We are the drain the swamp people

• See comments regarding two compelling issues not directly addressed in the proposed platform below

As this is written the 2020 Republican Party of Iowa (RPI) state convention is about to convene. I was without delegate status this year because I chaired a precinct caucus not my own at the request of the local Chair due to the shortage of operatives. So while I attended the caucuses I was in effect disqualified from delegate status (I really presume it was a misunderstanding and not the intent) because I was not in my own caucus even though the tables were in the same room.  So be it, rules are rules.

I attended the county and district conventions as an observer and facilitated platform resolutions going into the caucuses (see V’PAC postings from the period) including a  successful amendment to the platform at the later by circulating the appropriate paperwork and arguments.  That is how I know at least one of the matters I refer to herein was addressed downstream. Making the trip to Des Moines with Biden gas costs, food costs in part driven by farm acreage devoted to inefficient ethanol production, the ugliness of wind farms along the way and other factors — weighed more heavily than the practicality of helping organize appropriate amendments (to a pretty could state platform) in the face of the frustrating by design amendment process.

With todays technology and appropriate discipline there is no reason the platforms with amendments (including district conventions) could not be essentially settled (with improved timeliness) as to content prior to the conventions.  The conventions could then be  more reliably structured as to time allowing more for presentations by candidates for party office and winners of the concluded primaries. The overall process should still be representative and disciplined.

Platform development is what makes the caucus system unique, truly grassroots. Without that feature the caucuses are just a clumsy primary in Presidential years because the other feature, election of county central committee is actually emphasized as a perfunctory function of electioneering activities focused on the general election — volunteer efforts from people who could volunteer anyway.

Hopefully others a little more conveniently positioned will take up the cause this morning on these and any other appropriate amendments.  Here are a couple of things I think heavy on the minds of the rank and file that should be addressed.

• There ought to be a resolution calling for investigation into what most Republicans believe (in increasing numbers due to the documentary 2000 mules) was the fraud of the 2020 election.
• There ought to be a resolution better emphasizing the scandal of Zuckerberg money in Iowa
• I find it hard to believe that something akin to these did not come up through the process.
• Obscure or unpointed “going forward”  resolutions do not do justice to the harm caused or the guilty  or censurable regarding the above matters.
• The platform is replete with matters actually already past business so that is not an excuse.  The matters deserve attention.

The BIG question I have is why have the powers that be sh*t-canned specifically addressing  the fraudulent acts affecting the electoral college in the 2020 election at least calling for investigations and the issue of the influence CTCL  — the Zuckerberg money scandal. Why is the platform so shy on those matters?   OK I think I know why — could it be because Iowa’s Republican federal delegation rubber-stamped the election without even calling for hearings while accepting the Biden residency in spite of extensive evidence, gargantuan anomalies,  and profound questions without raising them whether or not they felt compelled to do the rubber-stamping?  The ruination we are facing started without a whimper or a constitutional fight from them at that key time.

While the Republican chief election officer Paul Pate  has implemented some important election security features (fine, praise him for that) not addressed is that Pate encouraged counties to apply for grants from CTCL  knowing or incredibly indifferent to the pedigree of the grantors. The grants were obviously a Democrat GOTV effort under color of official county activity, amplified by tax money, and freeing up Democrat resources for the worst they could perpetuate.

One quick aside, I believe the platform is generally good, even profound in some areas but the idea of not being more pointed is a weakness, the sort of thing that helps make platforms dismissible as exercises in platitude writing.   The proposal has (actually longstanding over the years as approved) hornbook conservative proscriptions “against distortions  of the free market through subsidies bailouts and mandates” [See Commerce at (1)].  Also one stating , “oppose all government mandates and efforts associated with alleged man-made global warming or climate change” [See Commerce at (4)]  And what do the Republican powers that be in and out of Iowa do about this — propose and vote for mandates for ethanol marketing, tax breaks for E15, tax favors for wind (which according to the main owner of such makes no sense other than for the subsidies and green mandates).

If the platform is not more pointed, more demanding “incentivizing” through the party  process, the party is easily ignored and the “do nothing” disgust held by many toward it sticks.One might at a close reading offer that Government @17 covers “Zuckerberg money” — First of all how pathetic a rendering but even at that if it is intended to cover it, it is mistakingly written. The rendering  “private interference in US elections” ought not be an issue.  People privately, publicly advocating that is not “interference’ that is what elections are about.  Zuckerberg can spend all he wants doing his own thing “interfering” as a PAC or 501 -C-4 or C-3 or however.  It is inducing officials and offices to do his bidding that is the issue. Receiving and executing such grants through neutral public offices is the issue.

This post may be revised or extended as the day goes on

0

0

Biggest primary surprise for us — (we thought Democrat primary voters would ignore Finkenauer’s petition problem) was the substantial win by ADMIRAL (oh they will play that to the hilt) Michael (or is it Al) Franken.  You need to take a gander at this guy’s Twitter posts. He is one thoroughly leftist nasty SOB – snide at every turn – like Tom Harkin.  He emphasizes abortion on demand and ending the filibuster, government takeover of medical care, gun control and he is all for LBGTQWTXYZ rights. Oh and did you know he was an Admiral in the Navy (surface ship).

