I just can’t take it anymore.

I’m a diehard conservative, socially and fiscally. I’ve been to a Tea Party Rally. I want Obamacare repealed, the bailouts to stop, and taxes to be cut.

But I just want to puke every time I see Glenn Beck’s face.

I can’t help it. I think the guy’s a fraud.

First, he was just annoying. It amazed me how he’d go from trying to be Mr. Funny-guy comedian to teary waterworks worthy of a Kleenex spokesman in under 10 seconds. The too-frequent waterworks just struck me as insincere. Nobody cries that much. Interestingly, I’m pretty sure I’m right about that because the waterworks have drastically decreased now that Beck is the superhero of the Tea-Party movement. Apparently, superheroes don’t cry, or at least they don’t cry on a daily basis.

But, now I think he’s gone from annoying to hypocritical.

This became ever so evident a few weeks ago when Beck decided to publicly state that gay marriage was no threat to America. Here’s what he said in an interview with Bill O’Reilly.

O’Reilly: Do you believe that gay marriage is a threat to country in any way?
Beck: A threat to the country?

O’Reilly: Yeah, is it going to harm it in anyway?

Beck: No I don’t. Will the gays come and get us?

O’Reilly: No, okay. Is it going to harm the country?

Beck: I believe that Thomas Jefferson said: “If it neither breaks my leg nor picks my pocket what difference is it to me?

That is not something any true social or fiscal conservative would ever say. A true conservative recognizes that the promotion of a behavior that contributes to the breakdown of the traditional family and is a prime factor in the spread of deadly disease is not a good thing. A true conservative realizes that, as Jan Mickelson says, the question “how has gay marriage affected your marriage” is just a ploy.

The moral costs of gay marriage are obvious. But even if you are not a “values voter” kind of person, a true fiscal conservative realizes that the breakdown of traditional families costs us in terms of welfare, the spread of deadly (and easily preventable) diseases costs us in terms of healthcare, and, while gay marriage might not directly affect your own marriage, the governmental sanctioning of gay marriage is really just an effort for gay partners to gain access to the monetary benefits afforded to married couples, i.e. social security benefits, access to family health plans, etc. Can we really afford to strain the social security system any more than it already is? What do you think will happen to the cost of your healthcare when an extremely high-risk group of people are added in to your insurance pool?

And the reason I have a problem with Beck personally over these remarks is because they are at odds with everything he has claimed to be in the past.

This is the guy who has proclaimed that his conservative Mormon faith brought him out of addiction to alcohol. This is the guy who cried like a baby because he was so upset when Mike Huckabee allegedly mischaracterized a Mormon belief about the relationship between Jesus and satan.

Now, Beck himself blasphemes his faith by openly contradicting a major belief held by the LDS church (that homosexuality is a sin and gay marriage should be opposed), and we’re supposed to ignore the fact that he’s just made himself a gargantuan hypocrite?

That was bad enough, but then, this past weekend, at his “Restoring America” rally in Washington, D.C., did another 180 degree turnaround, making remarks such as:

“Something beyond imagination is happening. America today begins to turn back to God.”

Beck exhorted the crowd to “recognize your place to the creator. Realize that he is our king. He is the one who guides and directs our life and protects us.” He asked his audience to pray more. “I ask, not only if you would pray on your knees, but pray on your knees but with your door open for your children to see,” he said.

Gee Glenn, how do you think it goes over when everybody else’s kids see you take an amoral stand on marriage? Is that really a sign that America beginning to turn back to God?

And before the comments start, this is not at all an attack on the Mormon faith. While I don’t agree with Mormons theologically, I greatly admire their political stances on social issues. What bothers me is when people are inconsistent. And when someone claims to be a faithful Mormon, and then later comes out and stabs the traditional marriage movement in the back, a movement that the LDS church has spearheaded across this country, that’s inconsistent.

Beck should take a lesson from his Christian brothers and sisters. Hypocrisy is what has been a major stumbling block for a lot of Christian leaders over the years, and it seems the same is true for Mr. Beck.

The scary thing is that, like the hypocritical Christian leaders that have gone before him, this hypocrisy can, and likely will cause more damage to Beck’s cause than any good he’s done.

If I hear one more person tout the awesome “nonpartisan” system Iowa has for selecting judges, I’m going to puke.

It happened yet again yesterday when I was reading a column in the Register (I know, what was I thinking?) by Marc Hansen.

He was talking to some middle school civics teachers and listing a whole bunch of hot-button political issues that could be great classroom fodder once school starts this month.

One of these issues was the judicial selection process in Iowa. Hansen wrote:

Terry Branstad, running for governor again, wants to change the way we choose judges. In Iowa, the governor picks from a list provided by a nonpartisan nominating commission.

