When the current legislative session began four months ago many of us around the state were full of hope and optimism. With the newly elected Republican majority in the Iowa House of Representatives we believed that we would be able to advance an agenda that furthered the cause of freedom and in the process actually defend the rights granted to us by the US and Iowa Constitutions. However as we draw near the end of the session, the hope and optimism we felt is quickly fading to despair and anger as we seem to have been betrayed by those in which we placed our trust.
Case in point is the Articles of Impeachment against the four activist justices that remain on the Iowa Supreme Court. In December three freshman Representatives announced their intentions to draft the aforementioned articles in an effort to hold the Supreme Court accountable. Unfortunately, because such a step was unprecedented, it has taken longer than anticipated to draw up the articles. Be that as it may; Representative Shaw, in conjunction with four other State Representatives, filed the resolutions necessary to begin the impeachment proceedings yesterday afternoon.
Upon hearing that the resolutions had been filed a little bit of the faded hope had been restored. We felt that we were finally going to have a victory in the defense of our states constitution. However, it appears that two Republican members of the House are willing to stand in the way of resolutions, thus disregarding the oath that they took to defend the US and Iowa Constitutions.
In a statement he made to the Des Moines Register this morning, Speaker of the House Kraig Paulsen asserted that he “agrees with much of the reasoning behind the impeachment resolutions, I disagree with the remedy.” It is easy to understand the meaning of his words here. The basic principle behind his comments is that yes he agrees with the need to hold the Iowa Supreme Court accountable, he just doesn’t have the moral courage to stand up and do the right thing.
And in an effort to keep the resolutions from being debated Speaker Paulsen assigned the resolutions to the House Judiciary Committee. A committee that is not scheduled to meet again this session. Another obstacle standing in the road of the resolutions is that the chair of the House Judiciary Committee, Rich Anderson from Clarinda, has steadfastly stated that he would not allow the impeachment to leave his committee.
Unfortunately at this time it appears that the impeachment resolutions will not be brought to the House floor for debate. In an act of political cowardice, Speaker Paulsen deliberately sent the resolutions to a committee that he knew would not meet again this session. In an act of political cowardice Speaker Paulsen sent the resolutions to committee chaired by a representative that he knew would not stand in the way of the resolutions.
At this point the only hope that we have of getting these resolutions brought to the floor for debate is if we exert some pressure on the Iowa House. This means that we need to move heaven and earth to ensure that we call not only our representatives, but also Speaker Paulsen and Representative Anderson. It is my understanding that they are the only individuals in the Iowa House that can bring forth the resolutions at this time. Below you will find the contact information for both Paulsen and Anderson. Please take the time to contact them and tell them that the defense of Iowa’s Constitution and the separation of powers is a worthwhile endeavor for the Iowa House.
Speaker of the House Kraig Paulsen
Email Address – firstname.lastname@example.org
Phone Number – 319.294.2602
Email Address – Richard.email@example.com
Articles of Impeachment filed in the Iowa House against remaining four Supreme Court justices
For Immediate Release
Contact: Representative Tom Shaw – firstname.lastname@example.org
April 21, 2011
Statement by Iowa State Representative Tom Shaw upon the filing of articles of impeachment against the remaining four Varnum v. Brien Supreme Court justices:
“In order to protect the integrity of our form of government, we must maintain the separation of powers as is required by Article III, Section 1, of the Iowa Constitution. This is our sworn duty as the representatives of the people, who made their will quite well known when they removed three of the Varnum v. Brien Supreme Court justices in the last retention election. Clearly, by changing the simple meaning of the word “marriage,” and attempting to legislate, the remaining four judges committed malfeasance in office by greatly exceeding the scope of their lawful authority. Therefore, if the moral integrity of each individual member of the Iowa Legislature, and the institution as a whole, are to be preserved, these judges must be impeached and removed permanently from the bench.”
The four Iowa House Impeachment Resolutions, file numbers 47, 48, 49, and 50, brought by Representatives Shaw, Alons, De Boef, Massie, and Pearson, can be found here:
The proper question is not “do they feel pain?” It is “are they a person?”
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Representative Tom Shaw
March 28, 2011
State Representative Tom Shaw has issued the following statement:
Having come under political fire for my firm opposition to House File 5, commonly known as the “fetal pain” bill, even from some in my own party, I feel the need to clearly explain to my constituents in District 8, and to my fellow Iowans, exactly why I have taken this stand.
Thirty eight years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court rendered the worst decision in American history, Roe v. Wade, leading to the destruction of upwards of fifty million innocent children in this country alone. On what basis was this horrific decision made? That the child in the womb is not a person. The court dehumanized an entire class of human beings based solely on their stage of development.
