Chuck Hurly and the slings and arrows of the Democrat slime machine.

The Iowa Family Policy Council’s Chuck Hurley has been leading the fight to preserve Iowa’s place among the civilized cultures of the world in recognizing the definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

Although Democrats surely understand that 10,000 generations of human history and every major religion on every continent have evolved the foregoing definition as a badge of civilization and that around 75% of Iowans favor that definition of marriage they cannot retreat from the radical demand for changing the definition of marriage. Expansive victimization is, after all, one of the two or three major premises of the modern liberal Democrat ideology and amidst the prosperity and freedom of 21st Century America real victims are becoming much harder to locate.

In doing so, Chuck has exposed the extent, $170,000 of extent, to which out of state homosexual groups have attempted to impose the liberals’ attempt to reverse those 10,000 generations of civilization. Rather than debate on the merit, the Democrat Machine did what the intellectually bankrupt liberal does, call Chuck names and accuse him of “hate mongering“.

No substantive debate, of course. The true mongers of hate will not allow even the modest one hour of debate that our Minority Leader Christopher Rants has requested. It wouldn’t even take an hour to expose the bizarre syllogism that purports the moral value of homosexual marriage and the Democrats don’t want to risk public exposure of the logical vacuum in which their position resides.

We here at TRS are thinking that Hurley isn’t going to be intimidated by the catcall that union thugs substitute for argument.

Barone predicts a new map.

Real Clear politics has a great article by Michael Barone regarding the suddenly fluid electoral map.

The emergence of John McCain and to a lesser extent, Barack Obama (who is, after all, merely a more likeable and less hysterical liberal socialist/paternalist/pacifist) create the potential for an entirely new electoral map.

Good reading. Johnny Mac has a chance to turn Oregon, Washington, Minnesota, Wisconsin and a lesser shot at Pennsylvania, New Hampshire and Michigan. The Drama has a good shot to turn Iowa, New Mexico and Ohio, with a lesser chance at Virginia and Montana.

That much fluidity and eight months to go. 2008 might just be an eventful year.

Move America Forward-Boycott Berkley

TRS readers are, no doubt, familiar with the attack the city of Berkley, California launched on USMC recruiters. Nothing more than the voices and faces of the Berkeley City Council is necessary to conclude that the Berkely City Council does, indeed, despise our fighting heroes and heroines. Yes, Virginia, that is an example of the worst of American liberalism.

The conservative action network, Move America Forward has started a campaign to boycott Berkley. You can sign here to approve that boycott.

Even better, if you or anyone you know owns Berkley muni bonds (we assume Berkley has issued such instruments of indebtedness) please sell them, if possible. The city fathers over in such a crazy town probably don’t care what Midwesterners think of them but they do care about the merchantability of their bonds.

Hey, it might not work but if it did---that’s a big victory in the Culture War.

Geldof on Bush on Africa.

We came across this great article about the President by Bob Geldof. Remember, Geldof is a liberal critic of conservatism.

After reading this article, and reflecting on George W. Bush’s direct and personal salvation of millions of Africans, and the epic progression of American policy in Africa that President Bush has set in motion, one might be prompted to question the reasonableness of awarding the Nobel Peace Prize to the producer of a movie about a hotly disputed scientific environmental theory.

The only question for we have for the Boomtown Rat is this-if W is that right on about Africa might you at least allow for the possibility that Dub’s Iraq and Middle Eastern policy might be equally well informed, just a lot harder to implement?

W hits a homer.

We all know that W is a huge baseball fan. This morning’s press conference at the White House provided the President with an opportunity to hit a home run.
The entire transcript will be available at the White House website and we won’t repeat the entire event here. We hope to get the video linked as soon as we find it.

The President finally articulated the truly mindless (there’s that word again) nature of liberal insistence that the US has failed/is failing in Iraq. After spending years of accusing the President of ignoring the realities in Iraq the liberal line hasn’t changed since the “Surge” began. The President actually cartooned on the libs by accusing them of “staying the course” by insisting that defeat is just around the corner.