The problem is, these nominating commissions are anything but nonpartisan.

TIR’s legal eagle, Nathan Tucker, did a little research on this issue a few weeks back, and he deserves an award for his findings. What he wrote was truly an exposé. In case you missed it, here are some of the highlights, or lowlights as the case may be.

Supreme Court Justices:

-5 out of 7 were appointed by Democrat Governors, none of the 7 are or ever have been registered Republicans

-2 are registered Democrats (Michael Streit and Daryl Hecht)

-4 more were registered Democrats before their appointment to the Court (Marsha Ternus, Mark Cady, David Wiggins, and Brent Appel).

-The final justice claims to be Independent, but he has donated large sums of money to Democrats. David Baker gave $250 to Iowans for Vilsack Pederson, Inc. in 2003, and $2,500 to the Iowa Democratic Party.

-Wiggins has donated $9,000 to democratic candidates or the Iowa Democratic Party (IDP) in the last 12 years.

-Appel, whose wife is a very liberal Democrat state senator, has donated over $38,000 to Democratic candidates or the IDP in the last several years.

Appellate Court Justices:

-6 out of 9 are Democrats or were registered as Democrats before appointment to the Court

-7 out of 9 were appointed by Democrat governors, including all 6 Democrats

-2 of the 3 Republicans were appointed by Republican governors

Trial Courts:

-83 judges have been appointed during the Culver and Vilsack administrations

-50 of those judges (60%) are registered Democrats

-16 of those judges (19%) are registered Republicans

-10 of those judges (12%) are Independents (but 3 are former Democrats and 2 are former Republicans)

-Voter information could not be found on 7 judges.

So how does this happen? Why didn’t Branstad appoint two Republicans when he had the chance instead of Ternus and Cady? Well, the answer is simple. He only had 2-3 people to choose from, and the group that chooses those 2-3 people is also dominated by Democrats and has been for a long time.

The short list from which the governor can appoint is determined by what called the Judicial Nominating Commission. The Commission that picks people for the Appellate and Supreme Courts is made up of 14 people. Seven are attorneys elected by other attorneys. Seven are appointed by the Governor and confirmed by the State Senate.

As Tucker pointed out, right now, all seven members appointed by the governor are Democrats. Four more of the elected members are Democrats. One is an Independent, one is a Republican, and one claims to be a Republican, but has donated over $10,000 to IDP, Bruce Braley, Roxanne Conlin, and Tom Harkin in recent years.

Some people are calling for a change to the rules regulating the Nominating Commissions requiring equal numbers Democrats and Republicans. However, this won’t stop the problem cited above where people essentially lie about their party affiliation while really supporting the other party. There are numerous examples of Democrats doing this on other state Boards and Commissions, and Peter Teahen, former Co-Chair of Bob Vander Plaats’ campaign, was famously called out for this same behavior during his congressional campaign when it came out he had been a registered Democrat for the purpose of getting appointed to a state board to fill a Democratic slot.

Perhaps you don’t like the open election of judges. Perhaps you think that process is partisan. Perhaps you even think that the Iowa system results in better judges (which, based on recent events, is highly debatable). That’s fine, but let’s not pretend that Iowa’s process for selecting judges is “nonpartisan.”

It is, in fact, highly partisan. And the thing that should scare everyone is that the partisanship in the current system is hidden from the public behind closed doors. It is the ultimate example of backroom deals in smoke-filled rooms (or at least it was until the smoking ban came about).

Seriously, if the process is going to be affected by partisanship, then let’s put it all out in the open so people know what they’re getting, either by judicial elections or gubernatorial appointment with open confirmation hearings. No more of this super-secret closed door stuff.

The one question I want answered by the advocates of the current system is, why do you trust a small group of elites to make these decisions, but not the people of Iowa or their elected representatives?

And on a side note, any changes to the judicial selection process require a change to the Iowa Constitution, which is just one more reason to support a constitutional convention.

I’ve had it with all this doom and gloom from supposed pro-traditional marriage advocates in the aftermath of the federal district court decision striking down California’s Proposition 8.

This was a decision from one federal judge in one federal judicial district, but the way some people are talking, you’d swear the Supreme Court had ruled.

I keep hearing from some of these people that we might as well just give up because if California’s Prop. 8 can be struck, it must be inevitable that any pro-marriage constitutional amendment that Iowa might pass will be struck down as well.

Here’s where I say beep, beep… back the truck up.

It seems as though these “experts” have forgotten (or never knew) that we’ve already been down this road in here in the Mid-west. Nebraska passed a Defense of Marriage Amendment in 2000, and this amendment was challenged in the federal courts shortly thereafter.

