Confirmed: RPI State Central Committee oblivious to platform

  • Based on testimony of one member just as oblivious

We responded in our last post to a Republican Party of Iowa  (RPI) State Central Committee (SCC)  member.  That person responded to our criticisms of the RPI -SCC letter calling on Texas Senator Ted Cruz to release his hold on the appointment of Iowa Ag Secretary Bill Northey to a position in the Federal policy making/implementing bureaucracy.

The same member responded in the comment section to that post.  We display it below.

But first to reiterate our position: We think that a letter better in keeping with the RPI platform would have been first addressed to various personages to agree to Cruz’s insistence on a meeting intended to seek adjustments to  RFS requirements that are said to harm gasoline refinery capabilities and increase costs to consumers across the nation. Agree to hold the hearing, presumably regardless of outcome, and Cruz would release the hold on Northey.

Wouldn’t have agreeing to the hearing Cruz wants without commitment to an outcome have moved Northey along quicker?  This has been going on since at least this past November. We have read that elements within the administration have insisted that they will not submit to “hostage taking.” That is a bit overripe giving that they bargain all the time.

Sure Cruz is playing hardball to some extent but no less than the implications of tactics Iowa’s current Republican Senators have used, or supported, successfully or unsuccessfully, according to reports. And how is it an abuse of Senatorial privilege to exercise it?  If the privilege is inappropriate then specifically limit it or get rid of it, Senators Grassley and Ernst.  Or is it just some PR gamesmanship afforded Senators?  Either way, end it or don’t call it an abuse.

If Cruz does not release the Northey after his reasonable request is met,  then such a letter directed to him would be in order. But our position is that the RPI SCC should show fidelity to the platform and take seriously that Cruz’s position against mandates that arguably harm consumers / taxpayers is more in keeping with the RPI platform than support for mandates as championed by Bill Northey et al.

Respondent disagrees. Here is his latest comment directed to V’PAC:

It is hypocritical I might suggest to say Cruz was “unfairly ” chided and then propose his treatment of Northey is fair and appropriate.

The SCC vote was unanimous among those in attendance and I believe also included the votes of three members via conference call. Strong Cruz supporters on the Committee were in attendance and voted with the majority.

To suggest the RPI platform more favors Cruz’s big oil stand than Iowa agriculture is laughable.

I also take offense in suggesting that the very diverse RPI SCC needs any extended time to address an issue that they all have been very aware before the meeting. They simply were asked to vote on a simple B&W proposal . The idea that they are not capable of addressing such is insulting to all members of the SCC and a weak attempt to somehow disparage the vote.

The SCC member first statement is indeed a point of disagreement.  He does not elaborate as to whether any use of Senatorial holds is appropriate to foster conservative ends such as something to relieve industry and consumers of the effects of mandates, something supported in the RPI platform.  If the RPI SCC disagrees with the use of holds they should address the matter as well to Senator Grassley and other Republican leadership to remove the so-called privilege for all.

Respondents second statement is to point out what we specified in the beginning as a presumption on our part — that it was a unanimous vote.  Indeed at the time of our first commentary we had no knowledge that it did not include not only everyone in attendance but in attendance physically. We presumed a full compliment, but that there was not was relayed to us by another in attendance.

We are well aware that there are individuals who supported Cruz for President in 2016 on the RPI-CC .  That they supported the letter as written we think was ill-considered, perhaps perfunctory and not now due to any subtle pressure to show some sort of solidarity or to not displeasure Big Ethanol on such a small thing they just wish good ol’ Cruz would lighten up about. Such as we implied before. Having been corrected we remove such small human failings from any consideration and accept that they are foursquare in support of RFS mandates in spite of Cruz.  This mea culpa on our part also applies to respondent’s fourth admonition.

But what about respondent’s statement “To suggest the RPI platform more favors Cruz’s big oil stand than Iowa agriculture is laughable.” ?  In that regard we think the platform speaks for itself, and might be chuckling at respondent.  We post it in its entirety below.  Bold emphasis imparted by us on areas we feel speak at least to the spirit of the matter as RPI platforms have been reduced to mostly platitudes. With two exception we forebear on any annotating alongside the as-passed text with reference to RFS and other mandates.  For the most part the implications of individual planks should be obvious, except perhaps to respondent.  Taking the platform as a whole, the idea that Big Ethanol is protected by the RPI platform as written is not merely laughable, it is hilarious.

Funny, but readers will note that the RPI 2016 platform does not have a section devoted to agriculture.  Ethanol, RFS are not mentioned. Subsidies and bailouts are, in opposition. Respondent must believe that in conservative thought Iowa agriculture / Big Ethanol enjoys grand unstated exemptions.* We post the entire platform lest someone thing we are trying to be funny.


2016 Republican Party of Iowa Platform

This platform was adopted by the 2016 Iowa GOP State Convention on May 21st, 2016.