In previous elections all of Chuck Grassley’s Senate opponents in our estimation have pretty much taken it easy on him, —  it was not good politics to denigrate “farmer” Grassley, certainly the senator from Big Ag in an Ag state. Instead they left much of that to their associates while they all played to their constituencies and were trounced.  Grassley’s opponents just didn’t have the issues, the horsepower, the down-home appeal, incumbency, and they all had their far left liberal credentials to haunt them.

Iowa’s other long serving Senator, largely a contemporary of Grassley was Democrat Tom Harkin. He was a vile lying snide creature in reality but never was in an election with good old Chuck. They were colleagues for the good of Iowa don’t you know. And Chuck, the 70% Senator, didn’t seem to help much in the attempts to get him out. Chuck would come back to Iowa, Harkin would go to the Bahamas, but they were both reelected continuously.  Go figure.

Well the Democrats now have a Harkin to go against Grassley. This will not be pretty. Franken has promised so.  To be sure some of Grassley’s factors still pertain and hopefully his faculties. Franken can be exposed as the far leftist he is. It should be a Republican year but never underestimate the power of Republican establishment (and Chuck is all of that)  to misread key things, such as general public resentment over politicians.

More on this later.

0

0

What is Grassley’s gambit — so determined to hold onto office for likely his forever.

• Is it to be the longest serving of some sort? 
• Here is where Grassley stands at that: see here and here.
• A rivalry with certain colleagues?
• Time and timeliness to prepare the main family business – politics?
• Susceptibility to flattery from staff and hangers-on (lobbyists) who want to maintain power and influence associated with a seniority based system

Readers are aware we believe in term limits.  Particularly at the federal level — the further away the service, the more the need. The body politic needs such a rule because as it stands now incumbency is so overwhelming and as such breeds corruption if not in the elected and reelected officials, in the way things are done in Washington.

The country realized that and applied its concerns as regards the presidency through the 22nd Amendment. But the scope of it is limited to the presidency and we suspect jealousy got the matter through the Congress and to the people . . .  but heaven forbid they would include themselves even though the same concerns ought to apply.

Washington based power is intoxicating, indeed so much so it will even cause people to fly back to Iowa once a week or a month, whatever  — the politics of insuring their actual residency in Washington. Such is the sacrifice of some members of the political class.  That town causes otherwise sensible people to believe they are indispensable or something. It is in the water.

Few are immune enough to retire at the top of their game. (or maybe laying the groundwork for most favorable conditions for a dynasty takes more time in individual circumstances).

For G*d sakes, in this or any state either other people with similar or more astute philosophy of government can do the job or the addicted politician in his many years of service has done little (successfully) to improve or stabilize the political lot . . . to strengthen the bench. Some might scoff – what politician ever seeks to strengthen the bench!  It is a fair scoff — but one that points to why term limits never seem to happen.

We understand that there are objections to term limits but also that they are answered effectively by the organization US Term Limits.  Term limits are as appropriate (in different ways) as minimum age and residency requirements. Those are traditional most everywhere in the U.S. and term limits are becoming traditional as regards state office.  They are even more important at the federal level. It is elitist or rather pathetic and not conservative to oppose them.

The usual rejoinder to calls for term limits is that elections are term limit decisions . . . that there ought to be the freedom to call on anyone to represent you. Sounds rather fundamental so one would think the RINOs and elements of Libertarians who parrot those views would be calling for repeal of the 22nd Amendment and the fundamental right to vote for the 16 year-old genius they are aware of  . . . wherever they might live.

OK so I hold to advocating for term limits but at least as strongly I hold to the view that Democrats in spite of convenient noise they make to decry long serving Republicans, Democrats would be the least likely to implement them.  They are even more captured by the bureaucracies, ideological and otherwise in DC  that oppose them because those bureaucracies have more control and seniority without term limits. No shaking up their applecart.

And when a Republican is up against a Democrat whatever the stated positions on term limits, well the positions and ideologies of Democrat party are so harmful, so evil in some areas that combined with their untrustworthiness I still opt for the Republican, and so it will be after today.   To be sure the entrenched political class from our party counts on that — which is why the primary is the place to implement them.

And so for such reason among others I support Carlin over Chuck Grassley in the primary.  Carlin is at least as conservative, give and take, as Grassley (it is silly to think a big government conservative like Grassley is pure ideologically). And Grassley has exhibited some serious affronts to conservatism and has unnecessarily given legitimacy to the economic and cultural debacle we are experiencing under the Biden residency.  Below are some links to articles  that are supportive of Carlin / critical of Grassley.  They should be widely considered.

Grassley says we should have equal interest in the border with Mexico and between Ukraine and Russia  (pardon me but this documented statement by Grassley does not even seem sentient)

Said Grassley: “I’m saying I would not—we’re not going to repeal the Affordable Care Act.”

Grassley is for Sale: Which Means So Are You.

Deace: It’s time for Charles Grassley to go. Vote Jim Carlin for U.S. Senate.

