"I must study politics and war that my sons may have liberty to study mathematics and philosophy." John Adams (1780)

Saturday, November 1, 2014

That's the Ticket!

Unless you've had your telephone and television unhooked for the past four months, you know that the election is Tuesday. Like a growing number of Iowans I already voted by mail. Here are some of the people I was proud to vote for:


U.S. Senate:
Dr. Doug Butzier (L.)

Sadly, Doctor Doug passed away at the age of 59, Monday October 13, when the light plane he was piloting crashed. The good doctor was an emergency room physician and leader at Mercy Hospital in Dubuque.

Given his position, it might not be surprising that flaws in Obamacare and government interference in medicine are what helped convince Butzier to run for U.S. Senate. He believed that there should be a free market for healthcare, not “free” healthcare.  He pointed out: "When you receive anything for 'free,' that means that someone else paid for it.  You should not be forced to pay for or subsidize someone else’s healthcare.  Government involvement only lowers the quality for everyone and drives up the costs."Butzier also wanted America's veterans to receive quality healthcare in their own communities rather than going off to shoddy government run VA hospitals.

Dr. Doug also believed in extending the free market into the education system as well. He believed in curtailing the Constitutional usurpation of the federal government and was a supporter of Americans' Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. Although largely ignored by the media until his death, Dr. Doug Butzier stood out from his two mudslinging rivals for the Senate seat.


U.S. House Dist. 1
Rod Blum (R.)
Rod Blum.jpg


Blum is owner of Digital Canal Software.  He is also a student pilot, real estate developer, and has written a conservative column for the Telegraph Herald. Blum is active with Liberty Iowa, a leading "Constitutional conservative" group, and is endorsed by the National Rifle Association and Gun Owners of America.


The five "cornerstones" of Blum's campaign are: 1. Personal Responsibility 2. Constitutionally Limited Government 3. Fiscal Sanity 4. Free Markets and Competition 5. Sanctity of Life.


Iowa Governor
Dr. Lee Hieb (L.)
Dr. Lee Hieb


Dr. Hieb is a long time orthopaedic surgeon who served as an officer in the U.S. Navy. See has written numerous articles in professional journals, political columns and has a forthcoming book, Surviving the Medical Meltdown.


Hieb states she will use the following principles in governing Iowa: "1. I shall always vote to increase individual liberty. 2.  I shall sign and vote to restrain the power and scope and size of state government. 3.  I will fight to eliminate any tax which compels citizens to pay for things they find morally objectionable. 4.  I will legislate to push back the Federal Government from our border and exercise (for a change) our Tenth Amendment rights to state sovereignty."


Iowa Secretary of State
Jake Porter (L.)
jake_04


Porter is a business and non-profit manager who has served on non-profit boards, managed several political campaigns, and has retail management experience running multi-million dollar department stores. One of the Secretary of State's most important duties is to oversee the state's elections. Says Porter: "We need someone who is independent of the two major political parties to act as a referee and that is the type of candidate I am." In addition to keeping the Secretary's office independent and transparent, Jake wants to make starting a business in Iowa easier.




Monday, October 20, 2014

Iowa Candidate Gun Grades 2014

Here are the candidate grades for Iowa's office seekers. The first grade is from Gun Owners of America, the second is from the National Rifle Association. I personally put more weight in the GOA grade. If GOA or NRA is in UNDERLINED BOLD type, that means that candidate is endorsed by that organization. NRA does not grade independent or third party candidates. An asterisk denotes an incumbent. Libertarians Party candidates are in red because they kick ass.


Federal Office


U.S. Senate:
  
Braley (D)   GOA: F    NRA: F
Butzier (L) GOA: NR    
Ernst (R) GOA: A     NRA: A
Smith (I) GOA: NR    

Congressional District 1:

Blum (R) GOA: A     NRA: AQ
Murphy (D) GOA: D   NRA: D

Congressional District 2:
 
*Loebsack (D) GOA: F   NRA: F
Miller-Meeks (R) GOA: B    NRA: AQ

Congressional District 3:

Appel (D) GOA: F    NRA: C-
Holder (I) GOA: NR 
Wright (L) GOA: A  
Young (R) GOA: NR   NRA: AQ

Congressional District 4:

*King (R) GOA: A  NRA: A
Mowrer (D) NR   NRA: C-

For the NRA's grades of candidates for state office click HERE.