Click here to download a PDF of the platform in tri-fold version: 2016 Iowa GOP Platform Brochure KalGraphics (1)


As Republicans we uphold the principles of individual responsibility and liberty, adherence to traditional moral standards, a strong national defense, a free enterprise system, respect for the sanctity of human life, and freedom of religion and the free exercise thereof. We believe in retaining the original intent of our Constitution. We believe high moral character is a necessity for public servants. The highest standard of character should be embodied in both private and public life. We encourage the proliferation of these principles and their passage to future generations.


The following are the fundamental principles that make up the platform of the Republican Party of Iowa.

I. Our nation is a Constitutional Republic whose Foundation is the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

We acknowledge our rights derive from God, our creator, and are therefore unalienable and include Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness (e.g. private property). Further, the Right to Life shall be understood to include all people from conception to natural death. We are a nation governed by people elected to public office that are sent to represent us, the citizens. Our Constitution provides limits to governmental power, explicitly details our fundamental rights and insures that only the enumerated powers contained within the Constitution are executed by the federal government. All other functions of government are left to the state and local governments.

II. We are a Sovereign Nation.

We are a Sovereign Nation with defined borders, governed by a set of laws determined by our representatives, guided by our Constitution and protected by a military strong enough to defend our nation and its interests.

III. The Oath of Office of all civil servants, elected and employed, should guide their actions.

As citizens, we demand that our elected officials take their office and its duties and responsibilities to us, our country and our Constitution seriously and act in accordance with their individual Oaths of Office.

IV. Fiscal Responsibility is a fundamental function of any local, state or federal entity.

It is a fundamental expectation that government entities act in a financially responsible manner; it follows that limiting the size and scope of government is a necessary component of achieving this end.

V. Personal Responsibility is the primary duty of all citizens.

We are a nation of individuals held together by a common vision. We are not servants of the government; we are not dependent on the benevolence of society for our survival. Our possibilities are limitless where a free market is allowed to operate without government distortion; they should not be limited by our local, state and federal government. We are citizens of our country. We as individuals are responsible for our successes and failures.


This section enumerates what we Republicans of Iowa identify as the legislative priorities and stances for our elected representatives.


We move the Iowa Republican Party aggressively support a Life Begins at Conception Bill without exceptions. We believe that all human beings, from conception to natural death, have a God-given and constitutionally protected right to life, which cannot be infringed. We believe all such issues belong under the constitutional authority of the state, not federal, government. We oppose using public revenues for abortion or funding organizations which advocate it. We commend those who provide alternatives to abortion by meeting the needs of mothers and offering adoption services. We reaffirm our support for appointment of judges who respect traditional family values and the sanctity of life. We oppose the non-consensual withholding or withdrawal of care or treatment, including food and water, from people with disabilities, including newborns, as well as the elderly and infirmed, just as we oppose active and passive euthanasia and assisted suicide.

We support an amendment to both the U.S. and the Iowa Constitutions defining and supporting the honored institution of marriage as the legal union between one natural man and one natural woman.

We encourage the repeal of any laws allowing any marriage that is not between one natural man and one natural woman.

We support non-embryonic stem cell research, such as promoting the use of adult stem cells, while opposing human cloning and research using fetal tissue from abortions.

We believe the selling, brokering or marketing of aborted fetal tissue should be illegal.


We support the 1st Amendment to allow prayer in Public Schools and Public Places.

We believe that parents are responsible for their children, and we support the rights of parents to be the ultimate authority for the discipline, protection, and education of their children.

We believe money should follow the child in education – whether that child attends public, private, parochial or home school- to assist parents financially in educating their children using the option best suited to their family’s educational needs. We call on the General Assembly to provide for tuition vouchers, tax deductions, or tax credits to permit parents’ choice in educating their children- without government intervention in the school curriculum.

We strongly believe in the constitutionally protected natural right of individuals to keep and bear arms, as recognized and protected by the Second Amendment, and we support the repeal of existing laws that infringe upon those rights. We support the addition of “stand your ground” and “castle doctrine” provisions to Iowa law.

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.

We support legislation that would prohibit any organization, (in example, Planned Parenthood), from entering public school properties for the purpose of promoting promiscuous behavior and abortion products, videos, or printed material.

The actions of national intelligence agencies must not infringe upon American citizens’ Constitutional rights.

We call for the repeal of sexual orientation in the Iowa Civil Rights Code and reject any additional similar legislation to Local, State or National Code.

We support full local control in schools and therefore oppose any forced national education standard such as the Common Core (now called Iowa Core) and the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS). We also call for a halt to the public funding of any of their supportive components (i.e. bandwidth expansion to support online nationalized testing, collection and transfer of academic and non-academic student data to third parties, and contractual agreements with out-of-state testing consortiums).


We support legislation requiring all regulations by all government agencies (e.g. EPA, Dept. of Ag, Dept. of Interior, etc.) relating to private property and the public good receive congressional authorization prior to their implementation.   The spirit of this seems to be to limit “rule making” a big rub impacting industry and consumers.

We support the right of property owners to vote on bond issues in any district where they pay property tax whether a resident of the district or not.

