Trump supporters
  • You really can’t blame the press for reporting it
  • Fuentes is political poison and he must know it but likes getting his name in the paper, or he is delusional that he is having any positive effect helping elect anyone but Democrats
  • He likes to weasel his way into events and basically sh*t all over them
  • He has now done it to Trump (again?) but Trump should have been wary

Local note:

Fuentes is the same creep who weaseled  his way onto a Bettendorf church podium two years ago. The occasion was an event advertised by the Bobby Schilling Republican primary congressional campaign.  The sponsors obtained space at the Bettendorf church at the last minute after their original venue became unavailable. The featured purpose was to highlight “Angel Parents” — parents of children killed by illegal aliens.

I was there. The Angel Parents testimony was compelling. Fuentes was not an advertised or contemplated speaker but showed up with another, as it turned out, anti-immigration provocateur who was not allowed to finish his bombast and was shown the door. Somehow Fuentes was allowed to fill in at the end of the evening by an underling in the campaign, not properly vetted to say the least.  Fuentes avoided the bombast but was just as wrong.

 The presence of Fuentes  sullied the event as the purpose of the event and the Angel Parents being there was to talk about illegal immigration. Fuentes carried on in racist tones in his time at the end essentially about all immigration. Angel Parents that were aware of Fuentes as anti-immigration (they are not as a group) objected to his message in a gathering after he spoke (many if not most people had already left prior to and during Fuentes’ ramblings).

That did not matter to the press that was there because of maybe a dozen pro-illegal immigration leftist picketers.  The event was portrayed as racists, racists everywhere, who had invaded Bettendorf in the guise of opponents of illegal immigration and the community’s honor was saved by picketers of a church and its disreputable racist congregation !!!  You would get that impression from various front page articles in the Quad City Times.

All that was necessary to create such a story was the mix of one race mongering idiot eager to co-opt an event intended to feature victims of illegal immigrants and a paper eager to do a hatchet job on opponents of illegal immigration (Republicans) and a particular candidate – Bobby Schilling – and there you have a running story that fullfills both their purposes.

Quad City Times tried mightily to make its report distort into the most read event of the month, even the year — giving it FOUR +1 related front page stories, including headlines.

Yes the event was unfortunately tinged at its end (after many or most of the attendees had left) by a race mongerer who was not advertised or scheduled to be on the program. It was late and we suspect those who remained were politely waiting for the program to be wound up and not paying attention to Fuentes. Most people there probably thought he was referring to illegal immigration and not implying that ANY immigration from people of color was bad or associated with diminution of culture.  Much of what we heard was coded or unclear as to where he was going — but anybody listening would have found the implications appalling as did Bobby Schilling.

Trump’s meeting with “Ye” has turned into a problem largely of Trump’s own making. It reflects a weakness of Trump.  If Ye rated a sit-down does that not indicate Trump had some knowledge of his persona, especially Ye’s notorious ego and unpredictable ways? But apparently celebrity trumps. And where was Trump’s staff who should have been aware of Fuentes’ notoriety.  They should have made any excuse to get Trump’s ear and get rid of Fuentes or make an excuse to end the dinner, and then have Trump make an immediate statement about illegal vs legal immigration and racial quotas and as regards other of Fuentes’ bloviations.

Hell, meeting with anybody named ‘Ye” or anybody who can change monikers with such alacrity (is the choice some kind of pick your own pro-noun thing that is all the rage) ought to be avoided by Trump and his staff.

But sure enough Ye who has less filter than Trump allows an opportunistic punk ignoramus Nick Fuentes to weasel his way into the sit-down, enjoying being the turd in the punchbowl.  Given Fuentes notorious racial analysis and further his Holocaust denier status  — unless Trump had a recording of telling Fuentes off or a video of having him removed it was not going to go well — embracing or supping with Ye notwithstanding.  With Fuentes it is one thing to decry open borders and the disappearance of the nation-state as we do, it is another to racialize the objection.

Core beliefs consistent with the nature of our republic and its founding make skin color irrelevant.  Within our capacity, better we have immigrants from Africa, Latin America and Asia seeking freedom and astute enough to know what is necessary to keep that freedom than made up of reconstituted Bolsheviks from Europe or their selfish American interstate migrant fellow travelers who merely want relief from the problems they created, intent on “doing it right” in their new surrounds.