Explanation of GOA Grades:


WHAT THE NRA GRADES MEAN






Monday, September 1, 2014

On Police "Militarization" Part 2

In the last post I posited that there is an obvious need for the police and the violent use of force. I  concluded that, while there probably should be some limits on police weaponry, the debate over specific "militaristic" equipment is less important than debating how and when it is employed.


As you can see in the accompanying infographic from reason.com, SWAT teams (the embodiment of militarized police) are being used more and more often. The approximate number of SWAT raids doubled from about 30,000 in 1995 to 50-60,000 in 2005. However you measure it, that's a hell of an increase.


While we all envision SWAT operations for reasons such as hostage rescue or active shooters, but as you can see, these types of operations only amount to about 7% of SWAT raids. Most raids are for search warrants, usually involving drug searches.


Swat Police Militarization Infographic
So the trend seems to be for violent SWAT raids to be used more often and for more mundane reasons. This trend is what concerns me. As both police and civilians become desensitized to this it may continue to spread until no-knock SWAT raids are the default answer for every police call.


Every interaction I've ever had with the police has been polite, professional, and non-threatening. I'd like my kids to become adults in a similar world, not one where any unpaid parking ticket can earn you a midnight home invasion with flashbang grenades and guns in your face.


Also, as a Second Amendment supporter, when I read stories about perfectly legal weapon permits being used as justification for SWAT raids, I get a little concerned.


The Feds: Assault-Popping The Constitution


While so far we've only discussed REAL cops, the trend toward "militarization" is active with the U.S. Federales as well. Unlike local cops, B.S. regulatory agencies like the U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Dept. of Education and the IRS can't say they are arming up to protect us from violent predators in our communities. More likely these arms will be used to shove unpopular edicts down the people's throats.


While federal agencies are arming up, the feds are encouraging local cops to do the same. The Depts. of Defense, Justice and Homeland Security all have grant programs to provide weapons and equipment to local police for the perpetual wars on drugs and terror. I'm going to focus on the DOD's "1033 Program," which gives free military equipment to local law enforcement, but most of the arguments against it work on the other programs as well.  So, why should we end the 1033 Program?


Firstly, it's unconstitutional. If you read the powers granted to the United States government by the Constitution's Article 1, Section 8, arming local police isn't one of them. Ironically. while arming the militia IS a constitutional power, the 1033 Program which can give defense equipment to local cops is NOT authorized to give any to State Guard (militia) units. (Congressman Joe Wilson and a few others have introduced the State Defense Force Improvement Act which would give State Guard Forces access to extra military equipment several times, but it has not passed.)


Secondly, we can't afford it. No organization that is $18 trillion in debt should be giving anything away to anybody. This equipment could be auctioned off to police departments and private citizens rather than given away. Police departments could still get equipment at fire sale prices and the money could toward balancing the budget.


Thirdly, even if you agree with the basic premise of the 1033 Program, since it is a federal program it only takes about one sniff to find waste, fraud, abuse, and general insanity. Some counties sheriff departments have "received enough [musical] instruments to start their own marching band, if they wanted to" from the program.  The defense department has given local police bouncy castles, $16,500 ice cream makers, $11,000 pizza ovens and much more. Yes, the U.S. military is giving local cops $3,500 popcorn poppers (to keep you safe), just as the Founders of our great nation envisioned. Unless these are dangerous "assault poppers" that only specially trained police can be trusted with, I think they could hit the auction block.


The 1033 Program should be suspended immediately. While local cops do need equipment, they need to figure out how to get it without federal giveaways funded by placing our children in debt. Budgets are always tight, but if state and local governments do some soul-searching on what their purpose is, they can cut the frivolities and focus on core functions like police.