But even Justice Harry A. Blackmun, in the text of the court’s majority opinion, openly admitted that if the fetus is a person, “of course” they are protected by the provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Here is what that Amendment, which is part of the Constitution we all swore to uphold and defend, says:
“No State shall deprive any person of life without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
The authors of HF 5, which is being brought before the Iowa House, admit in the language of the bill that the fetus, or child, is a person. They admit that life begins at conception. And yet they allow this person to be killed.
Asking whether or not the child can feel pain is not even the right question, any more than it would be if the subject of the legislation were a paraplegic, or a child or adult who is under sedation. The proper and only question is whether or not this is a person. If they are a person, as every bit of modern science clearly indicates them to be, they must be protected by those who are sworn to protect them.
Article I, Section 1, of the Iowa Constitution:
“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.”
Article I, Section 2:
“Government is instituted for the protection, security, and benefit of the people.…”
Article I, Section 6:
“All laws of a general nature shall have a uniform operation; the General Assembly shall not grant to any citizen, or class of citizens, privileges or immunities, which, upon the same terms shall not equally belong to all citizens.”
Both the U.S. and Iowa constitutions imperatively demand the protection of the right to life of every innocent person, and require that every person enjoy the equal protection of the laws. The law must be equally applied. I swore an oath before God to do so, as I am required to do, as did all of my colleagues.
The language of House File 5 condemns itself. This is ill-conceived legislation that is both immoral and internally self-contradictory. It is clearly unconstitutional. However well-meaning, it can only lead to further destruction of thousands more innocent, currently defenseless, Iowa children and the further erosion of the sacred principles upon which we premise republican self-government and our claim to liberty in our state and in our country.
For the last 26 years the Republican Party’s national platform has recognized the personhood of all children in the womb, and their protection by the Fourteenth Amendment. I intend to continue to keep my pledge to those who elected me by doing everything I can to see that principled position implemented in the Iowa Legislature and in the laws of our great State.
March 17, 2011
Representatives Tom Shaw, Glen Massie, Kim Pearson
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
“This morning House File 5 was voted out of the House Government Oversight Subcommittee. The bill is aimed at stopping abortions after 20 weeks. HF 5 does not protect innocent life from conception. This violates Article 1 of Iowa’s Constitution and we do not have the authority to legislate away an inalienable right. We do not support HF 5.”
On April 3, 2009, when the seven Iowa Supreme Court justices unanimously attempted to legalize same-sex marriage in the state many citizens believed their rights had been trampled on and their voices silenced because they never had a chance to vote on the issue. Those that celebrated the destruction of the definition of marriage declared victory after using seven black robes who over-stepped their Constitutional duties by injecting their personal views into their decision and then legislating that view from the bench. Because Iowa has such a complicated and long process to pass an amendment to the Constitution, the gay rights activists thought that the ruling was safe because the people of Iowa would “forget” by the time they could vote on a Marriage Amendment.
What wasn’t foreseen, however, on if people were going to “forget” is the 2010 gubernatorial primary in which the candidate Bob Vander Plaats made judicial activism the center of his campaign in response to the 2009 marriage ruling. Unforseen also was former Governor Terry Branstad’s entrance into the race that put an end to Vander Plaats’ governor aspirations on June 8th only to have him launch another initiative, Iowa For Freedom, against the three of the seven judges on the Supreme Court who were up for a retention vote. On November 2nd, more than a year and a half after the Varnum v. Brien decision, the initiative was a remarkable success and those three activist judges were soundly rebuked by the people of Iowa when they finally got to have some sort of say in the matter and were removed from the bench. In the almost two months since the people of Iowa voted “no” on the retention of the three judges on the Iowa Supreme Court the media is still fascinated by the story and liberals are still complaining about a system they fully supported until the people of Iowa decided to use it.
There is now an initiative coming from three incoming House of Representative freshmen legislators who are drafting the necessary legislation to start the impeachment process, which is within Constitutional guidelines, against the four remaining Supreme Court justices . Kim Pearson (district 42), Tom Shaw (district 8 ) and Glen Massie (district 74) are the newly elected Iowa House members who are invoking this procedure in order to deal with the remaining judges who were just as wrong as the three who overwhelmingly were voted to be removed. Bob Vander Plaats, who is now President and CEO of The Family Leader, has taken a different approach and is encouraging the remaining judges to do the right thing and resign which would alleviate the need for the impeachment process. Either way, it looks like it will be a long time yet before Iowans “forget” April 3, 2009, while conservatives of conviction work on reigning in out of control courts and pushing for a Marriage Amendment on the ballot.