The following are articles here at V’PAC that sort off chronicle problems with Grassley of late

Will Trump now disavow Grassley

Pence certainly no clutch player, nor is Grassley

Two Republicans taking on Miller-Meeks and Grassley in Republican Primary

Trump should have let Grassley stew in his juices awhile

Meet Senator Grassley’s good friend BIF

Grassley to run again – on that decision thanks for nothing

Chuck Grassley has helped make Joe Manchin the man of the hour

Audio of Sen. Grassley at Lincoln Club event in Davenport

Grassley out to convince people that Dems and Repubs are not all that different

Chuck Grassley votes for racist unconstitutional “infrastructure” bill

Is this the Grassley view: In order to make a ham omelet — need to break a few eggs

We wonder if Grassley, Ernst, Feenstra, Miller-Meeks and Hinson agree

Grassley votes to facilitate trillion-dollar infrastructure package

Grassley and company exemplify a cause of mental health sequelae from pandemic terror

Will Senators Grassley and Ernst apologize for parroting lies and spin about Jan 6th

Senator Grassley’s prayer works wonders

0

0

Focused on ballots in Scott County that are contested or need to be

US Senate – support John Carlin – perhaps the most practical elixir to what is wrong with Washington and the federal government is term limits. Drain the swamp. Grassley is a big-government conservative who has helped along economic devastation in his waining years.

First District Congress —  writing  in Kyle Kuehl — Miller-Meeks has already proved herself to be a high-maintenance insecure conservative

Secretary of State — I am writing in Diane Holst — someone actually focused on election integrity.  All of our write-ins are attempts at a draft.  Diane championed opposition to Zuckerberg money — the private  partisan focused takeover of election functions in key counties in Iowa.  Republican Paul Pate fostered that takeover.

State Auditor – Mary Ann Hanusa – a name ID call

State Senate Disrtrict 41 — Kerry Gruenhagen – solid conservative good fit for the district

State Senate Disrtrict 47 — Scott Webster conservative experienced energetic campaigner

House District 81 — Luanna Stoltenberg — solid conservative experienced energetic campaigner

County Supervisor — Bullet/single voting Jennifer McAndrew Lane. Three positions on the ballot but the others blew it as far as primary support

Senate District 49  with Ultra Liberal Democrat Cindy Winkler and House District 97 with  Ultra Liberal Democrat Crotch Croken are so far unopposed by Republicans. Write in credible candidates on the Republican ballot.

0

0

Comments and endorsements County Attorney – Auditor – Treasurer – Recorder – Supervisors

County Attorney

Unopposed for the Republican nomination is Kelly Cunningham Haan an experienced former prosecutor within the Scott County Attorney office. Experienced Former law enforcement personnel and another alumnus of the office who we know are very supportive of her candidacy and that is enough to make us hopeful of finally getting that office out of Democrat hands. Incumbency, short of scandal means everything for that office.  It is an open seat this go-around.  Haan is a good candidate and Republicans need to get behind the race aggressively. The Democrats have a candidate unopposed for their nomination. Given that it is an open seat we will be curious to see how much of the money the Democrat raises will come from out of state, including wherever George Soros funded organizations write their checks.

County Auditor

Republican incumbent by appointment Kerry Tompkins is unopposed for the Republican nomination.  We wish her well. She replaced multi-term Democrat Roxanna Moritz who retired soon after the 2020 election where her office took scads of money from Zuckerberg to help run the Democrat GOTV operation. Some of her retirement comments imply that she could not cope with election integrity rules and concepts passed by the legislature.  The office had been held by Democrats who eat drink and sleep even petty political maneuvering, whatever they can get away with, for decades. It was always nice for them to have the “watchful eye” of a Democrat County Attorney as well. The Democrats have an unopposed candidate with no government or political experience and largely irrelevant work experience. The general election will witness Democrat machine politics. Incumbency is a big factor with no party voters so hopefully that will sustain efforts in November to install election integrity as a hallmark of the office.

County Treasurer

A sitting Republican Supervisor Tony Knobbe is unopposed for the nomination. The Democrats have not fielded a candidate to be on the ballot. This is a bit surprising in that with an open seat a Democrat who wants the chance could have had the nomination. They can fill the line for the November ballot after a county convention call.

The sitting Treasurer – Republican Mike Fennelly is retiring  to return to private business.  We were a bit surprised as the seat seemed a family legacy. If Knobbe is elected in the general, which is arguably odds-on at this point, because his term does not end until 2024 there will be a vacancy and we believe that a special election will ensue for his Supervisor position.

Country Recorder

Unopposed for the Republican nomination is Michele Darland. As a local leader in the non-profit fund-raising world Darland is well seasoned in the importance and practice of administrative attention to detail and is a good candidate for the Recorder position. We wish her well. The Democrats have multi-term incumbent Rita Vargas unchallenged on their primary ballot.  If one is a Democrat, one might be impressed that Vargas has a long time donor history to the usual suspects indicating she is as partisan as they come.

The positions of Recorder, Auditor and Treasurer are important on a partisan basis in part, besides policy preferences influenced by conservative/ liberal proclivities underpin their responsibilities, but also because those offices comprise under the Iowa Code an executive panel to fill Supervisor vacancies (deaths and resignations) in interims between county elections (special elections can be called via petition to fill such vacancies if done in a timely manner).

Previously Democrats held the Auditor and Recorder positions giving them a majority on the vacancy panel to fill Supervisor vacancies.  That was relevant recently due to a potential situation involving an alleged conflict of interest regarding dual elected roles where the two Dem office holders at the time (Auditor and Recorder) lusted to make an appointment to fill a declared vacancy on the Board, — actually an opinion by the Democrat County Attorney. That maneuver was subsequently established as legally in error and or moot via legislative action along with a judicial ruling.

The situation points out the potential for two Dems on such a vacancy panel to create a Dem majority on the Board of Supervisors by flipping a seat held by one of the five members of the  Board of Supervisors should something happen. A flip of one vote when the party spread is 3 to 2 changes the complexion of the Board. Compounding that factor last year was the potential for their mischief to put them in the position to insure the appointment of a Dem to be Auditor (which Supervisors appoint in any interim) because the then Democrat Auditor Moritiz was figuring on retiring (quitting) only two months into her term.