It is not a total innocent gullibility of Trump — his default attraction to celebrity versus discretion and substance. It was another avoidable “scandal” (however exaggerated by the press) that is left for others to just suck up and keep on Trump’n.

Related reading:

This article at American Briefing (excerpts here) and a link to Trump’s statement on the matter offer for some indications of purity and innocence on Trump’s part, others palliation and others like yours truly mostly just spin.  I am just tired of the drill when adverse fallout is so predictable and unnecessary with due care.  While of the nature of spin it does provide some insight into the personalities in question: We offer an annotation or two in parenthesis to the excerpts.   Please do read the entire articles.

Trump at one point turned to Ye and said, “I really like this guy. He gets me,” according to the source.  (regarding Fuentes playing the courtier)

    • “To be honest, I don’t believe the president knew who the hell [Fuentes] was,” the source added.  (why the hell does he know who Ye is)
    • Fuentes told Trump that he was on Truth Social but had been banned from the social media platform Gettr because Trump adviser Jason Miller, the CEO of the company, wasn’t a fan of his. (ought to be a big red flag for Trump if Jason Miller has a problem)
    • Trump asked whether it was because Fuentes was on the “fringe” of his supporter base, the source said. Fuentes acknowledged that he was, saying he’s “one of those people who got banned from everything.”  (you know just like Trump, nothing more controversial  –  but understand we agree with J D Vance – full quote below)
    • Ye claims in the video that Trump was “really impressed” with Fuentes because “unlike so many of the lawyers and so many people that he was left with on his 2020 campaign, he’s actually a loyalist.”  ( with friends like Fuentes . . . )

Fuentes also added in his Saturday live stream, “I didn’t mean for my statements and my whole background to become a public relations problem for the president.” (whole background indeed, but then knowing your radioactivity why do you pull these stunts.  You likely won’t have an audience with Trump again)

. . .

Nicholas J. Fuentes is the host of America First, a live stream that has garnered controversy due to statements and clips taken from the show. Fuentes, like many right-wing figures, has been banned on Twitter, and when his clips from his live stream are posted, he is unable to clarify the clips.  . . . (He can do so at length on  various social media avenues available to him.  We have heard directly some of his statements and they are irredeemable until he publicly refutes them)

J.D. Vance came out in support for Fuentes after his unnecessary banning from Twitter: (“support for Fuentes” hardly, Vance’s support is for a free twitter).

Trumps explanation — he was just helping a troubled young man and never heard of Fuentes.

Trump’s Close Allies Are Calling Him Out Over Controversial Dinner.

The latter might be true but who brings tagalongs to a personal counseling session?

Our advise to Trump (this will upset the never apologize advisers) —  issue a substantial and clear statement on your views regarding racial quotas and immigration, Fuentes’ statements (research his public speaking as well) his views on the holocaust and warped attempt at humor (which we do not believe he was engaged in — seriously — baking cookies!).

            

0
Posted in UNCATEGORIZED | 1 Comment

Awful “Respect for Marriage” bill can still be stopped / amended in the Senate — contact Ernst

Posted on November 26, 2022 by Designated2

Below are two message from Gary Bauer at American Values and Catholic Vote .  The messages are similar  but compelling in their own way. Easy to do links are provided. It will take you a few seconds to let Ernst know what she needs to do.

As a matter of intelligence gathering  if anyone has heard anything at church from the pulpit, or flyer, encouraging the congregation to contact Ernst about this matter please let us know — a simple message in the comment section will do.   For example the National Conference of Catholic Bishops has come out against approval of an unamended Respect for Marriage Act, seeing clearly the danger to individual liberty and connected institutions but what are individual Bishops doing?                              Bold our emphasis.

From Gary Bauer American Values:

Fight For Religious Liberty

The battle raging in the U.S. Senate to redefine marriage is far from over. There will be another critical vote this coming Monday on the (Dis)Respect for Marriage Act.

Senator Mike Lee and 20 of his GOP colleagues are fighting hard to ensure that religious liberty is adequately protected.  And we must stand with them now.