The impeachment process will take grassroots support to show that the government is still about “we the people.” Please contact your State Representative and State Senator and tell them that you support holding the judiciary accountable. You can also sign this petition in order to show your support of the Articles of Impeachment.
It continues to be very disappointing for many Iowans that Bob Vander Plaats is not the Republican candidate on the ballot. Not to be deterred, Bob’s supporters have worked hard on campaigns for other candidates and for the Iowa for Freedom effort to promote voting NO on the 3 Iowa Supreme Court Justices.
Many times in the past two years it would have been easy to give up, stay home, and heaven forbid, pout. Participating in politics is not an easy thing to do. From my own experience, elections and Republican outcomes don’t always go the way my conservative heart wishes they would go. To assist me in the effort to keep on keeping on, I have two quotes by my computer to encourage me when the going gets tough.
“You be the somebody, you do the something”. Mike Huckabee
“Fight on and fly on to the last drop of blood and the last drop of fuel, to the last beat of the heart.” Baron Manfred von Richthofen
Chocolate helps, too.
With this post I want to give a shout out and thank you to my friends in Iowa Defense Alliance. We are a small but committed group of Conservative Republicans who blog what we think and feel. In recent posts for candidates such as Brenna Findley, Kent Sorenson, Tim Gartin, Chad Steenhoek, Karin Sevde, Rick Sanders, Tom Shaw, Renee Twedt, Brad Zaun, Stephen Howell, Jane Hodoly, and Kim Pearson we have attempted to get the word out about terrific candidates. It is my hope that we will join many of these candidates in happy celebrations!
I am also thankful to the new friends and patriots that I have come to know in my life involved in politics. These people are All-American kind of citizens with a common passion for standing up for the Constitution and conservative values. Our networking and commitment have been valuable leading up to this election night and we are more than ready and prepared for what tomorrow brings.
Nov. 2 is fast approaching and Tom Shaw, Republican candidate for House District 8, has been leading a fast paced life to meet the citizens in his district.
For example this is a status facebook update on a recent day:
Spent a wonderful day with my dad on a windshield tour of the north half of District 8. Met and talked with great folks in Havelock, Pocahontas, Rolfe, Bradgate, Ottosen, Bode, Livermore, Lu Verne, Wesley, Algona and Humboldt!
And, Mr. Shaw has been in the news. In a Des Moines Register article House District 8 was listed as one of 23 “hot races to watch”. According to the article Shaw has “the upper hand” in one of four vulnerable democratic seats.
In checking out Shaw’s website I found comments written by his supporters. I especially liked this one:
I support Tom Shaw because: He has no fear as he speaks out for what he believes in, makes no exceptions when he is challenged, stays standing strong when his opponent bashes him, doesn’t have a millionaire’s pocket and still has been able to carry on his campaign debt free, and most of all, like most of the common people in the heartland, loves his country and the state of Iowa. He is a man that has a plan and knows the action it will take to bring back fiscal responsibility to this state.
This comment says so much about the kind of man voters of House District 8 have the opportunity to elect to serve them. “A man with a plan” and how Iowa needs Tom Shaw to stand up for all of us.
Tom Shaw pledges to defend the right to life, the right to keep and bear arms, and Iowa’s “English Only” law. He will promote laws which prohibit illegal aliens from employment and state benefits and Iowa’s “Right to Work” law. Shaw promises to defend Iowans from excessive, unjustified and punitive taxation, to defend traditional marriage and to defend the authority of local school boards and the right of parents to home school their children.
It is no wonder that Tom Shaw has received so many important endorsements:
Endorsed by the National Rifle Association (PVF)
Endorsed by Iowa Guns Owners (PAC)
Endorsed by Gov Mike Huckabee/HUCKPAC
Endorsed by National Federation of Independent Business/SAFE
Named “Friend of Iowa Business”
Good luck, Tom Shaw! Iowa Defense Alliance has long supported your efforts to have a successful campaign. We are honored to know you as a great American who will “defend” us in so many very important ways!
It seems that Tom Shaw’s Democrat opponent, Susan Bangert, is feeling the heat of defeat as she just launched off a negative mailer about Tom’s service to our country and defending our freedoms.
Here is what Tom posted in an email:
While I try to stay positive about this campaign, I am disappointed to learn that my opponent has put in a mailer that I am not qualified/could not look out for small business as she could. Why? Because she characterized my lifelong service in the protection of others, in the U.S. Navy and as a peace officer, as “Tom has worked for federal and local government for his entire working career.” Even though I am a disabled veteran and a veteran of Operation Desert Shield, upon my retirement from the Navy I chose to return and serve the citizens of my hometown as a peace officer.