County Supervisor

Vote for Lane on the Republican ballot

Democrats have five people on Tuesday’s primary ballot vying to be listed as one of the three Democrat positions on the general election ballot.  They have one incumbent in the mix, Kinzer, who supported the Democrat maneuverings outlined above. They also have the perennial candidate of late — tort lawyer — affirmative action/ ACLU/LULAC champion– Jazmin Newton.  There are three other lesser-knowns.

Four Republican are on the primary ballot vying for the three ballot positions in the general election.  They include incumbent John Maxwell, also Jennifer Lane, Ross Paustian  and Jean Dixon. While we will be supporting the Republican candidates in the general (continued membership in the Democrat Party is just a non-starter for anything, even for proverbial sewer commissioner – because at this point, to run under the banner of those who are the architects of disintegration in our culture our economy our nation — is a serious character defect.

We are sorely disappointed in three of the Republicans  — Maxwell, Paustian and Dixon for not responding to the River Cities Reader questions for Supervisor candidates. The questions had four main themes — transparency in Board affairs, election integrity/private funding of elections, COVID related mandates and interventions, Quad City Airport taxation.   See the full article here.

The weekly River Cities Reader has reach and influence with appeal to a variety of readers.  On the matters addressed one can easily presume the editorial position of the newspaper however in our observation over the years respondents are given space for their considered thoughts.  Politicians grouse about and protest surveys because they are skewed or not worth the time.  As a political operative I get that in some cases, but I also know that nearly all respond to at least some — especially as regards outreach to constituencies they want to attract or have a chance at.

That three of the Republicans would decline to respond to the River Cities Reader publication, even with a bare yes or no, questions which ought to be easy enough to elaborate on, even if the response is repetitive, indicates poor political processing or their own hand-ringing.

Jennifer Lane was the only Republican to respond to these major questions and for that, and because of her responses, stands out policy wise from the pack. Four of the Democrats responded, often with answers we heartily disagree with, however they did seem to be for transparency and video of Board functions (something Crotch Croken is probably not so sure about).

We are content with a bullet vote for Jennifer (McAndrew) Lane in the primary.  The other three Republicans can sort themselves out.  They all have pedigrees we can ascribe to when it comes to the general election vs Democrats but their failure to respond to a publication on matters that will likely have to be addressed in some way as Supervisors is a disappointment we needn’t countenance now. This is the time to be choosey.

Some have suggested that Lane as County Supervisor, who is married to Scott County Sheriff Tim Lane would have a conflict of interest. There is no secret or subterfuge going on. She has advocated for transparency in all Board policy matters. This is open, above board, the voters are not being denied information.

J Lane has staked out a position that public safety would be a top priority. That is a position we want widely held.  She is also a candidate who brings a unique position to the race as a probation/parole officer in the federal system (she does not work in the state/ county system) but she understands issues of crime and recidivism — matters the board faces. Accordingly, as to critics we would like to know which of her positions vis a vis the Sheriff’s office are untoward in a self-serving way?  Scott County has professional administrators and a civil service system. Knowing of J Lane’s independence, and both her and the Sheriff’s integrity,  there may be conflicts but of the disagreement kind.

J Lane has been part of Republican events, supported Republican candidates, forthrightly advocated for causes opposed to bureaucratic tyrannies. We support her candidacy.

0

0

Comments on local state legislative primary races

Some legislative districts that have a very small overlap with Scott County are not addressed here.  It should be noted that redistricting altered local boundaries significantly. Because of that candidates referenced to as “incumbent” may have significant new constituencies although they reside in the redrawn district. Races for primary contenders for state legislative races on the ballot in Scott County stack up as follows —

State Senate Primary Races 

SD 35 — Chris Cournoyer, incumbent, is unopposed for the Republican nomination. Democrats have apparently resurrected a former State Senator from decades ago. We have been favorably surprised by Cournoyer and we wish her success. The Dem candidate Joe Brown is unopposed. His resume reads as that of an education bureaucrat. Cournoyer is a former school board president and so should be able to hold her own with that constituency.  Brown at this writing does not have a web site that we could locate.

SD 41 — There is a primary race between Kerry Gruenhagen and Alan Weeks for the Republican nomination. Gruenhagen is a farmer and long-time conservative activist who has chaired conservative confabs in Scott County.  Gruenhagen’s resume is strong for the district, he has a great pedigree as well and he is our enthusiastic choice. The Democrats also have a primary

SD 47 –– Republicans have a contest. LeClaire alderman Barry Long and Bettendorf Alderman Scott Webster. Viewing the candidates’ internet presence both candidates at a glance are conservatives but Scott Webster clearly addresses specific policies. He is highly recommended by people we trust and for us that rates the nod.  Dems have one person on the ballot.  A physician (endocrinologist) who moved to the area 6 years ago who has no apparent political experience. Her platform appears like she is signaling a bureaucrats-know-best agenda whether it is education or public health ~~ but she will do it better don’t you know.  Republicans must win this open seat.

