Author: coldhardcashner

Ron Paul As Popular As Obama?

According to Rasmussen Reports, a hypothetical 2012 race between President Obama and Dr. Ron Paul would be a dead heat.

The report says: “A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey of likely voters finds Obama with 42% support and Paul with 41% of the vote. Eleven percent (11%) prefer some other candidate, and six percent (6%) are undecided.”

“Thirty-nine percent (39%) of all voters have a favorable opinion of Paul, while 30% view him unfavorably. This includes 10% with a very favorable opinion and 12% with a very unfavorable one. But nearly one-out-of-three voters (32%) are not sure what they think of Paul.”

I don’t think we can get that lucky, but if the GOP puts Dr. Paul at the top of the ticket in 2012, this blogger will gladly vote Republican.

An Open Letter To Rep. Bruce Braley

Dear Representative Braley:

The “Father of the Constitution,” James Madison, wrote in Federalist Paper No. 45: “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined… [and they] will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce.” Given your support for every federal intrusion into the private market and into the personal decisions of average Americans, from “Cash for Clunkers” to Obamacare, apparently you disagree with Madison on the role of the federal government.

Perhaps, like a generation of “progressives” in both parties, you believe that the Constitution’s “general welfare clause” gives Congress authority to meddle in every aspect of human existence. As Roger Pilon, founder and director of Cato Institute’s Center for Constitutional Studies, put it during testimony before Congress, “The general welfare clause [was intended] to ensure that Congress, in the exercise of any of its enumerated powers, would act for the general rather than for any particular welfare.” It was to ensure that any law would uniformly apply to all Americans rather than benefiting only politically-favored groups, as is now common practice.

Perhaps you believe that the Constitution’s “commerce clause” gives Congress such authority. But the commerce clause was to allow Congress to smooth out the hodgepodge of competing protectionist policies of the several states, making the United States into a free trade zone. Again, Pilon: “Not remotely did the Framers intend that the clause be converted from a shield against state abuse–its use in the first great commerce clause case, Gibbons v. Ogden (1824)–into a sword enabling Congress, through regulation, to try to bring about all manner of social and economic ends.”

Perhaps you can quote Supreme Court rulings that bolster your big-government contentions. But, decisions from an appendage of the federal government, ruling to expand the power of that same government are not surprising and not compelling.

More likely perhaps, like Congressman Phil Hare from Illinois admitted (and no doubt many of your other colleagues who won’t admit it), you simply don’t “worry” or care about the Constitution that you swore an oath to support, defend, and “bear true faith and allegiance to.” Like you, I once took an oath to support and defend the Constitution “against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” Unlike you, I take it seriously.

By your actions and the usurpation that you advance, you, Sir, have proven yourself to be a domestic enemy of the U.S. Constitution. The yoke of oppressive debt levels that you are placing on my children and unborn grandchildren proves that you are also an enemy of basic human decency. Therefore, be advised: I intend to use all peaceful and legal means at my disposal to see that you are unseated.

Sincerely,

Benjamin R. Cashner
[Address removed]

[Hat tip to Between Two Rivers blog for the Phil Hare link.]

Mom’s "Never Alone"

As I was knocking about the internet the other day I found an online version of a magazine article, titled “Never Alone,” that my mother got published back in 2003. The article is about how Mom’s faith in God and a big black dog comforted her when she was first diagnosed with Alzheimer’s disease at the young age of 60.

According to the Alzheimer’s Disease Education and Referral Center, “Alzheimer’s disease is an irreversible, progressive brain disease that slowly destroys memory and thinking skills, and eventually even the ability to carry out the simplest tasks.” That’s the clinical definition. It takes on a much more personal tone when it strikes someone in your family. It slowly takes away who that person is before it takes their life.

Rereading her article now, seven years after it was published, is like a window into the past for me. I can once again see the woman I once knew, expressing the thoughts and fears that she can no longer fully articulate.