As you know, 12 Republican senators broke ranks and supported Chuck Schumer’s effort to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman. They did so after they trusted Senate liberals to safeguard religious liberty. Seriously, what were they thinking?!

This is not a hypothetical issue. Prominent progressive politicians are not shy about threatening the tax-exempt status of churches and faith-based institutions that do not affirm men “marrying” other men.

Monday’s vote involves the rewritten legislation with the left’s version of religious liberty protections. They are too weak. (You can read more here.)

They do not protect individuals and small businesses, and we have already seen too many individuals and small businesses get dragged through the mud because they refused to compromise their deeply held religious beliefs. (Here, here and here.)

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops blasted the legislation as a “bad deal for Americans of faith,” and warned that its so-called “religious liberty” protections are “insufficient.”

The National Religious Broadcasters called the legislation a “betrayal,” adding that the “bipartisan amendment that purported to remedy the bill’s lack of religious liberty protections failed to address the critical issues.”

The Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, the public policy arm of the Southern Baptist Convention, warns, “This bill, even as amended, does not provide meaningful protection for those that maintain a traditional view of marriage. This amendment invites further confusion and litigation.”

We need at least three of the 12 Republican senators listed below to change their votes. The following links will direct you to their Capitol Hill and state offices. Please call both!

Roy Blunt (MO)

Richard Burr (NC)

Shelley Moore Capito (WV)

Susan Collins (ME)

Joni Ernst (IA)

Cynthia Lummis (WY) — Scroll to the bottom of the page.

Lisa Murkowski (AK)

Rob Portman (OH)

Mitt Romney (UT)

Dan Sullivan (AK)

Thom Tillis (NC)

Todd Young (IN)

If these senators represent you, you must make your voice heard on this critically important issue. Melt their phone lines down!

Tell the aide who answers that you expect your senators to protect religious liberty. Tell them to support the Lee Amendment, and to oppose the Respect for Marriage Act until the Lee Amendment is adopted.

From Catholic Vote:

How Catholics Can Urge Republicans to Change their Marriage Vote

CV NEWS FEED // CatholicVote is calling on Catholics to contact the 12 Republican senators who voted with Democrats to advance the so-called Respect for Marriage Act (RFMA) in the Senate.

These 12 Republicans, whose names and office phone numbers are below, “betrayed their constituents” by voting for the “radical Democrat-backed bill to redefine marriage and attack the religious freedom of those who still believe in marriage between a man and a woman,” CatholicVote stated in an email to Catholics in 10 states.

CONTACT YOUR SENATOR NOW BY CLICKING HERE

Readers can contact the Republican senators who might be persuaded to change their vote to a No either by phone or via CatholicVote’s Quorum page.

Roy Blunt of Missouri, (202) 224-5721

Richard Burr of North Carolina, (202) 224-3154

Thom Tillis of North Carolina, (202) 224-6342

Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia, (202) 224-6472

Susan Collins of Maine, (202) 224-2523

Joni Ernst of Iowa, (202) 224-3254

Cynthia Lummis of Wyoming, (202) 224-3424

Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, (202) 224-6665

Dan Sullivan of Alaska, (202) 224-3004

Rob Portman of Ohio, (202) 224-3353

Mitt Romney of Utah, (202) 224-5251

Todd Young of Indiana, (202) 224-5623

Senators usually ask for feedback from citizens from their own state, so it is imperative that Catholics in these 10 states contact their senators as soon as possible, said CatholicVote Communications Director Joshua Mercer.

RFMA goes further than simply codifying “same-sex marriage” into law, CatholicVote’s Erika Ahern reports: 

It would mandate every state to recognize any and all marriages contracted in other states. But not just same-sex “marriages.” Any legal “marriage.” 

Of greatest concern to Catholics, the religious freedom “protections” included in the Senate version of the bill are utterly inadequate. 

CatholicVote Director of Government Affairs Tom McClusky wrote: 

It merely states an insincere recognition of religious liberty and conscience rights, but it does not offer any meaningful protections for those rights. This leaves Catholic individuals and institutions vulnerable to countless lawsuits. Catholic schools, Catholic Charities and other institutions of faith will be vulnerable to multiple lawsuits and government harassment that could threaten their tax-exempt status and ability to serve the public.