We support laws that prohibit ownership of United States farmland, property, and other assets by foreign governments or entities controlled by such government.

We believe anyone moving into or already living in areas zoned previously for a particular use be prohibited from filing “nuisance lawsuits” which are antagonistic to such zoning if defendants are in compliance with all governing laws.

We support eliminating all death taxes.

All government fees assessed must be passed by the duly elected governmental body.

We oppose federal or state government taking private property away from the owner for the use of another private party. Eminent domain should be used only for public use.

We support retaining the step-up in basis on assets transferred from a decedent.

National Sovereignty & Defense

We believe the United States should never sacrifice its sovereignty or relinquish control of its soil to the United Nations or any other international body.

We support: legal immigration, common sense improvements to our immigration process, strict enforcement of our current immigration laws, securing of our borders and punishing employers who knowingly hire illegal immigrants.

We reaffirm our commitment to the State of Israel.

Agreements with foreign nations should only be done by treaty and subject to the approval of congress.

We assert that bequeathing citizenship to babies born to illegal immigrants in the United States is a misinterpretation of the 14th amendment.

We believe our servicemen should serve only the United States, our Constitution, and the American Flag.

We call for the government to support “veteran’s issues”. We believe military veterans should be treated with dignity and respect, and that “veterans services” should be consistent and delivered with equality and expedience.

We oppose the United Nations’ Agenda 21 plan, which restricts or destroys the property rights of Americans under the guise of environmentalist initiatives.


We oppose government distortion of the free market through subsidies and bailouts.

We believe energy independence must be the goal of our public policy at both the National and State level. Energy independence entails efficiency, ethanol mandates are not

We call for legislation that would eliminate all public sector unions.

We oppose all mandates associated with alleged global warming, or climate control.

We support legalizing cannabis oil for medical use and industrial hemp for commercial use.

We support a full and exhaustive annual audit of the Federal Reserve.


We support term limits for elected officials, appointed officials, and judges.

We support the requirement that legislation should pertain to one topic and that unrelated amendments to bills should be prohibited. Additionally, omnibus bills should be broken up topically in order to increase oversight and accountability in the legislative and accounting processes.

We support the principles of free-enterprise, accountability and competition in healthcare, we therefore call for the repeal of the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) and auditing all federal health related programs in order to eliminate waste and seek improved ways of delivering needed services.

We support lowering taxes and reducing the size, scope and scale of government – toward this end, we advocate a Balanced Budget Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. We also support a systematic reduction of the national debt.

We support the repeal of the 16th (Federal Income Tax) Amendment and replacing the current complex progressive income tax system with either a consumption-based tax, or a flat tax.

We believe legislation should never exempt legislators.

We support the adoption of English as the official language of the United States of America to strengthen and unite us as a nation of immigrants.

We support a responsible audit of Social Security and evaluating ALL options that would promote the future viability of benefits to potential recipients.

We support legislation designed to enact Tort Reform.

We believe that only US citizens bearing proper photo ID should be allowed to vote.

We support the convening of a Convention of the States according to Article V of the United States Constitution for the purpose of limiting the Federal Government.

We call for the repeal of the 17th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

We support retaining the Electoral College. We oppose the National Popular Vote Compact.

We support the elimination of the following abusive and unconstitutional federal agencies: the IRS, the EPA, the ATF, the TSA, the BLM, the Department of Labor, and the Department of Education.

R Mall

*much  resentment is built toward Iowa’s first in the nation caucus status because of Big Ethanol politics. The RPI SCC letter aggravates resentment and validates criticism of  that status,  inviting agitation for alternative formulations. Instead of dealing with that the RPI RCC seeks to control the process of national convention delegate nominations to better insure they are in tune with Big Ethanol prerogatives, or a shadow platform all are expected to pay homage to.

Posted in UNCATEGORIZED | Leave a comment

RPI member responds to our critique

We received the following communication in response to our post Wednesday

Iowa GOP Central Committee unfairly chides Cruz

It is from a Republican Party of Iowa (RPI)  State Central Committee member.

The vote was unanimous. I was there and can say there is no one on the RPI CC that was “pressured” . Anyone with any knowledge of the current SCC would know this group has been sharply divided on some issues this past year and I know of none that could or would feel pressured.

Your points are weak attempt to cover the obvious reasons that Northey has hold on his nomination by one Senator that represents the oil industry. He is the one holding up good nominee and made it personal by doing so .

A couple of other comments were received but not through the comment channel.  We responded in short order to his in the comment section as follows ( his is there as well):

We were also informed that not every member was in attendance and that the matter was not circulated beforehand.

Apparently we were too subtle as you don’t see the “weakness” of your own view. A personage who pretty much represents the ethanol industry is to be preferred no matter what as if that is unbiased?

We do not oppose Bill Northey but we also see no fault in seeking a better good for the nation’s consumers, including Iowans, or in recognizing that larding up bureaucracies with disguised or undisguised ethanol mandate proponents does not bode well for ever getting a handle on that boondoggle that hurts another industry (supposedly the same industry).