The President’s position exposes the commitment to defeat in Iraq and failure in the larger War on Terror. When locked in a battlefield stalemate in Iraq, libs insisted that defeat was inevitable and the only course was to cut our losses and run in the face of al Qaeda and the local jihad. After more than a year of almost constant success, libs now say that victory is irrelevant and we should cut our losses and run in the face of a defeated al Qaeda so that they can reclaim the chaos they created between 04-06. Either way, the liberal answer is cut and run. Not since the Democrat Copperheads of 1863-1865 has an American political party been as committed to defeat at any price as are today’s Democrat leadership.

The President’s second great point was the silliness of meeting with tyrants like Raul Castro and the friendly and misunderstood Nazi, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (who in a particularly Hitlerian diatribe now claims that Iran is the world’s number one power). Democrats continuously claim that W is wrong not to summit with the Castro, Chavez, Ahmadinejad, and their fellow anti-American dictators.

W’s response, meeting with tyrants legitimizes the tyrant. When POTUS meets with someone it vests in that person/country the legitimacy of recognition by the United States. In light of the statements in the link above, how does the rational reader think the world press , much less the Middle Eastern jihadist press, would play an American President meeting with Ahmadinejad?

W also was able to get in quite a few humorous quips that targeted the self-important rubes who pass for journalists in today’s America.

Mary Mascher’s motto: If it doesn’t work, don’t fix it.

Apparently, Iowa City Democrat Mary Mascher, thinks that the race to Gomorrah in which America is engaged can somehow be slowed if educators, state controlled of course, ratify the virtues of junior high sexualism.

Iowa Independent has an excellent article on the upcoming sex rally. Tomorrow, Ms. Mascher, and another of the liberal childrens’ sex rights advocacy groups, FutureNet, will hold a public policy briefing in which they will demand the state withdraw from federal funding for abstinence only sex education. Mascher articulates the primary objection as:

“"There's been discussion on whether or not we should be accepting these federal monies at all because the criteria for abstinence-only programs at the federal level is not medically accurate..." How can abstinence advocates be wrong? If teenagers don’t have sex they cannot: (1) get pregnant (and every one of us who raised daughters know that is the big scare); and (2) contract virtually any form of SDT. Mascher’s objection is, of course, gibberish and every single adult knows that to be true.

Much like the liberal position on global warming, highly questionable scientific claims obscure the moral and ideological bankruptcy of the real liberal agenda or, at least the historically demonstrated consequences of the liberal policy line.

Why in the hell are schools teaching anything beyond biology about the science of sex? Isn’t everything else about one’s sexual behavior both intensely private and, quite frankly, morally subjective? No legitimate governmental purpose is served by sex education beyond basic scientific principles. Since most high schoolers aren’t likely to be artificially inseminated, even less likely to be cloned and most unlikely to produce a divine offspring, abstinence will prevent most adverse by-products of premature sexuality.

Think of the educational time and effort (which means the consumption of your tax dollars) that is spent discussing sex? Homosexual and bisexual groups are now commonly allowed in high school extracurricular curriculum. Sexual behavior is widely discussed in most schools in a variety of settings, from health and science classes to government and political classes.

Perhaps the bureaucrats that we call educators should simply refer students to those students’ parents for discussions of sex? The government has no role in discussions of sexual morality, yet the liberal bureaucrats that we all call educators have systematically sought to imbue youth with moral ambivalence in all personal matters, especially those involving sex.

So, apparently Ms. Mascher either thinks that soaring rates of teen pregnancy, sexual assault, venereal disease and the debasement of women are the virtuous objectives of educational policy or she is utterly blinded to the consequences of the moral degeneration of our culture that the Baby Boom educational model has produced.

So why don’t we have teachers shut up about sex and start teaching some American history and literature during the time they want to teach junior high students about condom use and the benefits of second and third base.

Quick Democrat Debate Recap

The Dems debated again tonight. The event was, well, most uneventful. However, near the end, Russert landed hard body blows on both Democrats-in and of itself the most atypical of MSNBC broadcasting techniques.

First, the Drama of Obama was asked about breaking his written promise to accept only public financing during the “general election” phase of the FEC cycle. The Drama dissembled with a degree of legerdemain previously found only in the lexicon of President Clinton. It was Obama’s single worst moment of the campaign. The most troubling aspect was the ease with which Obama lapsed into deceit and dissimilation-it undercuts much of the premise of his campaign.