SD 49 — As yet Republicans do not have a candidate.  Ultra-liberal Cindy Winkler will be the Dem candidate. Dems consider the district safe for their abortion on demand agenda, tax and spend irresponsibility,  culture war, bureaucrats replacing parents, lockdowns and tax mandates, etc. Winkler has long lived up to all the worst Dems have to offer.  It is credible that a Republican convention nominee, a candidate in the mold of  Edward Durr who took out the state senate president of Pennsylvania can ride the utter disgust with Biden-Democrat-Winkler policies and performance to victory. Perhaps someone in the district who has run before. The same is possible in other otherwise Democrat free-ride districts in the state and we hope candidates are encouraged and supported.

HD 81 — This district is winnable for Republicans.  Two candidates are vying for the Republican nomination — Luanna Stoltenberg and Sean Hanley.  Stoltenberg is my pick in the primary — I have known her for many years, she has worked hard and given generously to Republicans candidates.  She is an energetic person, a gifted speaker with many pro-life appearances, she knows grassroots development.  Her website indicates solid conservative themes. Stoltenberg has been endorsed by Constitutional  Action Network indicating her wide ranging concerns. She also emphasizes her pro-life background, not unlike farmers emphasize ag expertise, cops or military veterans the perspectives that provides. The winner will face the unopposed Democrat — political newcomer Craig Lynn Cooper whose bio indicates he is retired from Genesis Health System as “senior communications specialist” — in other words part of the spokes-holes bureaucracy of a horrendously expensive manipulative industry in bed with big government / Big Pharma — guilty in our humble judgement of aggravating social pathologies during the pandemic .

HD 82 — Incumbent Republican Bobby Kaufman, who was the only Republican state legislator from Johnson County, has now picked up  a portion of Scott County that includes Blue Grass. He is unopposed in the primary and we wish him well.  Democrats have not fielded a candidate for the primary ballot.

HD 93 —  Incumbent Republican Gary Mohr does not have a primary opponent. He has been a responsive generally conservative representative. We wish him well. His apparent Democrat opponent (unopposed in the primary) will be another Democrat political newcomer Ryan Carstensen. We have not found a website for Carstensen. Our lookup of federal political contributions  indicates only very recent contributions at the minimum reporting level of $200. He gave $500 to Liz Mathis – an Emily’s list supported Democrat running to oppose incumbent Republican Second District Congressman Ashley Hinson.  He also gave $500 to liberal Democrat (former 1-term congressman) Abby Finkenauer, a person whose positions are “indistinguishable from Bernie Sanders or House socialist squad member AOC”. She is in a primary to oppose the winner of the Republican US Senate primary contest between Jim Carlin and Chuck Grassley. A couple of very recent federal contributions to curry Dem Party favor does not indicate political depth for the state office sought but something about the sort of people he supports.  As regards state legislator contributions the minimum that must be reported is only $25 per individual.  We could find no contributions at or above that level ascribed to Carstensen. But hey Democrats this is your state legislation activist, make him your guy — no doubt he swore allegiance to all of your evil policies.

HD 94 — Republican Mike Vondran is unopposed in the primary. Democrat incumbent Phyllis Thede, after 7 terms still a total tool of the Dem bosses, whose campaigns rely on party machine and teacher unions for turnout, maybe this time around can be retired.  Vondran ran against Thede previously but in the old substantially different district.  Dems are just too horrible and we wish Vondran well in the general as the Republican candidate apparent and the good that that can entail.  Nevertheless, as regards voucher proposals for K-12 education which we advocate to the effect that tax dollars ought to follow the student, we are sorry to report that Vondran apparently adopted the silly mantra ~~public money to public schools~~ and suggested to us that special education students would not be adequately served by non-government run schools.  But of course under a voucher program public dollars would still go to government run schools if that is where the parents want to send them. As for special needs students, to the extent that they cost more per student to educate, the extra money for that including federal (which comprises much of the dollar support for their education by the way)  in a well structured proposal would  follow the student.  Proponents of locking kids in inferior and inefficient government run schools with their bloated bureaucracies, liberal to the core, without the opportunity for escape by poorer folks, need to sense what is happening in the schools in their districts (Bettendorf *and Davenport*). Are opponents of vouchers focused on teacher unions or parents, are they focused on educating children or maintaining the disastrous bureaucracies, culture damaging government schools? 

HD 97  — for the love of all that makes this country great, which leaves apparent Democrat nominee Ken Croken out, we pray a Republican is in a position to step forward and be nominated by convention for the as yet open position.  In the same vein as we prescribed for SD 49 — It is credible that a Republican convention nominee, a candidate in the mold of  Edward Durr who took out the state senate president of Pennsylvania can ride the utter disgust with Biden-Democrat-Winkler policies and performance. to victory. Perhaps someone in the district who has run before or someone willing to make a quick splash. Croken is everything bad about Democrats.

In the next post — local county government races

0

0

Empty positions on party primary ballot — Republican reticence means lost opportunity

Reviewing the Primary Candidate List for the entire state available at the Secretary of State website (link here) we have the following observations and comments:

As regards the Republican primary ballot we had thoughts that the dissatisfaction with Biden, the tiredness of Democrats and the arguable continued ascendency of Republicans, especially fueled by MAGA enthusiasms would have produced more Republican ballot contests and less empty spots for state legislative races even in Democrat strongholds (we have not evaluated county office seekers statewide).

We understand that office holders being thrown together and other factors due to recent redistricting, decide to look for other opportunities out of magnanimity, practicality or opportunism — that is part of the situation.  But any empty ballot position is a lost opportunity.

