After the taping of his Fox News show on Saturday Governor Mike Huckabee left on his eleventh trip to Israel.  One of his first stops on his visit was a reception at the Shepherd's Hotel in east Jerusalem and this stop will be part of a larger tour around the country that is going to highlight opposition to recent US policies, in particular President Obama's demands that Israel halt construction on settlements in east Jerusalem.  Organizers of this trip said that Huckabee was currently the No. 1 Republican consideration for the 2012 presidential race, and "one of the best friends Israel has in America."  Before and after the event at the hotel there were protests from left-wing activists which drew a strong response from the rightists who were there supporting Govenor Huckabee's visit and message.

During his tour today Huckabee also had this to say in regards to the Obama administration's choice to dictate who can live where in Jerusalem and compared it to racial segregation.

“My question is how would the government of the United States feel if Prime Minister Netanyahu began to dictate which people could live in the Bronx, which ones could live in Manhattan, and which could live in Queens,’” he said. Huckabee spoke with reporters as he toured the remains of the ancient Jewish City of David (Ir David) in eastern Jerusalem Monday.

Governor Huckabee finished up his day in Israel today with a blog post highlighting his attendance at the hotel reception and the media frenzy around it.  He will be updating often on his blog, facebook, and twitter.  In addition, there has also been word that a twelfth trip to Israel is being planned by Huckabee and he is inviting people to come along.

Thursday 3^rd District Congressman Leonard Boswell held what was supposed to have been his first Town Hall Meeting on the much disputed Health Care Reform Bills bouncing around the halls of Congress. The meeting was held in the public library of the small rural community of Sigourney located in Keokuk County about 30 miles east of Oskaloosa. This city is situated near the extreme edge of the Congressman’s District causing some to question his motivation for holding his first health care event so far from the larger population centers of the District. Some have even speculated that the event was orchestrated to prevent the kind of dissent that we have witnessed across the country while allowing Boswell to claim that he held the meetings. If these were the true intentions of this meeting then Congressman Boswell has failed miserably.

In fact more than one hundred concerned citizen’s flocked to this small community hoping to get an opportunity to ask the Congressman a question or to simply make a statement regarding the proposals that Congress is contemplating. What many of these attendees were not expecting was to be turned away at the door because they were not aware of the need to RSVP Congressman Boswell’s office. Unfortunately for these people it was not publicized that they needed to call ahead to guarantee their a seat for the event. It was not publicized on the Congressman’s website that this was a requirement. In fact it appeared that the only people that were aware of this necessity were members of AFSCME and SEIU as they were the individuals being allowed in. It would not be an unreasonable assumption that Congressman Boswell was attempting to build a sympathetic crowd for his affirmation of a public option.

In fact despite the ongoing propaganda campaign launched by the Democrats in an effort to discredit the voices of opposition the only organized presence of any kind were the aforementioned unions. The only professionally manufactured signs were held by proponents of a public option, most notably the SEIU. Opponents of the plan did have signs, but they were all homemade, hand made signs carried by individuals, not groups.

If Congressman Boswell was attempting to stack the crowd in his favor, his attempt failed spectacularly. If there was just one occurrence of this lack of foresight I think that it would be forgivable. However when you add his condescending Knoxville and his offensive Chariton event there is really only one conclusion that an intelligent individual can come too. Leonard Boswell has become an incompetent old fool. He is past his prime and hurting his constituents more than helping them. The honorable thing for Congressman Boswell to do would be to step down effective immediately. And since I cannot envision his ego allowing him to do that the next best thing for the people of the 3^rd District to do is to vote him out of office in 2010.

The residents of the 3^rd Congressional District are angry. They feel that they are not being represented. They are frustrated because their Congressman has failed to heed their advice. They are confused as to how their elected representative could so willingly turn his back on their will. And most of all they are disgusted by sheer magnitude of arrogance displayed by their representative. The Congressman I am talking about is Leonard Boswell, a member of the US House of Representatives supposedly representing Iowa’s 3^rd Congressional District.