We do see fault in a Republican state central committee letter that is not a little more circumspect about what it says given that Cruz’s position is more in keeping with the Iowa Republican platform, current and previous iterations(ed note — see our post documenting that).

The “pressure’ I mentioned might have been better specified as the presumption to protect the shadow platform — all things ethanol — even when it does not align with the platform of the grassroots Republicans.

Growing corn to be used as a mandated component of gasoline, reducing mileage by the way, is just stupid. If science and economics is on the side of corn-based ethanol why don’t proponents rise to the challenge of removing mandates if it is so efficient and useful? The market will then say yes, give me that gasohol, my car misses it and it is cheaper.

Is Northey being victimized? No more than taxpayers and consumers and the environment by reliance on corn-based ethanol to meet RFS standards, — “standards” that are not warranted now if they ever could be. All Cruz has asked for is more flexibility.

R Mall

Posted in UNCATEGORIZED | 1 Comment

EEE GADS here is a Catholic Bishop upholding doctrine

  • Even the Pope made such noises, before giving knighthood to an abortion proponent

TN alerted us to this item from the Springfield State Journal-Register:

Springfield bishop reaffirms no communion for Sen. Durbin  (excerpt)

Bishop Thomas John Paprocki of the Springfield Roman Catholic diocese has reaffirmed that U.S. Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Illinois, should not be allowed to receive Holy Communion because of a recent vote on an abortion issue.

According to a statement issued by Paprocki on Feb. 13, Durbin was among 14 Catholic members of the U.S. Senate who voted against a bill that would have prohibited abortions starting at 20 weeks after fertilization. The bill, dubbed the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, on Jan. 29 got only 51 of a needed 60 votes to move forward in the Senate.

“Because his voting record in support of abortion over many years constitutes ‘obstinate persistence in manifest grave sin,’ the determination continues that Sen. Durbin is not to be admitted to Holy Communion until he repents of this sin,” Paprocki said.

It was in 2004 that then-Monsignor Kevin Vann of Blessed Sacrament Church in Springfield said he would not give Holy Communion to Durbin because of the lawmaker’s stand that abortion should be legal. Vann is now a bishop in Orange, California.  . . .

Bishop Paprocki’s full statement via

I agree completely with His Eminence, Cardinal Timothy Dolan, Chairman of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops’ (USCCB) Committee on Pro-Life Activities, who called the U.S. Senate’s failure to pass the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act “appalling.”

Fourteen Catholic senators voted against the bill that would have prohibited abortions starting at 20 weeks after fertilization, including Sen. Richard Durbin, whose residence is in the Diocese of Springfield in Illinois. In April 2004, Sen. Durbin’s pastor, then Msgr. Kevin Vann (now Bishop Kevin Vann of Orange, CA), said that he would be reticent to give Sen. Durbin Holy Communion because his pro-abortion position put him outside of communion or unity with the Church’s teachings on life. My predecessor, now Archbishop George Lucas of Omaha, said that he would support that decision. I have continued that position.

Canon 915 of the Catholic Church’s Code of Canon Law states that those “who obstinately persist in mani­fest grave sin are not to be admitted to Holy Communion.” In our 2004 Statement on Catholics in Political Life, the USCCB said, “Failing to protect the lives of innocent and defenseless members of the human race is to sin against justice. Those who formulate law therefore have an obligation in conscience to work toward correcting morally defective laws, lest they be guilty of cooperating in evil and in sinning against the common good.” Because his voting record in support of abortion over many years constitutes “obstinate persistence in manifest grave sin,” the determination continues that Sen. Durbin is not to be admitted to Holy Communion until he repents of this sin. This provision is intended not to punish, but to bring about a change of heart. Sen. Durbin was once pro-life. I sincerely pray that he will repent and return to being pro-life.

Observed by the Pope , in the breach . . .

A 2013 letter from Pope Francis says pro-abortion politicians should not be eligible for communion in the Catholic Church.

In the letter, Pope Francis directed the Argentinean bishops to govern the Church there following the Aparecida Document.

The text states, in part, “[people] cannot receive Holy Communion and at the same time act with deeds or words against the commandments, particularly when abortion, euthanasia, and other grave crimes against life and family are encouraged. This responsibility weighs particularly over legislators, heads of governments, and health professionals.”

“These are the guidelines we need for this time in history,” the pope wrote to the bishops.   . . .

Priests for Life founder Father Frank Pavone praised and commented on the Pope’s letter:


“Some Church leaders mistakenly think we are advocating the use of the Eucharist as a ‘weapon.’ In fact, we are defending the Eucharist from being used as a political tool. “

They want the image of being good acceptable Catholics in communion with the Church.

Indeed Pelosi and other notorious pro-abortion Catholics received communion at a mass honoring Pope Francis with him in attendance    From

So we have frank Francis words, as above, but then he allows such ilk to ignore them, and he also turns around and awards knighthood to a virulent pro-abortion politician:

Pope Francis Awards Architect of Safe-Abortion Fund with Pontifical Honor

So does a Catholic pay more attention to what he does than what he says or what says than what he does?  It is confusing.