Positions that are open on the primary ballot for the party can be filled for the general election by the party at special meetings or conventions held at the county level for that purpose.  We encourage sincere informed conservatives to submit their names to the county party apparat very soon regarding open ballot positions in order to be the party’s candidate by convention and thereby be placed on the ballot for the general election.

We hope that  no Democrat gets a free ride for the general election. Support from the party for such candidates ought to be budgeted for but even a minimalist race is of service. There could be something afoot and Republicans even in Democrat districts could be swept into office.

Winning is very difficult without ballot placement so that is the first crucial step for the still open positions after the primary. However difficult even at the primary stage we are encouraging write-ins for Tuesday’s primary as the primary race is the time to be choosey and send messages to the party.

My statewide candidate overview going into the primary

Both Repubs and Dems have primaries for the US Senate and that race and localized county races will probably be the main draws.   I am supporting Jim Carlin a conservative State Senator in the primary race over Chuck Grassley for reasons readers may glean from previous posts  but as was mentioned, this is a time to be choosey not nostalgic.  There is little risk this go-around  because of the weakness in the Democrat field and for superior positioning in the future.  The Dems have three liberal goofballs running for their nomination with the supposed strongest candidate – Finkenauer- barely able to make the ballot. All can be hamstrung by the Democrat record and agenda if there is any competency in the Republican apparat.

Of the four Iowa congressional districts three have Republican incumbents and all are unopposed as far as ballot listings.  The primary race for the 3rd CD  to oppose the only Democrat incumbent Cindy Axne has three contenders for the Republican nomination. We hope to have more about that race latter as well.

We are encouraging a write-in effort in the Republican First District race as a challenge to Marionette Miller-Meeks.  Kyle Kuehl is my pick .  Kuehl is a good candidate in many ways and a conservative who regrettably had errors in his petition effort sufficient to deny him a ballot position — shades of Ginny Caligiuri four years ago and almost Dem Finkenauer this go-around. We intend to support Miller-Meeks should she prevail but her record regarding the 2020 election steal with her attitude fostering the real constitutional crisis we are in now does not deserve a free path to the nomination.  The two other Republican incumbents were just as pathetic and a challenge to them from a conservative  in the primary would be fine. Miller-Meeks has some particular aggravating factors. They impact Trump and his supporters, and include votes in Congress that are troublesome.  Not enough time has expired to forget in spite of any back-pedaling.  Send a message and write-in Kyle Kuehl for the First District.

As regards Grassley (and Miller-Meeks) and their touting (or implying) Trump support as they seek the Republican nomination, I say sad for Donald Trump for offering them anything.  In Grassley’s case it may be a payback for his Trump embrace in 2016 but  Grassley shafted Trump (and us) in 2021 with his phony constitutional crisis rhetoric over even delaying the electoral vote count. He should have listened to Cruz and Cotton, his constitutional betters, instead of Pense instead of rolling over for an election steal without even a double check and then whimpering over Jan. 6th.  He further shafted us by his support for gargantuan devastating spending bills, the Senator from Big Ethanol and Big Wind should take his deserved huzzahs for all the good he has done and make way for a consistent conservative.

It should also be understood and internalized that the former president and rightful current president does not own the MAGA movement which is a clear offshoot of the Tea-Party movement which predates Trump’s ascendency. In 2010 at the dawn of that movement Trump was not saying anything substantive and had probably voted for Obama (he did support Romney in 2012).  There are other reasons why Trump may no longer be the best or most astute representative of the MAGA cause. Overall he was a great president, one of the greatest, he is valuable to the cause, but neither Trump or Grassley or Miller-Meeks are invaluable now. Trump would be as old as Biden when Biden took office in 2020, in much better shape but it is another aspect of needing to defend an unnecessary situation. The cause has grown and is not dependent on Trump or Grassley. Thank God for the depth of field.

Governor Reynolds is unchallenged in her primary bid and we are content with that. Her likely Democrat opponent (the only one on their primary ballot) seems to be a sacrificial candidate.

The Secretary of State primary ballot has only incumbent Paul Pate on the Republican ballot. That is too bad given his performance regarding election integrity-– especially his fostering of so much fraud enabling absentee voting and encouraging of Zuckerberg money. The Dems have two candidates to choose from on their ballot. We encourage write-ins for the Republican position or just not voting it in the primary.

For the State Auditor position  Republicans have two candidates on the ballot, Tod Halbur and Mary Ann Hanusa. They hope to oppose the presumed Democrat incumbent Rob Sand.  Halbur may have more “numbers management” background, Hanusa has more name ID in Republican circles and has some oversight credentials as Chair of the House Government Oversight Committee when she was in the legislature. None of the candidates, Halbur, Hanusa or Sand are a CPA or have an accounting degree.

The State Treasure position is another of three statewide positions held by Democrats.  Democrats use it to aid their liberal proclivities, shifting investments, promoting their liberal ESG causes, etc. Roby Smith is the only candidate on the Republican side. He declined to run in a redistricted state senate arena in spite of his name ID and did not want to move a few blocks to be in more familiar territory. But he would now like to move to Des Moines we guess. It gets in peoples blood or something.  I am surprised  (more like intrigued) that no one with credentials elsewhere in the state has opted to run for the nomination. Bankers and investment types are a dime a dozen, I suspect including in the legislature. The Democrat incumbent Fitzgerald is multi-term and for the life of me I can not figure  out why he gets over 50% of the vote – because you can bet 50% of the voters do not know what the hell the position even entails. They have heard the name or seen it plastered on various licensures and I guess  must think they are smart for recognizing a name sort of. The same phenomenon may exist with most of these races outside the gubernatorial.  Incumbency carries unless an aggressive campaign is launched.  Smith is a big meh but Fitzgerald needs to go and we want Republicans to prevail.