Mom wrote: “Tank sprang out the door and galloped down the road. Eighty solid pounds of black Labrador retriever, he certainly lived up to his name. He loved barreling through our 160 acres. I used to enjoy it too, but not lately. Not since I heard the word Alzheimer’s. ‘You seem to be showing some early signs,’ the neurologist had told me, after a checkup with my family doctor and a battery of tests, including a brain scan. […]

“I remembered the flyer I’d picked up from an Alzheimer’s support group. It said that I should get an ID bracelet with my name, address and phone number. More than likely I’d end up forgetting who I was and where I lived. The thought horrified me. I was going to lose myself, remembering nothing and nobody. Would I eventually forget who God was? Lord, I can’t bear the idea of being so utterly alone. Please stay with me.
“’Tank!’ I called. No sign of our big black Lab. Would I forget him too? ‘Here, boy!’ I called. Tank careened out of the woods. The dog was so big that when he stood on his hind legs his paws rested on my shoulders. Still, he was one of the most gentle creatures I’d ever known. Tank circled me then dashed back into the trees, chasing something I couldn’t see. I’m being chased too, I thought. To a place where no one will be able to reach me.”

Medicine has slowed it somewhat, but the predator that stalks my mother is closing in swiftly now. She has difficulty now with common tasks that my four-year-old takes for granted. My words, my guns, even my love for my mother are all powerless against this killer.

Mom is a good, hard-working, church-going woman, totally undeserving of being slowly stripped of a lifetime of memories, then of life itself. I often use this blog to impotently speak out against injustice. If you’re listening God, I’m speaking out now.

If anyone else has some time, please read the short article by my mom, Judy Cashner, here.

The First TING’s of Spring

What a beautiful day in Iowa! It was 77 degrees when I got off work. (Thank you global warming!) My wife and kids weren’t home when I got there, so I decided to head down to the local shooting range.

I shoved my homemade steel silhouette target in the trunk, my .45 auto in my belt and headed out. I didn’t want to be gone long and only brought about 30 rounds with me. I didn’t do anything fancy, I just enjoyed the fresh air and the “ting!” of copper-jacketing on steel.

It’s good to be an American, armed and free. Let’s keep it that way.

10 Questions with Second Amendment March Iowa Coordinator

It’s been in the planning stages since February 2009, and now it’s almost here. During the Second Amendment March, thousands of Second Amendment advocates plan to descend on Washington D.C. and state capitols around the nation in support of their God-given right to keep and bear arms. The coordinator of the Iowa march, Robert Fowler, agreed to answer some questions about the event.

Fowler, who is now retired, has led an interesting life living in Michigan, Missouri, Texas and Iowa. He was in the U.S. Marines and has worked as a farmer, oilfield roughneck, and truck driver. He is currently a licensed gun dealer and ammunition manufacturer. He is also active in the group Iowa Carry and blogs at Roberts Gun Shop.

1.When and where is the national march?

The National March will be held April 19th 2010 on the grounds of the Washington monument.

2. Where can people find out more information about it?

http://www.secondamendmentmarch.com/

3. Is there some significance to the date of the march, April 19th?

1775: Minutemen Capt John Parker orders not to fire unless fired upon. A shot is fired and the American revolution begins at the Lexington Common. That was the “shot heard round the world”

[CHC adds: Also, in a bit of historical irony, 168 years later on April 19, 1943 a small band of Jews in the Warsaw ghetto decided to fight against the Nazi occupiers who were butchering their people. Armed at first with only a few pistols, the resistance fighters held the Nazis at bay longer than the entire Polish army had been able to. Once again shots had been fired for freedom.]

4. When and where is the Iowa march?

The Iowa State March will be held on the 19th of April on the west side of the Capital. [CHC: From noon to 3pm.]

5. Will there be any speakers?

Yes there will be. So far I have Dave Funk, candidate for the 3rd Iowa district now held by Leonard Boswell. Sean McClanahan, President of Iowa Carry.

6. Where can people go to keep up-to-date on the Iowa march?

The Second Amendment March has pages dedicated to each state. Go to the Iowa page, I post updates as I get more information.

7. Besides Des Moines, are there any confirmed rallies elsewhere in Iowa?

I have been trying to get rallies in other cities but so far I have not received any replies.