*When one is of a different religion or by implication have differences that are so fundamental, or other ineligibility, but are willing to show respect we believe the etiquette is to approach the communion distribution head down with hands crossed against the chest ? Why pro-abortion politicians do not approach as such is probably because they are intent on expressing that they are better Catholics than the Pope and the Bishops and know that Bishops such as Bishop Paprocki are rare birds.

Posted in UNCATEGORIZED | Leave a comment

Stamp your feet, walk out of school, and get attention

  • . . . and maybe get your way?
  • What a way to run a country

With reference to our associate editor’s post yesterday:

Road Trip!

DLH writes:

Very well said Gene. However, to many on the left, you are no better than that b**ch (progressives characterization) –, er lady, Dana Loesch.

That’s certainly in your favor!

I think I own a gun but it’s buried somewhere under all the other stuff accumulated over ‘several decades’. I have served in the Army but never did anything of note. Nevertheless, I am renewing my NRA membership, and I do not think that 16, 17 year olds should make national policy. They are free to speak but I’m not inclined to think that their ‘vast’ life experience is an impressive qualifying credential nor should weigh heavily in a serious debate on national security or the best ways to protect our schools.

Many of the left’s really tired gun control ‘proposals’ are really tired, ineffective, and unserious. More, and more restrictive, background checks? Shouldn’t we first insure the procedures already in effect are observed (I won’t detail the various shortcomings in the execution of these ‘already on the books laws’ in this space, but they are many and have proven deadly in the breach).

Higher age limits for gun ownership? I can support age 21…but does that also mean a person under 21 cannot use and be trained in proper use of a gun under responsible adult supervision?

Mental health restrictions? Sure, but who determines and on what basis. If a 75 year old needs help navigating the maze of healthcare costs, provisions, stipulations, alternatives etc, or has problems setting up a wi-fi printer on their laptop, mean they are ill-equipped mentally to own a gun? Should the mental health care “professionals” make those determinations? Those dedicated folk like the American Psychiatric Association which is so politicized it changes its long-standing assessment of ‘transgenderism” as a mental health “disorder” to “gender dysphoria”, which is another way of saying:”they’re perfectly well-adjusted; it’s society that is wrong”

( ).

Perhaps if the APA steps in and declares that there’s a lot of mental health “disorder” goin’ on with those NRA ‘gun nuts’, and thus, nobody should be allowed to own such potentially lethal products! Why… one could fall into the hands of an NRA member. Oh Nooo!


R Mall chimes in: Regarding age limits for gun ownership . . .  if we raise the age to 21 will the new armed forces enlistment minimum age be raised accordingly?  After all those inductees can drive tanks! Maybe we should accept moving the age of majority to 21 as it was when I was a yute. These snowflakes seem far more adolescent, no, more childish with their emphasis on “feeling safe”

Posted in UNCATEGORIZED | 1 Comment

Abbas settles for inferior healthcare here

  • Gee,  we wonder why he didn’t go to a Cuban hospital where the health care is so much better!
  • And they are aligned with the Palestinian cause –  a twofer!!!
  • We bet Micheal Moore could have gotten him in

Abbas downplays health concerns after US hospital visit  (Daily Mail article)

 Palestinian president Mahmud Abbas appeared on local television Friday to downplay concerns over his health after undergoing what were described as routine tests in the United States.

In an interview with Palestine TV while in the US, 82-year-old Abbas rejected reports he had been rushed to hospital during his visit.

“It was a suitable opportunity to be here to conduct some medical tests, and these tests have been conducted and now we left,” he said after leaving hospital.

“Thank God all the results are positive and reassuring.”

The health of the longtime smoker has long been the subject of speculation, with no clear successor identified.

Abbas was in the US to meet with political allies amid a breakdown of communication with the US administration following President Donald Trump’s controversial recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital.

The Palestinians, who see the eastern part of the city as the capital of their future state, have said the US has disqualified itself as a mediator in talks with Israel and cut political ties with the administration.

Trump is expected to propose a peace plan in the coming months.

Abbas has been in power since winning presidential elections in 2005.

He has remained in the role despite his initial mandate expiring as splits between the Palestinian factions have made fresh elections impossible.

So this person with an expired mandate comes to the lair of the Great Satan to meet about a controversy Satan’s Beelzebubs,  like Clinton and Obama, had endorsed. Oh the sacrifices Abbas makes for the good of the cause. OK, here’s to his health.

DLH with R Mall

Posted in UNCATEGORIZED | Leave a comment

So they call Trump Hitler but want him to take away guns

  • Liberal media sponsoring kangaroo courts
  • Child-like solutions
  • Incredible historic and topical ignorance but with histrionics to make more gun control “unarguable”
  • What other age restrictions should we put on snowflakes? Do their peers really want them speaking for them?