Secretary of Agriculture — Mike Naig the Republican incumbent is unopposed for the nomination. Democrats have fielded John Norwood a Boston native who only moved to Iowa in 2002 and who sports a very thin ag resume. Geez he lives in West Des Moines.

Attorney General — God help us, can this be the year that Tom Miller goes by the wayside.  Think of all the partisan liberal lawfare this guy has engaged in — signing on to most every liberal blue-state lawsuit even against Iowa interests. Republicans can not have him defend their enactments in court and must retain other counsel. Brenna (Findley) Bird now working as a county attorney did very well against him some years ago and we hope she carries the day this time around.

Overview of the state legislative races 

Of the 50 state senators there are 34 races on the ballot due to staggered terms. The Dems have not fielded candidates as yet in 8 of the senate districts. But Republicans have also not fielded a candidate in 8 districts. Conceding anything is not useful. The Dems have 5 contested state senate primaries and the Republicans have 6. As to the latter — may the consistent conservatives win.

As for the Iowa House all 100 districts are up for election. The Dems have not fielded candidates as yet in 32 primary positions (predominantly in the more conservative western part of the state). Republicans have not fielded candidates in 25 across the state, characteristicaly in the Democrat city enclaves. For the 100 primary elections the Dems have 8 contested races while the Republicans have 22.

Again, no Democrat should be given a free ride, just having a competent conservative  throw their hat in the ring through the convention process can result in some victories —  not because of any coattails but because of the throw the bums out sentiment directed at Democrats if Republicans run as such.

Some comments on primary races for state legislature positions on the ballot in Scott county in the next post .                   R Mall

0

0

This Sarah Arnold report below at Townhall yesterday, in spite of some obliviousness in the comment section, is no doubt tongue in cheek sarcasm – “whopping one million” more than the Dems in this day and age with the palpable dissatisfaction with the Biden residency and Democrats in general. The description more directly ought to be something like “WTF”.  True, people may be giving to individual Republicans, or maybe issue groups, we await some articles consolidating such figures , OR and this ought to worry the RNC, people don’t think much of them (the party apparat). I think that is the case because of their reluctance to identify, isolate and condemn the Democrat party as such. Not sure people are enthusiastic about giving to what many think is Democrat Lite. To be sure for the good of the country Republicans have to win but much of the perception of DC Republicans, is that of people who vote for extreme spending bills because of “regular order” and do not engage the enemy. The Grassleyesque strategy of some high profile useful committee work challenging Democrats while voting with them on financial ruination, (here and here) in the process allowing some really vile things, out of devotion to “regular order”, is not all that endearing a strategy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTmXHvGZiSY

RNC Made a Whopping $1M More Than DNC

The Republican National Committee hauled in more than a $1 million more in fundraising than the Democratic National Committee during the month of April. 

According to fundraising figures, the RNC brought in $14.2 million, while the the DNC brought in significantly less at $12.9 million, this includes funding from the Democratic Grassroots Victory Fund and the DNC’s joint fundraising arm.

This brings the RNC’s total funds raised so far to a spectacular $219.9 million, and the DNC’s total funds to $213 million. 

In a statement, RNC Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel is confident the Republican Party will come out on top as Joe Biden’s failed leadership continues to persist. 

“The Republican Party is firing on all cylinders to deliver Republican victories across the country,” adding “we have incredible enthusiasm on our side and are out-raising, out-investing, and out-organizing Democrats. Americans are hurting because of Biden’s failed leadership and, come November, will send a referendum to the White House and fire Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer once and for all.” 

In contrary to this and despite low numbers, DNC spokesperson praised the party’s fundraising success. 

“Engagement from President Biden, Vice President Harris, the First Lady and the Second Gentleman has helped fuel the DNC’s fundraising success…over half of all new donors to the DNC and one-third of the one-time revenue raised from grassroots channels in April came in from email, texts, and mailings signed by White House principals.”

0

0

“What difference does it make, at this point?”

Hillary Clinton Agreed to Release Unsubstantiated Research on Trump-Russia Link, Ex-Aide Says 
Democrat’s 2016 campaign chief says team wanted allegations of ties between Trump computers and Russian bank to go to press but not to FBI

Hillary Clinton Did It

WSJ Editors Eviscerate Hillary, Lapdog Media in Blistering Op-Ed About Russia Collusion Lies

DLH

0

0

The theft of the 2020 presidential election is the biggest political scandal in United States history because of the now widespread contemporary known facts of the steal, the journalistic corruption and blackout, the accessories after the fact judiciary, the willful and cowardly political class including so many Republicans.

The documentary 2000 Mules has exposed the steal of the 2020 presidential election. See here,  here,  here,  here, here, here and here. *

The evidence presented is convincing that the mechanism highlighted in the documentary was real and that an organized conspiracy — with an electoral college game plan that was the result of a network of orchestrations, either interstate or intrastate. We also believe there was casual unorganized but Democrat fostered cheating that was also impactful. The reason being it is so easy to do on a onesy twosy basis when absentee voting by mail presents so much opportunity.