At the federal trial court level, Nebraska’s amendment was deemed unconstitutional. However, Nebraska’s attorney general then appealed that decision to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, which upheld the amendment defending marriage.

Why aren’t the people who support traditional marriage who have the biggest voices and the biggest audiences talking about this decision that actually affects Iowa and comes from a higher court than the measly trial court decision in California that came down last week?

Why aren’t they pointing out that there is just as much (if not more) legal basis for upholding traditional marriage than there is for tossing it out the window?

Do they honestly believe we should abandon the effort to get a marriage amendment in a federal circuit that would actually enforce it?

If I didn’t know better, I’d swear that some of these people are just being contrary to make the efforts of certain candidates (that they didn’t support in the primary) to achieve a marriage amendment look bad. If I didn’t know better, all this doom and gloom would seem to be associated with some sour grapes.

Of course, differing outcomes from differing courts around the country will likely lead to this issue coming before the Supreme Court, but that’s just all the more reason to rally the troops to elect conservative candidates to all levels of government to fight for traditional marriage on all fronts.

This California decision should be a battle cry, not a white flag of surrender.

We’d all do well to remember that.

If you are an incompetent, not-so-bright, big spending Democratic governor, the last person you should pick a fight with is the highly competent, so-much-smarter-than-you, fiscally conservative Republican state auditor.

Every time Auditor Dave Vaudt brings up the little fact that Chet Culver has royally blown the state budget to bits, Culver starts crying and goes into deny, deny, deny mode. Then, a few weeks ago, Vaudt’s office called Culver out for abusing the courtesy of early viewing privileges of audit reports afforded to the governor’s office when the Des Moines Register somehow got a copy of an audit report before other media which showed that the state booze regulators are spending tax dollars on things like artwork, bicycles, campers, and various other frivolous items.

Of course, Culver denied that the report came from his office (though he didn’t deny that it might have come from some other administrative office under his control that he might have passed the report to), but nobody believes that the leaked report came from the tight ship Vaudt runs, so that pretty much leaves Culver or his minions as the culprit.

Now, Vaudt releases a report stating that the DNR is failing to enforce numerous environmental protection laws, some of which are more than 20 years old. Apparently, the DNR is more concerned about things like maintaining the overpopulated deer population than it is about toxic waste dumping.

Next thing you know, Culver is commenting, saying how this was “overstated and overblown.”

Perhaps realizing how silly he sounded (and after public statements expressing concern from environmental activists), Culver then clarified to say that the “media reports” on the matter are what was overstated and overblown, not necessarily Vaudt’s report.

Touchy, touchy. Chester, dude, not everything is about you.

Of course, in a round-about way, it might be about your incompetence. The thing Chet needs to realize is that his overreaction only draws attention to this fact.

If Chet had been smart, he would have taken the auditor’s report and run with it. He could have vowed to crack down on environmental violations, and maybe, he could have even appeared to be doing something productive or, dare I say, competent.

But who ever said Chet was smart?

Remember how, when Obama and the Dems were pushing so hard to get the votes to pass Obamacare, we were promised that there would be absolutely no federal funding of abortion?

Remember how the few (allegedly) pro-life Democrats supposedly secured promised about his from the president himself, and in fact, Obama even promised to sign an executive order prohibiting the use of federal funds for abortions?

Well, it didn’t take long for all of that to go out the window.

We now know that Pennsylvania will be receiving $160 million to set up a high risk insurance pool that will include coverage of abortion.

House Republican Leader John Boehner has been raising the alarm on this issue, asking both the president, and Health and Human Services Secretary how they have instructed the states to implement the obviously toothless executive order.

He’s gotten absolutely no response from either of them.

So how does it feel knowing that your hard-earned tax dollars are going to pay for the mutilation and torture of unborn children?

Is that the “change” we wanted?

There were some fascinating tidbits in the Register yesterday.

First, there was an article talking about how the West Des Moines Police Department is recruiting more minorities because, out of a police force of 66 officer, there is one woman and one black person.

That does seem more than a bit lopsided to me. I can see why they would publicize and encourage more women and minorities to apply for positions, but I hope they maintain the standards necessary to have a highly qualified police force.

The other thing I found to be interesting is the fact that there was recently as many as five women on the WDM police force. Now there’s one. Perhaps the problem isn’t in not being able to recruit diverse officers. Maybe the problem is that they don’t have a work environment that makes people want to stay.

The other interesting tidbit comes in news from the Iowa Supreme Court, which recently upheld a conviction of a murderer who got in trouble not just for killing a woman, but also for killing her unborn baby.