In conclusion, there is "militarization" of our police in this country. What weapons and tactics are appropriate and how much is "too much?" I don't know. But in a free state it's a good debate to have sooner rather than later.

Sunday, August 31, 2014

On Police "Militarization" Part 1

Discussion about the militarization of law enforcement is everywhere right now after the recent events in Ferguson, Missouri. It can be a contentious topic.


On my Facebook page I posted a link to an ACLU petition calling for an end to the federal military equipment giveaway program to local police. A local police friend of mine took offense to the link saying he had enough of the "hate the police" rhetoric. I took offense at being accused of hating cops. Looking at it now though, the link says things like:  "[T]he police, armed to the teeth, treat us like the enemy, especially if we're black, young, poor or homeless. Tanks are rolling through our towns. What will it take for police to start protecting communities of color, not waging war on them?" That is "hate the police" rhetoric so, I guess I brought that on myself.


Despite all the racial language that came out of Ferguson, it seems that it probably wasn't as simple as the liberal media's narrative of another saintly black youth being wantonly gunned down by a cackling white oppressor. Whatever happened in Ferguson, the debate over the "militarization" of police didn't begin there and shouldn't end there.

In Defense of "Militarization"


Although I'm a libertarian with "concerns over militarization" of police, if there's an active shooter at my kids' school I want well-trained local cops to be able to respond with potent weapons and grease the bastard before he can hurt my kids. If there were violent riots and looting in my city I would want the police trained and properly equipped to quell it.


In the case of violent looting, I would be quite angry if my city government could support frivolities like municipal golf courses but not be able to protect my family and my property from bands of marauding pillagers, one of the chief reasons why governments were implemented among men to begin with. While I think any free citizen worth his or her salt should be at least somewhat prepared to defend himself and his community, the community will obviously be more productive if those who are skilled at building houses, programming computers, etc., don't have to spend all their time standing guard over what has already been produced, rather than producing more.


There is an obvious need for police and, when necessary, the violent use of force. As early libertarian writer Rose Wilder Lane said, "The need for Government is the need for force; where force is unnecessary, there is no need for Government." But in America we rightly have enduring worries about a standing army ruling over us. Therein lies much of the concern over militarization of our police. So, how do we even define "militarization?"


PoliceOne.com recently had a good series of essays dealing with police militarization written by police officers that raise some valid points. In one,  Lt. Dan Marcou explains the definition thusly: "Apparently one person’s militarization is another person’s protective equipment. Kevlar, helmets, vests, and armored personnel carriers are not aggressive, but protective. They stop bullets. The defensive weapons law enforcement carries during the operations are no more deadly than what the criminals are carrying today. SWAT has been an ever-evolving, reactive response to the threats modern officers face."


In another, Don Deaton writes: "All too often, accusations of 'militarization' are based more on perception than facts (how police 'look' instead of what they actually do). Many critics never consider that the use of military-inspired technology and equipment has pervaded almost every aspect of American life. If law enforcement has become militarized, then the same is true for trauma medicine, aviation, video games, deer hunting, satellite television, GPS navigation, and those giant SUVs the soccer moms drive.


"The last time I checked," Deaton continues," my actions as a police officer — including those undertaken while using a helmet, body armor, rifle, and armored vehicle — were still governed by state law, case law, and department policy, all of which were enacted by lawfully elected representatives who were put in place by the citizens of a constitutional republic." Deaton may be a bit Pollyannaish here with the constitutional republic stuff. Recent academic study indicates what most people feel in their gut, that America is more of an oligarchy with We the People having little or no real influence (especially at the national level). Nonetheless his main point holds true.


Police Chief Joel F. Shults, Ed.D. brought up an interesting point about preserving the Posse Comitatus Act (which forbids Federal troops from conducting domestic law enforcement). He writes: "As counterintuitive as it appears at first glance, I contend that if local law enforcement cannot obtain and use low-level, military-grade assets for high-risk operations, we will open the door to federal military force as our first response to major threats." (I contend that active and decently equipped State Defense Forces would provide another buffer before federal military involvement, but that's another topic.)