Now you may wonder why the residents of the 3^rd District would feel like Congressman Boswell is not representing them. Perhaps it is the fact that Congressman Boswell’s office took literally thousands of calls urging him to vote no on the recent Cap and Trade legislation. Despite this overwhelming show of opposition Congressman Boswell voted for the legislation. The question in many folk’s minds is why on earth would Boswell deliberately disregard his constituent’s wishes? In fact one brave young professional, Meghan Swella, spoke and asked that very question. And what was Boswell’s answer? He stated that voting yes is a part of the process.

When the issue of ethanol came up a spirited debate ensued. Unfortunately for Congressman Boswell, he come off as ill informed or deceptive when his constituents voice their belief that ethanol was not an answer to our energy concerns. Somehow Boswell interpreted the residents belief that ethanol is just a temporary fix as an attack on ethanol. If Congressman Boswell had been paying a little closer attention he might have understood that the people want real answers, not some half measure being passed about as being a solution. Furthermore Boswell attempts to refute another audience members concern that food prices will continue to rise if the use of ethanol increases. Boswell gives a strange answer talking about how his corn production compared to his father’s corn production will be the reason that food prices will stay low. I know a strange answer. It almost makes me wonder if Boswell is suffering from some form of dementia or could we be seeing the onset of Alzheimer’s Disease in the long serving Congressman. Either way here is a little factoid for Congressman Boswell. This tidbit comes from a text book written by Lester R. Brown, President of Earth Policy Institute, called Plan B 3.0 Mobilizing to Save Civilization. According to Mr. Brown the State of Iowa, in a good year, produces just 2.2 billion bushels of corn. However as of late 2006 the amount of corn demanded for use to produce ethanol reached 2.7 billion bushels. Tell me Mr. Congressman, just how can food prices not rise when the amount of corn needed for ethanol production exceeds total production.

And as I stated in a previous post the subject of cap and trade came up. In the course of discussion on this subject, one glaring truth came through. Congressman Boswell clearly does not respect the power that he wields in the United States House of Representatives, nor does he respect the voters that put him there. During the debate leading up to the vote on cap and trade it was widely reported that Congressman Boswell was concerned with portions of the bill. When Boswell capitulated and voted yes on cap and trade many of his constituents were upset with him. However when we found out at the town hall meeting in Knoxville that he still had concerns with the bill we were beside ourselves. He attempted to repeatedly claim that his affirmative vote was just a part of the process and that future versions o f the bill will remove the portions of the bill that he objected too. One courageous young lady stood up and questioned the method in which Boswell was representing our district. She pointed to the fact that thousands of calls flooded the Congressman’s office in OPPOSITION to the bill.

It has quickly become evident that Congressman Boswell no longer respects the voters that put him there. From the lies, distortions, and deceptions; Congressman Boswell has demonstrated that he is a part of the problem infesting Washington. It is politicians like him that give politicians a bad name. They scheme and plan in an effort to deceive their constituents all in a vain desire to maintain their life of luxury in the capital. With each event and each appearance Boswell’s credibility continues to plummet with the most important people in his life; his constituents. Perhaps a better title for his position would be US House of Un-Representatives.

Edited Version (approx 3 min)

Full Version (approx 20 min)

Leonard Boswell talks Energy at Iowa Town Hall Knoxville from Melody Borucki on Vimeo.

The resignation of John Whitaker (D) in Iowa HD 90 has left a vacant seat and the special election to fill it will be on September 1.  This district includes Van Buren County and parts of Wapello and Jefferson Counties.  While this is a Democrat leaning district, in light of what has been happening it could very well turn into a swing district.

Stephen Burgmeier has received the Republican nomination for this district.  He and his wife, Betty, reside in Lockridge and are partners in the Hooter Lane Farms sow farm, and farm over 300 acres of land. Burgmeier is a three time elected Jefferson County Supervisor, currently serving as chairman, a past district director of the Iowa Pork Producers, an appointed delegate of the Pork Act boards, and a Jefferson County Farm Bureau board member.

Mr. Burgmeier recently made the news as being one of three counties that adapted resolutions that demanded the legislature take action to resolve the conflict between Iowa law and the Iowa Supreme Court's ruling on marriage.