CONTACT YOUR SENATOR NOW BY CLICKING HERE

“The Senate still has to vote on this awful bill at least two more times,” said McClusky. “The Republican senators who voted to advance it must be convinced to change their vote!”

0
Posted in UNCATEGORIZED | Leave a comment

Ernst, Grassley, Hinson, Miller-Meeks, Feenstra, Nunn invite primary challenges

Posted on November 21, 2022 by Designated2

The entire Iowa congressional delegation has provided on multiple issues fodder for conservative primary challengers. (See Iowa Standard article linked below)  Indeed every one of them seems bent on inviting a primary challenge not because of peccadillo matters, although the more they stack those up the more they will have to convince no-party people to vote in a primary and save their bacon. On their votes on bigger issues, one might think they relish a primary challenge perhaps because they believe it will prove something to their new favorite constituency — hand-wringers and non-Republicans.

Now I happen to think it is folly for a two year term congressman who won their first election courting conservatives in the primary and the general to want to toy with the emotions of a party raw with distaste for most of what comes out of DC — the dishonesty the disassembly.  Creating disgust in the base increases the likelihood of a Democrat candidate of substance willing to go after an incumbent.   Scratch that, in actuality the Democrats no longer need a strong candidate, the machine works its wonders on its own only overwhelmed when Republicans have someone to turn out and vote for with enthusiasm.   Ladies and gentlemen of the GOP, it is better to dance with who brung ya.

Instead they too often put themselves on the defensive from the right but will never be considered authentic by the left.  Who you caucus with is key for Democrats.

So what turns their head? Well we all have feet of clay and failings, let that be well understood.  But actual conservatives have a guide post citadel to orient themselves 95% of the time — the Bible and culture, the Constitution, excellent think tanks and platforms.

On the recent obscenely named Respect for Marriage Act codifying the SCOTUS Obergefell gay marriage decision Ernst, Hinson, Miller-Meeks, and Nunn (in spirit) rejected the citadel of truth and the judgement of generations for weak rationalizations or misplaced emotions.

We wrote to Ernst and Grassley on the matter:

Subj: Vote against the misnamed (Respect for Marriage Act)

Your political convenience, posturing, whatever,  is not worth the cultural persecution that this bill will bring. The bill does not refine Obergefell it inculcates it into a prosecutorial tool that will more effectively be used as a cudgel against orthodox Christians and others.  . . .

Grassley opposed it but Ernst was one of the 12 Republicans (the rest mostly the gang of usual suspects) that brought it over the top in the Senate (subject to some reconciliation of sorts with the House version which Miller-Meeks and Hinson supported). When signed by Biden the act will bring persecution to orthodox religious people (focused on Christians of course) and works to federalize marriage, and not in a good way. Supposed religious liberty protections are window dressing. But heck it will be another opportunity for their GOP  ilk to be outraged at how it is being used and promise to fix it if we will only return them to office, never mind that they they foreseeably created the problem.

As pointed out by Jacob Hall writing at The Iowa Standard while this is a serious affront  the conservative  apostasies are not limited to such a deep cultural offense. And while Grassley opposed the act  he votes with Biden far more than Ernst on other matters. So Ernst has some reserve to work from although blowing any of it on this is stupid. It is perhaps also due in part to lack of intellectual grounding within her (and the other Iowa delegates in support) and their staff in failing to understand the legal implications of the act and advise accordingly. Or . . . all of them support those implications?

AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH: Why Ernst voted for DisRespect for Marriage Act

Related reading:

 

 

 

0
Posted in UNCATEGORIZED | Leave a comment

Republicans are not Democrats and shouldn’t try to act like them

Posted on November 15, 2022 by Designated2
  • A vote is a vote and the best way to insure it is counted is to vote in person
  • Iowa has a lot of voting by mail, regrettably so in a good government sense
  • It can be done with a degree of reliability depending on the jurisdiction but demographics in Iowa and sociological considerations make it costly in time and inefficient
  • Flooding the zone  can be a real problem even for the most assiduous county if vote by mail becomes the overwhelming thing
  • Republicans should push satellite voting  with only selective focus on vote by mail
  • More important than anything –  inoculate people beginning in the early summer with solid messaging (early voting begins in the Democrat states before Republicans get their ad campaigns going. Such will inhibit Democrat appeals. 