8. How did you come to be involved in the march?

The founder of the Second Amendment March, Skip Coryell Was a member of Iowa Carry and the guest speaker at a Iowa Carry pheasant hunt and dinner three years ago. I had the pleasure of sitting across from him and his wife and next to his children. We had a great time and became friends. We are both from Michigan and were both Marines. We have kept in touch and when he started the 2A March, he asked me to be the Iowa state coordinator. I readily accepted his offer. Along with my work with Iowa Carry, it’s one of the best jobs I don’t get paid to do.

9. What do you hope that the march will accomplish?

We are trying to bring attention to the people about the way the government is slowly taking our rights away. There are over 20,000 gun laws on the books that try to restrict our rights. We now have 38 states that have “shall issue” laws and Arizona is looking like it’s going to be the 3rd state that will allow carry with out a permit. Joining Alaska and Vermont. Iowa Carry has been working on getting shall issue in Iowa making it easier for the citizens to be “allowed” to protect them selves. As you know, Iowa is may issue and permits are at the discretion of the sheriff. This means that in some counties, like Polk, All you have to do is take the training and pass the background check and you get your permit. Other counties will not issue a permit for any reason. The sheriffs of these counties have decided that they know best and honest law abiding citizens have no business carrying a gun. Even though the criminals carry regardless of the law. This is also one of the issues the 2A March is about.

10. Is there anything else we should know?

Everyone should know that the 2nd Amendment is the right that protects all the other rights. These right are not given by the government. They are natural God given rights and the government has been infringing on all of our rights for years. We are trying to educate the general population on what our rights are and what the wording of the Constitution really means. In the 2nd Amendment there are a few words that should tell people exactly what the founders meant. “The right of the people”. There is a reason the this phrase shows up in several of the amendments. It is because the people have the right to assemble and speak and to be secure in their homes and possessions and to own and bear arms. “Shall not be infringed” There isn’t a politician in the world that understands these 4 words. If there was, we wouldn’t have to beg some government official for “permission” to exercise our 2nd Amendment right. Vermont has no permit system. The also have one of the lowest crime rates in the country. They allow their citizens to carry open or concealed without having to beg. And contrary to what the Brady Bunch says, there isn’t blood in the streets. This proves that the law abiding citizens can carry a gun and not have shootouts over fender benders and parking spots.

Eric Cooper To Speak At Iowans for Tax Relief Event

Eric Cooper, Libertarian Party candidate for Iowa governor, will be speaking at the 2010 Iowa Taxpayers’ Day. The event, sponsored by the public watchdog group Iowans for Tax Relief, will be held Saturday, April 17, 2010 from 3:00pm – 5:00pm at the Holiday Inn Hotel Northwest in Des Moines. According to Ed Failor Jr., President of Iowans for Tax Relief, “Iowa Taxpayers’ Day continues our mission to educate and inform Iowans on tax and spending issues.”

Des Moines Register political columnist Kathie Obradovich will be the Master of Ceremonies and Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty is set to be the keynote speaker. In addition to Eric Cooper, Republican gubernatorial candidates Terry Branstad, Jonathan Narcisse, Rod Roberts, and Bob Vander Plaats will also speak. Governor Culver was invited but did not respond.

Cooper is an Associate Professor of Psychology and Neuroscience at Iowa State University, and is currently the Vice Chairman of the Libertarian Party of Iowa. When running for the state legislature in 2008, Professor Cooper had the most successful Libertarian campaign in Iowa, winning 21% of the vote in that race. Nick Weltha of Des Moines is running for Lt. Governor. In general, Cooper and Weltha believe in smaller government, less taxes and regulations, and more personal freedom.

For more information visit their website http://www.coopersmallergovernment.com and read my post 10 Questions with Gubernatorial Candidate Eric Cooper.

Embracing Little Brother or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Electronic Surveillance

A recent Cedar Rapids Gazette article says that downtown Iowa City businesses, tired of “bad behavior” on the pedestrian mall, will be installing surveillance cameras outside their buildings to discourage crime. Ben Stone of the American Civil Liberties Union of Iowa said that the group does not support the move. While the ACLU would be right to oppose more government surveillance (as they often do), in this instance I don‘t think electronic surveillance is all bad.