Recently Tom Shaw was highlighted in the Des Moines Register article Republican hopes are high for gains in Iowa Legislature. According to the article Shaw is in one of the “nine hottest Iowa House races.” I am very pleased that Mr. Shaw has received this state wide publicity.
I met Mr. Shaw at the Humboldt County Fair. He was out and about shaking hands and meeting potential voters. I was impressed with his sincerity and passion for campaigning to be elected for House District 8. (Pocahontas, Humboldt, Kossuth, and Webster counties) Mr. Shaw handed me “The Constitution of the United States” and some campaign literature which included his website.
While I suggest voters do their own research on Tom Shaw I will highlight what I like about his views and strengths.
Tom Shaw believes in:
- The sanctity of all innocent life.
- The right to Keep and Bear Arms.
- Limited government and a return to Constitutional Principles.
- Reducing the tax burden for all Iowans.
- Supporting Iowa’s agricultural development.
Tom Shaw has other areas listed on his website where he pledges to defend Iowans in numerous ways when he is elected to the Iowa House. After reading them all, I am convinced that Iowa needs Tom Shaw.
Another positive for Mr. Shaw is Governor Mike Huckabee and Huck Pac’s endorsement:
“Huck PAC and I are proud to endorse Tom Shaw for State Representative District 8. Tom has selflessly served his country and his community. For 20 years, he served in the United States Navy and most recently as the Chief of Police – now, Tom wants to serve his fellow Iowans in the Iowa House of Representatives.
Tom is uniquely qualified and unquestionably pro-life. He supports traditional marriage, and as a proud member of the VFW and NRA to name a few – Tom will protect your 2nd amendment rights.
Citizens have expressed their support of Tom Shaw and numerous comments are listed on the website.
Some of my favorites:
“He is a “common sense” conservative.”
“I trust him!”
“…he is a real patriot and a sincere man of moral conscience.”
Voters will have the opportunity to meet Tom Shaw at an upcoming campaign event:
Friday, September 10th, at Vinnie’s BBQ in Dakota City. Special Guest of Honor is Congressman Tom Latham. Cost is $25.00 per plate or $40.00 per family. Seating is limited, so order your tickets today by emailing email@example.com
I wish Tom Shaw success with his campaign and fund raising event. Shaw’s strengths are his life experiences as a 20 year U.S. Navy veteran, serving as Chief of Police in Laurens, IA, and his strong belief in The Constitution of the United States.
Yes, Iowa needs Tom Shaw!
It has been just a week since the Georgia primary run-off for governor in which Nathan Deal emerged with a victory of less than 2,500 votes after entering the race trailing by double digits to his opponent Karen Handel. Deal was the clear conservative in this race and Huckabee made a late endorsement of his campaign five days before the run-off against the endorsements of Handel by Mitt Romney and Sarah Palin. Huckabee made a visit to Georgia on behalf of Deal three days before the election and Palin was there for Handel the day after. Huckabee also cut robocalls and ads for Deal, but perhaps the biggest factor of the outcome of the election is that Team Huck volunteers from around the country make 3,000 phone calls for Deal before the run-off with 1,000 of those calls going straight into Handel territory where Deal ended up winning by 750 votes.
This is not an unusual situation for Huck PAC and its committed volunteers. This sort of commitment to endorsed candidates has happened in numerous elections; it just happened under the radar. Huck PAC’s Executive Director, Hogan Gidley, said it best in a Real Clear politics interview, which is the first major media outlet to actually catch on to the strength of Governor Huckabee’s unconventional PAC which relies more on the people than the pocketbook:
“We do a lot of the things that fly under the D.C. radar like robocalls, get-out-the-vote messages, e-blasts, and things like that,” Gidley said. “And while they’re not something that excites members on the press, the people on the ground who receive the votes and the benefits of the governor’s trust do appreciate it.”
Because Mike Huckabee’s PAC does not raise the money that the other PAC’s do, such as Romney’s, Palin’s, or Tim Pawlenty’s, the media writes it off. What a lot of people don’t realize, however, is how Huck PAC spends this money compared to the others and how many people are actually donating. For example, after a conference call with Huck PAC I learned that even though Palin has raised three times as much as Huckabee since January 1, 2009, she only got it with 24,000 donations compared to his 29,000 donations. What’s the big deal? Huckabee’s following his greater but they just don’t give nearly as much. Also, Huck PAC does what a PAC is supposed to and actually gives money to endorsed candidates. This past filing period it gave a third of its money to the candidates while Romney’s and Palin’s PACs usually hover in the single digit or teen percentages.