"I think the Legislature and the governor have really not done their job. We now have conflicting Supreme Court opinion and law, and I personally I would like to see the Legislature address the issue," supervisor Steve Burgmeier said.

"We expect the Iowa legislature to resolve the issue," said Stephen Burgmeier, chairman of the three-member, all-Republican board. "We hope it either leads to a public vote or to a constitutional amendment."

It is apparent that Stephen Burgmeier knows how to lead and it is time to gain a seat in the Iowa House.  Please visit his website to learn more.

The other day I saw a bumper sticker on a car that said I vote Democrat because they care about people.  I just had to laugh at the irony of it all.  Care about people?  Really?

The recent poster child for "caring about people" is the aide to Democrat Representative Paul Tonko of New York who admitted while talking about the health care legislation that she gets paid to read the bill for Tonko.  I guess caring about people means that you spend a trillion dollars of your constituents' money on something you didn't even read.

The aide then goes on to admit that "probably the best part of the bill is the increase in Hospice care which will solve the prolonging of life issue."    It looks like Democrats care about people so much that they got both ends of the life spectrum covered.  They dole out money to snuff out life in the beginning stages and now they fund ending life sooner in the later stages.  I guess they only care about you if you meet their criteria of quality of human life.

It all makes sense.  In order for ObamaCare to even remotely work there has to be a fixed amount of people that it can cover.  How do you achieve that?  Promote abortions (which taxpayers will be footing the bill for) and dying with dignity.  To heck with you if it costs too much to keep you alive.  Remember, Democrats care about people.  Hope and Change.

I most strongly propose an amendment to Iowa’s Constitution which would provide an absolute guarantee of the individual right for Iowans to “Keep and Bear Arms.”   I believe that the following language, adopted from Idaho’s state constitution, would ensure against state infringement on this most important right:

“The people have the right to keep and bear arms, which right shall not be abridged; but this provision shall not prevent the passage of laws to govern the carrying of weapons concealed on the person nor prevent passage of legislation providing minimum sentences for crimes committed while in possession of a firearm, nor prevent the passage of legislation providing penalties for the possession of firearms by a convicted felon, nor prevent the passage of any legislation punishing the use of a firearm. No law shall impose licensure, registration or special taxation on the ownership or possession of firearms or ammunition. Nor shall any law permit the confiscation of firearms, except those actually used in the commission of a felony.

Iowa is one of only six states that does not provide a constitutional guarantee to its citizens. This leaves Iowans vulnerable to gun control groups to advocate for restrictions on the ownership of firearms and ammunition. The gun control groups could use the same tactics used by homosexual activist groups in legalizing gay marriage.

The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution provides the basis for individual citizens to keep and bear arms. This individual right was recently affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court in its decision of District of Columbia v. Heller. In reaching its conclusion, the Court considered many factors, one of which was that several of the original states included Second Amendment language in their own constitutions. It drove home the point that that armed citizens are essential to the defense and security of individuals, states, and the nation.

Iowa's constitution (Art. I, § 1) states: “All men are, by nature, free and equal, and have certain inalienable rights—among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness.” What is missing is the guarantee of the individual right to keep and bear arms in order to defend life, liberty, and property.

It is important at this time to affirm Iowans’ right to keep and bear arms as failure to do so may result in restrictions which do not outright ban firearms ownership, but rather make ownership difficult or unduly expensive. Consider this from the (Iowa) Legislative Services Agency (Legal Services Division for the General Assembly): “The Supreme Court’s decision interprets the Second Amendment’s “right of the people to keep and bear arms” and is limited in application to the District of Columbia’s total ban on handgun possession in a private District of Columbia residence. The case involved only federal law, so the Court’s decision does not apply directly to the states. Although the Court did caution that the Second Amendment right is not unlimited as possession by felons and mentally ill persons may be prohibited, for example, the Court did not specify or give guidance on what such limitations are or should be in regard to State or local gun laws. The exact scope of permissible firearm regulations by the states is thus left unsettled.” (emphasis added)