We should oppose more government surveillance because we already have so much of it. Some would argue that we already live in an Orwellian surveillance state. In Privacy International’s 2007 ranking of 47 industrialized nations, the United States ranked near the bottom for privacy protections, falling into the “Endemic Surveillance Societies” category. Only Thailand, Taiwan, United Kingdom, Singapore, Russia, China, and Malaysia tied with or scored lower than the United States. If the American public is already under the government’s microscope, how can we justify more private surveillance?

Firstly, it matters who is doing the surveilling and where. The businesses on Iowa City’s ped mall, for instance, shouldn’t be able to place cameras where there is some expectation of privacy, such as in dressing or restrooms, but why NOT facing the public walkways around their property? When we are in public areas we can have no expectation of privacy from being seen or photographed. Image if a photographer, taking a wide shot of Times Square in New York, had to get release forms signed by everyone of the thousands of people who may be in the photo. They don’t have to because such a requirement would obviously be impractical. The same principles apply with other forms of observation technology.

Private security cameras and portable recording devices are becoming more and more prevalent with business owners and private citizens. If we call the government’s surveillance organization “Big Brother,” perhaps we can call these private efforts “Little Brother.” (I didn’t come up with that term, I read it somewhere.) Little Brother often helps the government, by supplying video of bank robbers or shoplifters for instance, but it can also keep an eye on the government as well.

The first example of Little Brother watching government officials that springs to my mind is the famous Rodney King beating video. In this footage shot by a bystander with a video camera, several Los Angeles police officers are seen beating Rodney King after he led them on a high-speed chase. King was a drunken convict who was resisting arrest, so whether or not he deserved a few love taps remains open for debate. Regardless, the incident was widely seen as blatant police brutality when it was shown repeatedly on television and led to the 1992 Los Angeles riots and federal charges against four officers.

Another, more recent, example was during the 2009 Iranian election protests. While the traditional media was largely blacked out by the Iranian government, protesters with cell phone cameras were able to record the governments brutal suppression of the protests and transmit the images to the world with some help from social networking sites.

A less epic example occurred during Washington D.C.’s recent blizzards. Some D.C. locals got together for a snowball fight after the idea spread on the internet site Twitter. Things went alright at the snowball fight until a red Hummer passing by got zinged with a snowball. A plain clothes D.C. police officer, Mike Baylor, hopped out and confronted the revelers without identifying himself as a cop. Baylor pulled his sidearm which caused several bystanders to call 911 about an armed man. This caused more police to show up, at least one of whom also drew his pistol.

Despite many cell phone videos of Baylor waving his pistol available on the internet, Assistant Police Chief Pete Newsham stated that, “There was no police pulling guns on snowball people.” He repeated that lie to several news outlets. Mainstream media like The Washington Post unquestioningly declared Chief Newsham’s version to be the official truth. The Post even ignored the eyewitness account of one of their own staffers who was present at the snowball fight. Luckily, bloggers and smaller newspapers like the Washington City Paper, actually investigated the story (imagine!) by watching the videos and interviewing witnesses (including the Post employee) and exposed Newsham’s story as the deceitful cover-up that it was. Score another one for Little Brother!

We will always need to guard against egregious abuse of our privacy by Little Brother, just as we need to roll back Big Brother’s surveillance state. I don’t want Little Brother tapping my phone or ransacking my house any more than I want Big Brother to. But when Big Brother menacingly warns, “We’re watching you,” I want Little Brother to confidently reply with the same phrase.

Jacob Sullum on Chicago Gun Case

Excerpted from an article at reason.com:

“Yesterday the Supreme Court considered the question of whether the Second Amendment applies outside of jurisdictions controlled by the federal government. The Court will almost certainly say yes, and soon it may consider a question that should be equally easy to answer: whether the Second Amendment applies outside of the home.

“In 2008, the first time the Supreme Court explicitly declared that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to ‘keep and bear arms,’ it ruled that the District of Columbia’s handgun ban violated that right. Since the Chicago handgun ban at issue in the case the Court heard this week is virtually identical, it will be overturned if the Court concludes that the Second Amendment binds states and cities as well as the federal government. And since the Court has ruled that almost all of the other guarantees in the Bill of Rights apply to the states by way of the 14th Amendment, it would be very strange if the fundamental right to armed self-defense did not make the cut. […]

“[O]fficials predictably warn that chaos would ensue from allowing law-abiding people to carry guns in public. But that has not happened in any of the states with nondiscretionary carry permit policies.