After the disappointing midterm election there have been a number of articles in conservative publications we monitor calling for Republicans to use the turnout techniques of Democrats. Here are two examples.

https://redstate.com/bonchie/2022/11/12/heres-the-big-thing-that-must-change-in-2024-for-republicans-to-win-n658013

https://townhall.com/columnists/salenazito/2022/11/15/democrats-have-mastered-mail-balloting-republicans-will-pay-if-they-fail-to-step-up-n2615964

Our view

Voting more than say a week early in person at satellite sites is one thing. Encouraging people to play an inherently fraud capable and contra-good government game of vote by mail a month before the election in some states which to be competitive in the Democrat gutter requires adopting their tactics of hectoring people who do not want to or should not vote, ballot harvesting (incentivizing payola) and all the other illegalities and shenanigans they employ creates a climate of . . . “well they all cheat” among the weak-minded people supposedly targeted and you are still just competing against gross tactics the least of which is to hurry up and vote a.k.a. “the bum’s rush.”

Lengthy time frames for vote by mail also increases costs or interferes with “buys’ of all sorts of media used to promote it wasting it on such a non-message when good messaging can raise all Republican votes. I have seen valuable mailers and broadcast time devoted ridiculously, repetitively, obnoxiously to VOTE NOW ~~ before the world ends ~~ from party, candidates and issue groups .

The effort is churned by consultants and or weak-minded party apparat who think paying or getting fees or wasting volunteers time and donors money hectoring people to vote early when the only definable results are getting gold stars for scaring the low-hanging fruit of Republicans who know how to vote and who would vote anyway into voting early. The people who spend much time doing this are only running up some numbers on “early voting” to get a gold star and still losing. The so-called “banking” is really just changing accounts. The whole thing increases the political turn-off.

Do you realize that phoning, a usual avenue for such GOTV efforts (actually all unsolicited calls) has a less than 1% answer rate! It requires computerized predictive dialing 12 hours a day with people at a phone bank who may just get a hang-up if the tell-tale computer gets a live answer. Such an actual contact rate might get a few jobs if you are selling siding or new roofing after a storm but in politics what you get is a general turn-off. Then there is the feature of delivering one of those ever so effective answering machine reminders — apparently thought valuable because people are shocked to discover an election is going on??

A household might get multiple calls every day for a month or more hectoring them to vote early. Oh there is the delightful threat that if only you vote early “we can take you off our list” and you will stop getting these calls. 1) it is a lie because there might be others in the household who have the sound good-government practice of not voting early and the household will continue to get calls and 2) it is an absolutely ineffectual statement and essentially a lie because issue groups and candidates will continue to call because lists are not updated and they are intent on calling “their” own list which overlap.

Door knocking? To the extent it is permitted (many multi-family complexes essentially make it impossible) You might get one 1 in 3 to 1 in 5 to be home and open the door in a single family neighborhood in the short window you might find people home, but you may not get in a key-key-controled complex . This is not to say do not door knock and there is no problem bringing up early voting (encouraging it in person) but spending much time on the mechanism of mail voting means other doors don’t get knocked with any messaging.

Inoculate people early with messaging. Call out the scalawags and their party. Give people a convincing comparative reason to vote in flyers, billboards, social media, broadcast, etc., and for something and we will win. Vote the most secure way, in person as provided by local jurisdictions. Offer rides if need be. Maintain vote by mail for shut ins and military but for others encourage in-person.

And how about this — a message to the effect: if you are going to vote early — vote against the party of inflation, insecure borders, crime, culture rot, etc etc. Inoculate people from the bad guys with good performance and early and constant effective messaging. Leave your vote early message at that rather than wasteful spending competing with, and in essence justifying, non-in person voting mechanisms open to cheating that make it convenient for Dems to have all the time in the world to use walking around money to solicit some ballot marks. Stop Democrats presumed effectiveness by shaming, law enforcement and legislative changes. Oh, and standing up for your own policies and repudiating theirs.

0
Posted in UNCATEGORIZED | Leave a comment