The fascinating thing is that neither the court decision nor the Register made any mention of the affirmation that an unborn child is alive and worthy of legal protections that is inherent in this decision.

Once again, the value of an unborn child’s life seems to hinge on the arbitrariness of whether it is “wanted” or not. Nothing about the unborn child itself is any different than the next, and yet one gets legal protection, while another is ripped limb from limb before it sees the light of day.

Is this justice?

Hope you all enjoyed a long holiday weekend.  I know I did.

I’m still really not back in the swing of things,  I’m going to have to rip off Krusty’s “You Must be an Idiot.”

Idiot #1:  Michael Steele, who recently said that the nine-year-old conflict in Afghanistan was a mistaken “war of Obama’s choosing.”

I mean really, who would have thought that Steele could challenge Obama for the politician with the worst math skills after Obama claimed we had 57 states?

Idiot #2:  Barack Obama, who not only thinks we have 57 states, but who also has done everything in his power to thwart the oil spill clean up.

No foreign vessels due to the Jones Act, which means we’re just now getting skimmer ships that we could have had 2 months ago.  No levies can be erected by states due to federal regulations that say they might harm the local wildlife.  Nevermind what oil will do to the wildlife, but I digress.

In terms of botched policies, inaction, and stupid over-reaction, this is Katrina times 83.

What an idiot.

Idiot # 3:  Eric Holder.  Well, Obama should probably be included in this one too, but the buck stops with Holder for the decision to sue the state of Arizona over its immigration law.  Nothing says “Oops, sorry we’re totally inept at enforcing the law ourselves and are responsible for turning your boarder into a war zone, but don’t you dare do anything to help yourselves just because we’re a bunch of morons with our thumbs up our butts” like a federal lawsuit (with no warning to the state officials that you supposedly have been working with but actually have been blowing off).

Idiot #4:  Eric Holder again.  The case of voter intimidation against white people in Philadelphia that was dropped by the Department of Justice AFTER a default guilty judgment and conviction had already happened based on undisputed video evidence of certain individuals carrying weapons and shouting racial slurs at white people outside of a polling place should be the nail in Eric Holder’s professional coffin.  Yet, strangely, no one outside of Foxnews seems to be paying much attention to this case.

The lead attorney on the case is now testifying that the DOJ had a well-known policy of not pursuing cases where the victims of voter intimidation were white.

If true, which it seems to be since there is no other logical explanation for the DOJ dismissing a case it had literally already won, this should be the main headline on every major news outlet, and Holder should resign in disgrace.

Lots of pro-life issues in the news lately. First, last week, most Iowans learned for the first time that Iowa is playing guinea pig for a Planned Parenthood program that provides women with the abortion pill without ever having to see a doctor.

That’s a problem because Iowa law requires that abortions be conducted by doctors. This programs basically lets a doctor talk to the patient via a web cam with no actual physical examination whatsoever.

Operation Rescue has asked Iowa’s Attorney General, Tom Miller, to review this program due to their belief it is not in accordance with Iowa law. According to news accounts, Miller has pretty much blown them off. Miller is on record as being a pro-abortion convert, formerly being pro-life, but, to maintain his place in the Democratic establishment, becoming pro-choice in recent years.

And speaking of Planned Parenthood, that organization has now filed suit against the state of Nebraska challenging its law requiring a mental health screening which is aimed at ensuring the woman has not been pressured into the abortion by outside parties.

Isn’t it ironic that the pro-choicers are up in arms about a requirement that is aimed at ensuring the woman truly has made an independent, informed choice?

And all of this comes amidst news from the United Kingdom of a study claiming that babies cannot feel pain before 24 weeks gestation.

Currently, pro-life advocates in the UK are pushing for restrictions on abortions as of 20 weeks gestation. Currently, the UK restricts abortion at 24 weeks.

The irony of this is that, not only is it clear that babies feel pain at 24 weeks, there are actually babies who survive at 24 weeks, so, how any serious study can conclude that those babies do not feel pain when being poked and prodded for the purpose of saving their lives don’t feel pain while being aborted in the womb is just beyond all rational understanding.

There is ultrasound after ultrasound clearly showing babies attempting to evade abortion instruments during abortions and attempting to scream once the instruments reach them. There is the fact that babies are given anesthesia during in utero surgeries at stages much earlier than 24 weeks. So, it seems that these doctors are willing to acknowledge fetal pain when the baby is wanted and the mother desires surgery to save it, but they want to ignore it when they can make a few dollars off of an abortion.