As much as TRS is pulling for Evita to sufficiently close the race to get the Dems to a convention fight, sadly she was not to be out sleazed. When asked about her refusal to release her marital tax returns, particularly significant because so much of President Clinton’s income comes from Middle Eastern interests, Hillary’s deceit was ludicrous. In the end, she actually blamed President Bush (Dubya not Poppy) for the failure to release the documents because the current President has to authorize the release of Clinton era White House archives.

Aside from the complete lack of the relationship between the Clintons’ current tax returns and her White House archival documents, do even Democrats believe that George W. Bush is slowing the release of Hillary’s (and Bill’s for that matter) White House documents? Des Moines Dem, rf, Spotlight-are you with me on at least this one? I think the Bubba/Dubya/Poppy relationship is such that Bill could pick up the phone, dial the Oval Office (and I’m guessing Dubya takes the call) and ask brother George if he could declassify some archival papers for Hillary.

The funniest moment occurred when the genius, the smartest woman in the history of the United States, and quite possibly Western, if not world, civilization couldn’t name the hand picked successor of Vlad “the Impaler” Putin. After stumbling over several different versions of a name roughly similar to the correct answer, Hillary ultimately settled on “whatever“. Sorry Senator with 35 years experience, the correct answer was Dmitry Medvedev. The liberal press guffawed through the 2004 election over President Bush’s inability to recall the President of Pakistan’s name back in 2000. We’ll see how tonight’s Jeopardy gaffe is treated in the liberal press.

Wow, these guys could be flattened next November if we play our hand with aggression, innovation and the courage of our conservative convictions.

Bipartisan Property Rights Proposal

Bill 1: Requires that the compensation commission meet in an open session with the landowner present. Currently, valuation is done in a closed door session.

Bill 2: When acquiring land for a lake, the agency must meet a clear and convincing standard and demonstrate there are no feasible alternatives available. Drinking water needs are based only on current usage. Provides resources for landowners: a 2nd water usage study at the expense of the acquiring agency; attorney’s fees in a contested proceeding; and reimbursement for loss of existing business relationships when a business cannot be relocated. Limits municipality’s ability to condemn agricultural land or land outside city limits.

Bill 3: Changes two standards for acquiring property for a lake: it must be reasonable and necessary; and demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence. Water needs are based on current usage, potential for groundwater usage, and shall use alternatives to the federal guidelines. Property owners can request a 2nd study to be done at the expense of the acquiring agency and request a public hearing to consider influence of a federal agency.

Bill 4: Property cannot be removed from the state historical register in order to have it condemned. State or local tax dollars can’t be used for lobbying efforts on behalf of a project requiring use of eminent domain. The condemning authority must have adequate funding for a project before land is condemned. Increases the legal standard to “clear and convincing” and provides for loss of existing business relationships.

Bill 5: Projects acquiring land through eminent domain are excluded from receiving state tourism or community betterment funds.

Bill 6: Establishes a property owner defense fund to reimburse incurred legal costs.

Bill 7: Requires the Governor’s signature on a project where the state uses condemnation. Precludes the DNR from using condemning authority for recreational areas in the state.

Protection of property rights: Fallon joins Republicans in looking out for the little guy.

Republican Representatives Jodi Tymeson, Pat Grassley and Jeff Kaufmann were joined today by Democrat Congressional candidate Ed Fallon in presenting a well conceived response to Gov. Culver and the legislative Democrats’ attempts to circumvent existing limitations on the eminent domain power of condemnation. Put another way, the Democrat machines ability to seize your property in biased condemnation procedures and give it to their donors. The bi-partisan proposal is set out in the left margin under our General Assembly section. Click the link, its well worth the read.

Limitation of condemnation powers is the genetic default position of every Republican not involved in municipal development. Indeed, the sanctity of private property was a foundation upon which the American Revolution was based. Hell, it was the foundation upon which the Barons’ Revolt at Runnymeade lead to the Magna Charta
Eminent domain powers have grown because the liberal model of government, dominant in this country since the New Deal, requires ever increasing government power over the daily activities of our citizenry. The result, government at all levels require ever increasing amounts of money. One source of such money is seizing and selling citizen’s property.