So why do the police have all this interest in defensive equipment anyway? Sgt. Glenn French writes: "The fact is, more American police officers have died fighting crime in the United States over the past 12 years than American soldiers were killed in action at war in Afghanistan. According to ODMP.org, 1,831 cops have been killed in the line of duty since 2001. According to iCasualties.org, the number of our military personnel killed in action in Afghanistan is 1,789.  Cops on the beat are facing the same dangers on the streets as our brave soldiers do in war."


Although being a cop is surely dangerous and stressful (and not something I want to do), the counter-arguments to Sgt. Frenchs' is that many of those police deaths came from automobile accidents that won't be prevented with machineguns or flashbang grenades. According to a recent article by the Foundation of Economic Education, "[p]olicing doesn't even make it into the top 10 most dangerous American professions" and policing would have a murder rate "comparable to the average murder rate of U.S. cities[.]" The 1930's and 1970's were statistically far more dangerous times to be an American police officer. The article concludes that police work "just isn't unusually deadly or dangerous—and it’s safer today than ever before. The data do not justify the kinds of armor, weapons, insecurity, and paranoia being displayed by police across the country."


Iowa police officer and trainer Corey D. Roberts writes in his own essay: "Law Enforcement has to prepare for and respond to the current threat not the 'threats' of a TV show from the 50s. The fact that law enforcement is better equipped and has more training is because we don't live in Mayberry anymore. The threats are greater than ever and it doesn’t take long on the street for an officer to realize that the dangers are very real."


Roberts also asked rhetorically on my Facebook page: "What liberties are being taken by a police force who has the same equipment or better than the gangbangers who are looting? How is a piece of equipment infringing on your rights?" This seems to be paraphrasing the old gun-rights slogan, "Guns don't infringe upon rights, people do." He has a point. Whether a policeman is carrying an old Brown Bess or a modern AR-15 is far less important than how he uses it.


The debate over specific equipment is less important than debating how it is employed. Sure there should be some limits on police equipment. I think even the most militant cops aren't pushing for main battle tanks or weaponized aircraft. Most of us probably agree that they don't need artillery or crew-served weapons. I don't believe the debate over individual weapons and body armor will be an intelligent one since it will largely be propagated by the media who makes the teeth itch of anyone who has even a rudimentary knowledge of weapons.


My main concern over the militarization of police is over how and why "militarized" police are deployed. Also, I have concerns about the federal government's role in arming the local police. I'll discuss these problems in the next post.




Post Topics

10 Questions with... abortion ACLU alcohol Alzheimer's Ames Straw Poll assault weapons ban Audit the Fed Barack Obama Ben Lange Beth Cody Between Two Rivers Bob Barr books Bruce Braley Bruce Hunter Candidates Carl Olsen Cedar Rapids Gazette charity Chet Culver Christopher Peters Clel Baudler Constitution Constitutional Convention Corey D. Roberts Crime Dan Muhlbauer debt Declaration of Independence Democrat Party disasters drones drugs economy education elections Eric Cooper events Facebook Fast and Furious First Amendment food freedom foreign policy free markets freedom Gary Johnson gay marriage Glenn Beck gold gun control Gun Owners of America guns health care history Honey Creek Resort Iowa Iowa Caucus Iowa City Iowa Firearms Coalition Iowa First District Iowa Freedom Report Iowa Gun Owners Iowa Right To Life Jake Porter Joe Bolkom John McCain Judge Napolitano Lake Delhi Lee Hein liberals Libertarian Party libertarianism Me media medical marijuana memes Memory Walk Michele Bachmann military Mom Nick Taiber NRA NSA Obamacare police policy politics President Obama primaries privacy property rights Rand Paul religion Republican Party resistance Rick Santorum right to carry Rob Petsche Rod Blum Roger Fritz Ron Paul Rush Limbaugh Ryan Flood Sandy Hook Massacre Sarah Palin Second Amendment smoking Social Security spending State Defense Forces Steven Lukan taxes Tea Party Movement Tenth Amendment terrorism Terry Branstad traffic cams TSA TV/Movies war Wayne Jerman weapons Will Johnson Zach Wahls

Followers