It looks like there are some emails going around from fake people trying to get support for a grassroots effort to nominate Kent Sorenson for Lieutenant Governor at the GOP state convention, thereby thwarting Terry Branstad’s ability to have the running mate of his choosing.

I find this very interesting because:

1) The same exact email is going around, but sometimes with different “signatures” at the bottom. One says it’s from “James Jefferson” who can be found at “James’ Conservatives, 241 NW Bumstead, West Des Moines, IA 50266.” Another claims to be from “Craig Robinsen” (as opposed to Craig Robinson) and is signed “Craig, an Iowa Republican.” I think it’s pretty slimy to try to create the impression that a semi-public figure like the editor of this website is behind this effort, when he clearly isn’t; and

2) Several of the people who sent this to me said that the only political mailing lists they are on are HuckPac and Bob Vander Plaats’ lists. One person told me they were on those two lists, plus the Republican Party of Iowa’s list, but I’m going to go out on a limb and say it’s highly unlikely that RPI is pushing for Kent Sorenson to be Lieutenant Governor.

So, my theory is that whoever is doing this is someone with access to the HuckPac email list or the Bob Vander Plaats’ email list. I don’t think it would be someone like Eric Woolson, former campaign manager for BVP. I wouldn’t put it past Lori Jungling, the Iowa HuckPac point person. It’s just hard to say who has access to those lists from those organizations.

As for Kent Sorenson, I wonder if anyone bothered to contact him about this before they emailed thousands of people about this little scheme?

I do agree that the Lieutenant Governor nominee absolutely needs to be someone with an unblemished record on pro-life and other pro-family issues, such as traditional marriage. Kent Sorenson fits that bill, but to be quite frank, I’d rather see him kick Staci Appel’s rear-end on election day. I think we need strong pro-family legislators in place just as much, if not more than we need that in the Lieutenant Governor position.

After all, it’s the legislators who are going to get the amendment process rolling to repeal gay marriage in Iowa, not the Lieutenant Governor. And who else in the legislature is going to lead that charge in the State Senate besides Kent? Nobody from that chamber was lining up for that position during the last session.

Sadly, this seems like another example of BVP supporters forgetting that the ultimate goal is to get a marriage amendment, not hand Bob Vander Plaats a position of power and not to give Terry Branstad the proverbial middle finger.

I thought the rally cry was, “Let Us Vote!”

It seems some have forgotten that.

As a person who was not alive during World War II, I cannot remember a time in my life when there has been so much hostility directed at Jews (and Christians), and nobody in the media seems to think much of it.  In fact, a lot of people are coming out in support of it.

On the Jewish front, how many nations have come out backing the whack-job alleged “aid ships” that are carrying God knows what besides food in to Gaza?  Pretty much everybody.

Would we let the Iranians send a ship into Guantanamo with “aid supplies” for the prisoners being held there?  No, of course not.  We have a right to prevent our enemies on our soil from taking “supplies” that will be used against us.  And that is exactly what is happening in Gaza.  These people have picked fights with Israel since its inception, and the Israelis are just supposed to sit there and take it?

No, they have a right to defend themselves and their land.  And yes, it is their land.  If you don’t believe it is their land, I’m sure you are okay with giving Texas back to Mexico, because that would be the same thing.  To the victors go the spoils.  That’s just how it is.  If the Palestinians didn’t want to give up land, they shouldn’t have started wars with Israel giving it an opportunity to claim those areas as needed buffer zones.

And what has our dear president said about this situation?  Not a whole lot.  You know it’s bad when your strongest defender in the administration is Joe “This is a big f—ing deal” Biden.  That doesn’t exactly instill confidence.

Then you’ve got loud mouthed idiots like Helen Thomas telling a Rabbi that the Jews needed to “get the hell out of Palestine.”  At least she got fired for her statements (or, I’m sure she’d tell you “resigned”), but there are lots of other liberal talking head idiots out there on news channels saying the exact same thing.

I’ve even read about some schools in Britain (which has a fast-growing Muslim population) that have stopped teaching about the holocaust for fear of offending or “upsetting students whose beliefs include Holocaust denial.”

Do I agree with the Jewish people on everything?  No, like for example, the issue of Jesus comes to mind.  But they are our spiritual brothers, and they have suffered more as people than just about any other race or nation on Earth.  We should be on their side.  Not just because it’s the right thing to do, but because, if we were attacked, we’d want someone on our side, too.  And that’s not going to be anyone from Palestine.

“THEY CAME FIRST for the Communists,
and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist.

THEN THEY CAME for the trade unionists,
and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist.

THEN THEY CAME for the Jews,
and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew.

THEN THEY CAME for me
and by that time no one was left to speak up.”

-Martin Niemöller