There was the perfect manmade storm of covid hysteria to provide a virtual algae bloom of absentee ballot requests and actual ballots both laying around for exploitation. Democrats always exploit a crisis (and create one when none is available).

Force multipliers of illegal activity were also abundant — the Zuckerberg Money CTCL was a force multiplier in key states. You can review our posts about  the influence of Zuckerberg money through this link.

The dominant liberal media , the AP which feeds most daily newspapers, the usual culprits in broadcast and cable media including  Fox (radio and cable news) have with maniacal consistency and purpose addressed critics of  2020 election integrity as makers of bogus claims,  debunked claims,  false claims or that no significant fraud has been found . . .

We believe the timing  of the leak of the draft SCOTUS opinion overturning Roe v Wade made at the time of the release of the 2000 Mule documentary was likely to give the allies in the media of the 2020 theft something to talk about rather than appearing so totally oblivious.  To be sure there was and continues to be a succession of Biden blunders of which his allies desperately want to change the subject.  What better way to change the subject than to throw domestic allies a bone to ease their panic and give them something to foment about.

Knowing abortion blood lust is near and dear to Democrats while delusionally assuming the majority of America agrees with Roe’s original establishment of abortion on demand for any reason at any time of pregnancy removing any ability of legislatures to regulate they set out to change the subject, and to a degree it has worked. But the draft had been available to the perp  for weeks prior and so the draft could have been leaked either days earlier or later.   Others share our opinion.

The justified ridicule set forth below is from an email sent out to people concerned about election security.  It is from the Thomas Moore Society a pro-life legal defense firm also concerned with election integrity.  It makes complete sense if you have viewed the documentary 2000 Mules which by the way premieres for normal theatrical distribution today.

4.) Fact-checkers correct the 2000 Mules Record!  California fact-checkers have reviewed 2000 Mules and are correcting the record.  I have included a brief recap from the independent fact checkers.  I am so thankful to the independent fact checkers for correcting the record. 

• • Claim #1: 2000 Mules alleges that ballot mules were identified that went near a dropbox ten times, and a nonprofit 5 times.  This could be evidence of mules picking up fraudulent ballots from the left-wing non-profit and delivering the fraudulent ballots to dropboxes.  However, independent fact checkers note that GPS data in 2022 isn’t as reliable as one may think.  Although it is used by Google, Facebook, Apple, and every third party app you use.  The independent fact checkers found that we don’t know that a mule was picking up fraudulent ballots from a non-profit and delivering them to drop boxes.  The independent fact checkers note that there could be a perfectly legitimate reason to visit drop boxes over ten times in the middle of the night.  It notes that cab drivers and election officials would have perfectly good reasons to go from non-profits to dropboxes repeatedly.
  • Claim #2:  FOIAed surveillance footage shows ballot traffickers submitting multiple ballots into drop boxes.  However, brilliant independent fact checkers note that there is no proof that the mules on camera are the same mules seen in the GPS data.  
  • Claim #3: : 2000 Mules shows video surveillance of mules stuffing a ballot box with multiple ballots, in violation of the law.  However, independent fact checkers note the story of Larry Campbell, a man not seen in the documentary who claims he submitted six ballots into a dropbox on behalf of his wife and four adult children in Michigan.  Independent fact checker Tim Griffin found this confusing as Michigan Code Section 168.764 does allow immediate family members to do what Larry Campbell did, but it was nonetheless illegal in Georgia, where the documentary shows footage from.
  • Claim #4: 2000 Mules discusses 1,000+ potential paid mules based off of GPS data in Philadelphia.  However, independent fact checkers have debunked this claim saying that independent fact checkers have not yet seen the evidence.  Independent fact checkers also rely on the statement of democrat state Senator Sharif Street, a Philadelphia democrat re-elected in 2020 through the use of these drop boxes, in the city of Philadelphia, who claims that he spent much time around drop boxes and nonprofits but didn’t harvest ballots, and therefore the data is flawed.
  • Claim #5: 2000 Mules matched some of the ballot traffickers’ phones to those who were at the BLM and Antifa riots during the summer of 2020, meaning that these could be trusted provocateurs of the left engaged in an illegal RICO case.  However, independent fact checkers found the claim false, and that while the same people could have been near the drop boxes during election season, and at the summer riots, it didn’t mean that these actors were leftist agitators.  It notes that police and firefighters were present at the summer BLM rallies.  Thus, the cell phone signals of the ballot traffickers could have been the same police and firefighters from other states, popping up in election season near drop boxes in faraway states.  Maybe the police officers and firefighters took election season vacations to travel out-of-state to work second jobs at ballot traffickers.
  • Claim #6: the mules in videos were wearing surgical gloves to prevent their fingerprints from being on the ballots, as they were engaged in an illegal act.  However, independent fact checkers found the claim false and indicated that the mules were likely wearing the gloves to stop the spread of COVID-19, and to keep warm during the winter months.
  • Claim #7: the mules took photos of their collection of ballots at the drop box in order to send to their employer and be paid.  However, independent fact checkers found this to be a false claim as many voters take pictures of their singular ballot envelope prior to inserting it into the drop box.
  • Claim #8: the mules in swing states may have swung the election for Trump through the number of ballots trafficked.  However, independent fact checkers found this claim to be false.  Iowa College of Law professor Derek Muller, who graduated law school the year I went into law school, believes a ballot trafficking scheme is unlikely.

0

0