Mike Huckabee’s PAC also does something no other major PAC does and that is endorse candidates at the state and local level, which was demonstrated in Iowa yesterday. We all know that change starts from the bottom up and that is where Huck PAC is making a huge impact. There were eleven new candidates endorsed yesterday in Iowa and only three of them were for the Federal level and over half of them were not incumbents. Of those non-incumbents only one of them is going after an open seat (and that was previously held by a Democrat) and the other five are going after the Democrat incumbent, sometimes very entrenched ones and some who are also being funded by Republicans. These are not easy races which proves that Mike Huckabee is not just going after the winner or the party favorite, but those candidates who hold true to the principles of his PAC.
Huck PAC will support Republican candidates who are passionate advocates for tax reform, a strong national defense, real border security, life, the family, less government, and individual liberty.
Here is a list of the newest Iowa Huck PAC endorsed candidates and their websites. I hope to follow-up with a post on each of them before election day.
Steve King (U.S. Congress 5th District) http://www.kingforcongress.com/
Tom Latham (U.S. Congress 4th District) http://www.tomlatham.com/
Dwayne Alons (Iowa House 4th District) http://www.iowahouserepublicans.com/members/dwayne-alons
Chris Hagenow (Iowa House 59th District) http://chrishagenow.com/
Jason Schultz (Iowa House 55th District) http://www.iowahouserepublicans.com/members/jason-schultz
Kent Sorenson (running for Iowa Senate 37th District) http://kentsorenson.com/
Kim Pearson (running for Iowa House 42nd District) http://www.kimpearsoniowahouse.com/
Tom Shaw (running for Iowa House 8th District) http://www.electshaw2010.com/
Jane Hodoly (running for Iowa House 93rd District) http://hodolyforhouse.com/
Brenna Findley (running for Iowa Attorney General) http://www.findleyforiowa.com/
Brad Zaun (running for U.S. Congress 3rd District) http://www.bradzaun.com/
The Politics of Soda Pop, Part Two
By Tom Shaw
Independent Candidate for Iowa House District 8
“However (political parties) may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.”
(George Washington, Farewell Address, Sept. 17, 1796)
I recently wrote an article in which I described the Republican Party’s abandonment of its core social values contained in its party platform in order to attract moderate voters. In short, I likened it to the disastrous results when Coca-Cola changed its recipe to “New Coke” in order to attract Pepsi drinkers. But the “politics of soda pop” don’t stop there.
Years ago I watched an interview with an executive from RC Cola on a television news magazine. He described the power and leverage that was held by both Pepsi and Coke in the soft drink market. His assertion was that although the two soda giants were in fierce competition with each other, they colluded together to make sure that no other soft drink company could successfully expand its market share. A clear example of this was provided when he told about his company not being able to purchase vending machines in order to sell its product. According to him, when RC Cola would order vending machines from a manufacturer, Pepsi and Coke would buy up the machines at a higher price in order to keep them from being used by RC Cola.
George Washington was clearly, and justifiably, concerned about the inevitable corruption which would prevail if political parties misused their power. His ominous prediction has clearly come to pass in recent years. Both major parties, Democratic and Republican, have gained such a stranglehold of power, for the sole sake of power, that they will collude together to make sure no other voice is heard. They, like Pepsi and Coke, do not want any outside competition and therefore will link hands together in order to stifle any challengers to their dominion. The two parties have become very adept at conditioning voters that they are the only game in town. Want proof? Just tell someone that you are going to vote for a candidate that is not a “D” or an “R”. You will be labeled as a nut and be told that you are just wasting your vote, for everyone knows we have a “two-party system.”
But the electorate is waking up and openly defying the parties. The ranks of independent voters are swelling and the parties are experiencing a mass exodus. “We the People” are starting to demand not only more choices in candidates, but candidates that truly represent their values. Our election system was never meant to result in “I voted for the lesser of two evils”, but rather that voters should have a range of options so that they can say “I voted for good today”.
As an RC Cola candidate, I know the challenges that I face in overcoming the party system. The parties have mutually designed the “straight ticket” voting process to purposely inhibit candidates like myself. The “straight ticket” argument is also used as leverage to force or coerce candidates to run on a Democratic or Republican ticket. I say it is time for the voters to shed their party shackles and vote based on their principles. And I end this with a reminder from Samuel Adams, “Let each citizen remember at the moment he is offering his vote …. that he is executing one of the most solemn trusts in human society for which he is accountable to God and his country.”