Here are a group of posts from various sources with various sub-themes that we find compelling even if we do not agree with every nuance

7 Terrible Liberal Gun Control Arguments … And How To Beat Them

Amazing New Breakthrough To Reduce Mass Shootings! 

Thanks to our Second Amendment, the United States has fewer mass shootings per capita than many other developed countries, including Norway, France, Switzerland, Finland, Belgium and the Czech Republic. (And 98 percent of our mass shootings occur in “gun-free zones.”)

But imagine if we could cut our mass shootings in half?

There have been about 34 mass shootings since 2000. Forty-seven percent — 16 — were committed by first- and second-generation immigrants, i.e. people who never would have been here but for Teddy Kennedy’s 1965 immigration act.

School Shootings Demand Deep Study, Not Faux Solutions 

Why the Democrats Just Lost the House and Senate 

Well, if the Second Amendment community was “fat and happy” on Tuesday, they aren’t complaisant any more. All night after the shooting, Americans logged in to Gun Owners of America to give us money — money we will use to, once again, make sure that not one word of gun control is signed into law.

They understand that, while Joe Donnelly, Joe Manchin, Heidi Heitkamp, Jon Tester, Claire McCaskill, Angus King, Sharrod Broun, Tammi Baldwin, Bill Nelson, and Bob Casey have given lip-service to the Second Amendment, they would elect a Schumer/Pelosi leadership team that would make a ban on guns in 20,000,000 American households their key objective.

Given this reality, there is only one thing that could stand in the way of the Democrats’ demise: Republicans.

The Senate GOP is reportedly holding secret meetings about how it could become “the party that finally delivers gun control, after Obama’s eight-year failure to do so.” GOP Whip John Cornyn’s “Fix NICS” bill would shovel millions of new Americans into the FBI’s “gun ban list.”

School Shootings Aren’t Due To Toxic Masculinity, But A Lack Of Masculinity

Any discussion of the mass shooting crisis must include the cultural rot of masculinity. The problem is not with men, but with a culture that allows boys to remain boys well into adulthood.

Posted in UNCATEGORIZED | Leave a comment

Road Trip!

Students all over the country are saving their lunch money and chartering buses for trips to Washington DC.

Oops! I mean, established anti-gun groups, funded by George Soros, Michael Bloomberg, and others are chartering buses. They intend to take impressionable young students on a road trip. They will have those students parrot the words that previously have proven ineffective in convincing lawmakers to ban certain types of weapons.

These students will be fed, led to a rally, and fawned over by a sympathetic media. A few of the most articulate will be preened and allowed to preach to a cheering crowd. Since the audience knows little about the Constitution, and nothing about weapons, they will applaud even the most ridiculous statements.

If by some chance they could convince lawmakers to ban possession of firearms like in Austrailia, I have a simple question. What are you going to do about me?

Me, a life-long QC resident, involved in the community, known by 100s of people. A veteran, I’ve already written that blank check to defend the Constitution. I will never surrender any weapon I currently own. I will never surrender even a single high-capacity magazine.

So, society, I pose this question: Are you ready to incarcerate me? Kill me? Who are you going to send knocking on my door?

In the words of Charlton Heston, “I’ll give you my gun when you pry it from my cold, dead hands.”

Of course, I’m the only person in the country like that.

Eugene Mattecheck Jr.

Posted in UNCATEGORIZED | Leave a comment

Iowa GOP Central Committee unfairly chides Cruz

• Cruz’s position is about protecting the family pocketbook, sustainable energy independence, for the greater good – protecting one industry from doing a number on another  

• Cruz’s position more in tune with Iowa Republican platform – see planks

• Shouldn’t the RPI letter (see below) be to Trump et al to meet with Cruz so at least someone can represent the RPI platform as opposed to the Central Committee’s ethanol shadow platform (and then we can all move on)

• Grassley should call for an end to indefinite “holds” for all  — or is it that Senatorial privilege is more important than the peoples’ business

• More people including Iowans (as reflected in the RPI Platform) object to the pinch of ethanol mandates and Renewable Fuel Standard (RFI), the real issue

Here is the latest as to what is going on.  See our previous post for more background. The Chairman of the RPI – Jeff Kaufmann – issued the following statement yesterday in conjunction with a letter from the RPI State Central Committee (CC). The actual vote on the measure is unknown at this writing although we would not be surprised if it were unanimous due to pressure.  We will be happy to list exceptions. That letter is embedded below.  The RPI website has also emblazoned on its home page a petition to #FreeNorthey!

For the record, Bill Northey may have deserved a quicker confirmation vote .  But who is more to blame than those opposed to a sit-down to look for an RFS compromise when the existing policy harms other industry (and people)?  If Cruz did not release a hold subsequent to that, then complain.   We might as well.

The Kaufmann statement  threat:

“Senator Cruz has entertained this political position for too far long, and it’s becoming increasingly harmful to both Iowans and our agricultural industry at large,” said Iowa GOP Chairman Jeff Kaufmann. “Iowa is lucky to have received Secretary Northey’s leadership, but the nation’s agriculture industry is ready to benefit from his vision. I highly encourage Senator Cruz to get back to doing what he does best – promoting the conservative agenda – particularly if he is to remain in good standing with Iowa conservatives should he return here in future endeavors.”