Ed Fallon brings a populist’s perspective to the issue. Protection of the virtuous citizenry, set in juxtaposition to powerful, and at times unseen, elites, is also a premise of the last strain of useful liberal, the populist. Of course, populists are out of vogue in the Democrat Party, because every Democrat policy needs to vest more power in the most powerful of elites, government bureaucrats.

Aside from the obvious-we could gain a much larger share of the vote if we focused more on the populist aspects of Republicanism-it is heartwarming to see such strange political bed fellows.

Maybe it will be contagious?

The Real Issue By: Jon Narcisse

On behalf of John McCain, and myself, believe everything you read in print, especially if it is in the Des Moines Register. Meanwhile, what you haven't read about in the paper Iowa depends on is the severe and documented academic crisis of our state's largest school district.

The Iowa Department of Education just released graduation data for all Iowa's school districts. Using the formula the Des Moines School District has defended so aggressively the state's report documented that the Des Moines' graduation rate declined by ten points this past year and is the state's second worse, leading only the Council Bluffs School District. The two districts combined to produce five of Iowa's eight Dropout Factory High Schools in the recent Johns Hopkins National Study.

On Tuesday, February 19, 2008, Dr. Sebring's achievement report to the School Board documented declines in eight of nine academic areas for 4th, 8th and 11th grade proficiency on the ITBS and ITED and that less than 60% of our 11th graders tested proficient in reading, math or science. In a recent analysis Des Moines ranked 331 out of 341 districts in Iowa in 4th and 8th grade reading and math proficiency.

We as a District promote failing students from kindergarten through the eighth grade. Literally a student can get straight Fs can 150 days of school and get promoted through our District until he enters high school. Here's an email I received from a teacher recently:

"Our district has a serious issue with promoting students that have no business being in the next grade. I teach the same students for three years. I am one of the only middle school teachers in the district that has this perspective. I have had students who have failed for three years that still are passed to high school? How and why is this acceptable? They then get to high school, fail, and what? 'I am not being passed on.' They then fall behind and eventually will drop out. We are not teaching students to be accountable for their actions in middle school. This is the crucial make or break time. I can about predict my students that will successfully complete high school and the ones that will unfortunately drop out. Why can we not end social promotion? How is this benefiting our students? I want someone to answer this question for me as a teacher and as a parent."

Violence, discipline problems, bullying are rampant in our district. We represent just over six percent of the state's enrolled student population yet nearly 20% of the students suspended or expelled in this state are enrolled in the Des Moines School District. Bullying is also a huge problem.

Since the arrival of our new superintendent the board tripled the number of superintendents, created three executive director positions, have tons of administrative staff yet not a single one of our three dozen elementary schools and only one of our middle schools has a full-time librarian. Why hasn't the register addressed the top heavy nature of our district and the role it plays in our current academic crisis?

As a student of history I understand that at times the 4th estate has not been the independent voice informing and educating the public but the "champion" of the status quo. Although our local media in general has failed to cover a number of major Des Moines School District storylines, The Register has singularly failed this community by going the extra step of shielding this community from fundamental truths regarding our District.

I can understand the political motives of a Board that has been silent on key academic concerns crippling this District for years. The voters will decide if this has been acceptable.

In recent years Des Moines School Board incumbents have found the public isn't happy with the board's failures. Name the legislators representing districts covering Des Moines defeated in re-election bids, the county supervisors or the city council members? I can but most can't because such defeats are so rare.


Now name the incumbents of the past few years running for re-election on the Des Moines School Board that haven't been defeated, especially sitting board presidents? On the other hand the voters don't get to weigh in on The Register's manipulation of the flow of information regarding the Des Moines School District. I did a search of The Register's archives. In the last six months I've been in the paper about 50 times, including a Duffy spoof this past Friday. Yet the litany of concerns expressed in this instant commentary, and many other pressing concerns, have rarely warranted Des Moines Register ink or investigation.

Why aren't these issues important to The Register? That's the question those of you that care about this district, and the education of our children, now need to start asking The Register.