“Although the crime-reducing benefits of such policies remain controversial, the blood-soaked visions of doomsayers who imagined routine arguments regularly culminating in gunfire have not transpired in the two decades since Florida started the trend toward liberalization. In fact, data from Florida, Texas, and Arkansas indicate that permit holders are far less likely to commit gun crimes (or other offenses) than the general population.”

Read the entire article here.

Also, for up-to-the-minute information on this important court case check ChicagoGunCase.com.

Anti-Second Amendment Bill Passes Iowa Senate

Thursday the anti-gun and anti-due process Senate File 2357 easily passed in the Iowa Senate with only 11 Senators voting against it. I’m a bit late writing about this and the boys at Between Two Rivers and Iowa Patriots have covered it more thoroughly than I.

According to Iowa Gun Owners, the bill would:

  • Allow virtually anyone who knows you to apply to the court for a no-contact order – even if no physical contact has ever occurred between the two of you. As condition of this no-contact order you would be required to hand over all of your firearms and ammunition.
  • Not require that you even be present at the court hearing. This bill does not even ensure that you have the right to even have legal counsel present or a chance to confront your accusers in a court of law.
  • Allow an anti-gun court to decide who is qualified to take possession of your firearms should they decide to take them from you.
  • Allow this same court to decide that no one is qualified to take your guns and order the sheriff’s department to seize them, and make you pay the sheriff for the right to lose your guns! Yeah, you get to pay the government $50 per gun that they seize from you!
  • Declare you a felon, and unable to ever own guns again, if you fail to turn over so much as a single .22 cartridge.

All of this is done in the name of “combating domestic abuse.” Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller gleefully approved the Senate’s passage: “This law will help prevent women, men and children from being terrorized, maimed and killed by violent domestic abusers. It will only remove guns from domestic abusers. This is a big victory for public safety[.]”

I wouldn’t count on it “only remov[ing] guns from domestic abusers.” As I’ve written about the federal Lautenberg Amendment, feel-good legislation like this ensnares more innocuous parties than deranged stalkers.

I think that the blogger strandediniowa at Between Two Rivers summed it up best: “If the women’s groups that lobbied in favor of SF2357, could possibly put some effort into making it easier for women to purchase and carry firearms for their protection, maybe a few less abusers would be stalking their victims.”

Let’s hope we can kill this bill in the House of Representatives.

Commission Says: "Regulate, Don’t Ban Everclear"

In my post Everclear and Present Danger I wrote that the Iowa Alcoholic Beverages Commission was mulling over whether to ban or increase regulations on the sale of highly concentrated alcohol (HCA), such as Everclear, after a Drake University student was hospitalized for alcohol poisoning from overindulging on it. Thursday the commission announced its recommendations. Although they did not recommend an outright ban on HCA, their recommendations can hardly be seen as a victory for those who support freedom of choice for Iowa consumers.

IABC’s website lists the commission’s four recommendations as follows:

  1. Limit products over 100 proof to one listed size [750 ml for Everclear]
  2. Look into drafting a rule to require registration (similar to pseudoephedrine) for products over 100 proof
  3. Education – investigate opportunities for education on HCA in college communities, as well as design educational materials to be applied to bottles for distribution.
  4. Limit products to no higher than 151 proof

Since the recommendations all increase government regulation, no doubt they will be pencil-whipped through and adopted quickly. (In contrast, any deregulation would require an uphill, tooth and nail battle.)

Supporters of regulating Everclear and other HCA’s no doubt would argue that the state has a compelling interest in doing so since the state often has to assist those who injure themselves or others or ruin their own lives abusing the stuff. That is another perfect example of how government “assistance” always begets government intrusion into our lives. (In order to get rid of the intrusion, we must get rid of the assistance as well.)

Another troubling aspect of such regulation, if we follow the government’s logic to its ultimate conclusion: If the state of Iowa can’t trust its adult citizens with such a mundane decision as what size bottle of booze to buy, how can they trust us with self-governance, arms bearing, child rearing or any other activity upon which a free society depends?