The Central Committee letter (as viewed on Quad City Times  website)

Here are some earlier news reports providing more objectivity than the RPI- CC can muster.  They fall short of mentioning that Cruz’s objection to mandates is better in tune with the Iowa Republican Platform.  For more extensive information see our post. We note that Cruz’s wining of the Iowa Caucuses with a position opposing mandates is not mentioned in the RPI letter.  All below are Cedar Rapids Gazette stories:

Ted Cruz confirms his hold on Northey nomination

Texas senator confirms hold on Northey nomination to federal ag post 

Northey federal nomination caught between oil, ethanol interests

Parts of the RPI /Kaufmann letter are just offensive. Referring to Cruz’s position as personal or political when the letter he signed is in support of a particular person with particular political position is pathetic. Cruz feels inflexible RFS mandates are harmful to what is good for the energy industry, (isn’t the ethanol industry now advocated as part of the energy industry?) and more sustainable energy independence (corn ethanol is not).  This statement by Chairman Kaufmann“I highly encourage Senator Cruz to get back to doing what he does best – promoting the conservative agenda – to be honest should read, except when it comes to ethanol mandates and the RFS. 

The Republican Party of Iowa platform on relevant matters is as follows. Reading it we find that Cruz by all implications is more in tune with conservatives everywhere and Iowa Republican thought.  Bold emphasis ours.


We support legislation requiring all regulations by all government agencies (e.g. EPA, Dept. of Ag, Dept. of Interior, etc.) relating to private property and the public good receive congressional authorization prior to their implementation.

National Sovereignty & Defense

8    We oppose the United Nations’ Agenda 21 plan, which restricts or destroys the property rights of Americans under the guise of environmentalist initiatives. (ed. note: property rights presumably includes the pocketbook)


1    We oppose government distortion of the free market through subsidies and bailouts.
2   We believe energy independence must be the goal of our public policy at both the National and State level.
3   We oppose all mandates associated with alleged global warming, or climate control.

4   We support lowering taxes and reducing the size, scope and scale of government – toward this end, we advocate a Balanced Budget Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. We also support a systematic reduction of the national debt.

14    We support the elimination of the following abusive and unconstitutional federal agencies: the IRS, the EPA, the ATF, the TSA, the BLM, the Department of Labor, and the Department of Education.

R Mall

Posted in UNCATEGORIZED | 2 Comments

Now you can get inoculated against the disease of anti-progressive thought!

“Researchers at Cambridge last year found that briefly exposing people to tactics used by fake news producers can act as a “psychological vaccine” against bogus anti-science campaigns.”


Halellulia!! We are saved!

directed at progressives

A “psychological vaccine” is apparently being developed by which people (especially young people) will be able to immediately recognize when they are being “exposed” to “fake news”… some of the worst of such purveyors would be those who peddle “anti-science campaigns”.

Ah, then the question becomes “who will determine which ‘campaigns’ are spreading such stuff as ‘anti-science’ views so that people will know to ignore and dismiss them?”

Well, let’s see. How about those “campaigns” that suggest that the so-called ‘climate change science’ is not so “settled” after all? (see references @ * below).  Is it possible that the same elite intellectuals who design the defenses against “fake news” is of the same ‘superior class’ who have told us that this ‘science’ topic is no longer debatable?

Or, how about challenges to the current avant grade ‘scientific’ theories of “gender’ being nothing more than a state ‘assigned at birth’, presumably by ignorant parents? Fake news? It is if you have fully bought into the LGBGTQ “movement”!

Maybe solid evidence of mistaken ‘scientific’ verification that human life doesn’t begin at birth and that a fetus is simply discardable tissue…like a wart… is deemed “fake news”?

Say ‘goodbye’ to”Grand Theft Auto” kids . . . you’re about to become experts on what information you must disregard!      DLH

Play ‘fake news tycoon’ to combat misinformation

London (AFP) – Trolling, impersonating, demonising: these are just some of the behaviours encouraged in a new online game launching Tuesday in which young players become “fake news tycoons” — to counter growing misinformation.

Researchers at Cambridge University have teamed up with a Dutch media collective to develop an English version of the game aimed at inoculating people against the spread of so-called fake news.

The exercise encourages participants, who are tasked with building audiences for their imaginary fake news sites, to stoke fear, anger and mistrust by simulating the manipulation of online content.

In the game they choose polarising falsehoods to publish, cultivate an army of Twitter bots, fabricate evidence, and propagate dubious articles and conspiracy theories.

“If you know what it is like to walk in the shoes of someone who is actively trying to deceive you, it should increase your ability to spot and resist the techniques of deceit,” said Sander Van Der Linden, director of the university’s Social Decision-Making Lab.

“We want to help grow ‘mental antibodies’ that can provide some immunity against the rapid spread of misinformation,” she added.

The psychological theory behind the effort is called “inoculation”.

Researchers at Cambridge last year found that briefly exposing people to tactics used by fake news producers can act as a “psychological vaccine” against bogus anti-science campaigns.

A pilot study conducted with teenagers in a Dutch high school used an early paper-and-pen trial of the online game, and showed the perceived “reliability” of fake news to be diminished in teens that played compared to a control group.

“A biological vaccine administers a small dose of the disease to build immunity,” said Van Der Linden.

“Similarly, inoculation theory suggests that exposure to a weak or demystified version of an argument makes it easier to refute when confronted with more persuasive claims.”

The game, based in part on existing studies of online disinformation, takes its cues from actual conspiracy theories about organisations such as the United Nations, and about issues such as vaccines.

It is set to be translated for countries such as Ukraine, where disinformation campaigns are particularly rife

*If there is any sincere effort at objectivity and regard for scientific methodology they would offer “climate change”  as the sine qua non of  group think trolling, corruption, impersonating the truth, demonizing . . .

Global Warming Zealotry: A case study in groupthink  

NOAA caught “cooking the books” again, this time by erasing a record cold snap  


Should foreign countries indict US operatives for election interference?

  • Revelations!! —  Russians sow discord . . . use propaganda . . . Pope Catholic*
  • Mueller CYA / PR strategy – show all the money is well-spent – indict a ham sandwich
  • Still nothing as regards Trump — give it up Mueller you Democrat Deep State operative Torquemada bastard
  • Why do US based actions aimed at other countries not rise to indictable offenses using Mueller’s or other countries’ standards?
  • How many parts of the indictment would likely survive judicial review under actual election law grounded in the First Amendment?

We think the latter two bullet points are worthy of serious analysis, the others obvious.  We suspect the analysis of the techniques, actual money spent and impact would show a grand case of hypocrisy by those “SHOCKED” by news that Russians try to interfere in other countries affairs . . . as if US operatives don’t. Further the Mueller indictments were “easy”  — name some foreboding violations by foreigners but with realizations that the perps will never be brought to trial. If they were, the trial platform (including surrounding PR)  would be highly embarrassing.    R Mall

Related reading from Patriot Post:

The Russian Destabilizing Campaign

On Friday, news broke that Robert Mueller’s special investigation had indicted 13 Russians and three Russian organizations for having engaged in efforts to interfere in the 2016 U.S. election. In his announcement, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein explained, “The defendants allegedly conducted what they called information warfare against the United States, with the stated goal of spreading distrust towards the candidates and the political system in general.” Rosenstein also pointed out that no Americans were being indicted, saying, “There is no allegation in this indictment that any American was a knowing participant in this illegal activity.” He added, “There is no allegation in the indictment that the charge conduct altered the outcome of the 2016 election.” However, Rosenstein did note that the investigation remains ongoing.

The indictment states in part, “Some Defendants, posing as U.S. persons and without revealing their Russian association, communicated with unwitting individuals associated with the Trump Campaign and with other political activists to seek to coordinate political activities.” The Russians sought to prop up the candidates who initially looked like outliers, such as Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders, while they worked to spread negative information against Hillary Clinton, Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio. Clearly, the Russians were not allied to any one political party or platform; instead, they sought to sow as much discord within the American political election process as possible. This conclusion is emphasized by post-election activity, when Russian agents engaged in organized efforts to both defend and attack Trump’s presidency. It was a political destabilization campaign that harkens back to Cold War-era espionage. And it serves as a reminder that Russian leadership is just as committed to weakening the U.S. as it ever has been.

Russia is “our number one geopolitical foe,” Mitt Romney said in 2012, to the mockery of Barack Obama and Democrats everywhere. Romney was right.

Following the news, Trump tweeted, “If it was the GOAL of Russia to create discord, disruption and chaos within the U.S. then, with all of the Committee Hearings, Investigations and Party hatred, they have succeeded beyond their wildest dreams. They are laughing their a—s off in Moscow. Get smart America!” Trump is right.

Deliberately muddying the message, The Washington Post responded to the news by suggesting that it was Trump who has egg on his face with a story entitled “Trump’s Russia ‘hoax’ turns out to be real.” The piece then spins the Mueller indictment and accuses Trump of being wrong for calling the Russiagate investigation a “witch-hunt” and a “hoax” because Russia did seek to interfere. But the Post obscures the fact that what Trump called a hoax was the Demo/MSM narrative that his campaign supposedly colluded with Russia — a narrative Mueller’s indictment appears to undermine.

It’s interesting to note the immense weight Democrats and the Leftmedia are willing to attribute to 13 Russians in their ability to influence the outcome of an election, while at the same time downplaying as completely inconsequential the impact that millions of illegal aliens living in the U.S. have on our elections. Which party is it that time and again rejects common-sense election fraud protections such as voter ID?

*the Pope Catholic thing used to be a tautology,  or a statement of the obvious — not so much as regards the current Pope, in our humble opinion it seems debatable.  More later

Posted in UNCATEGORIZED | Leave a comment