One of my 5^th grade teachers had a poster on his wall of a famous speech by Patrick Henry – and he often gave dramatic readings of it, encouraging us to give readings of it as well.  I still remember the highlight of the speech to this day:

“Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?  FORBID IT*, almighty god.  I know not what path others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death.”

I have absolutely no idea why we did this in his class – he was our science and math teacher – but I will always appreciate those days with Mr. V at Mulberry Elementary School in Muscatine.

I will never forget my government class with Mr. Hansen at Muscatine High School.  In addition to being required to read The Federalist Papers 10 and 51, we were given an assignment I continue to appreciate: we spent several days discussing political topics that were issues at the time (fall 2003) – then we were given one topic and told to write a detailed essay on what a founding father’s opinion would be if he were alive today and why, based on their writings and opinions, we believe they would come to that conclusion.

I don’t remember which topic I wrote about, but I distinctly remember writing from the perspective of Thomas Jefferson, the conclusion being he would oppose almost every single power of the federal government on the grounds of state’s liberties.

The fear of political factions and the importance of creating independent branches of government stick with me to this day and I have Mr. Hansen to thank for those lessons in United States civics.

Also at Muscatine High School, I was part of the Speech and Debate Team.  While I tried my hand at Extemporaneous Speech, I wasn’t very good at it.  Instead, I stuck with Lincoln-Douglas debate.  In this style of debate, you were given a debate topic well in advance and you were tasked with writing arguments both for and against the topic.  On the day of the debate, you would typically have to argue your case, only being told which side you were supposed to argue right before starting.

I still believe strongly that the requirement to look at both sides of any issue is extremely important.  It helps me on a daily basis to understand the perspective of others as I do my best to encourage civil dialogue and promote civil discussion.

 

* When he said “I FORBID IT” he would slam a yardstick down on his desk for dramatic effect.  I would also like to note that Patrick Henry was a well-known abolitionist who spoke often about the freedom and the immorality of slavery, yet also owned many slaves and did not even choose to free them upon his death.  I certainly did not know that in fifth grade.

 

Somehow, I even have sources when talking about my memories:

Give Me Liberty Or Give Me Death

The Federalist Number 10, [22 November] 1787

The Federalist No. 51, [6 February 1788]

Patrick Henry – World History Encyclopedia

Lincoln–Douglas debate format – Wikipedia

Until this Congressional term, I was pretty damn sure I knew the definition of one day. 

In two of the most ridiculous rules changes I have ever heard of, Congressional Republicans have changed the definition of one day – specifically so they can delay, possibly indefinitely, weighing in on the policies of President Donald Trump.

Today I want to bring these strange redefinitions to light.

In March, Congress passed the Continuing Resolution to keep the government funded.  As part of the resolution, Congress also added a strange measure, specifically redefining one day, for the specific purpose of the National Emergencies Act, that their entire first session would be considered one single day.

This week, Congress again took the unusual action of redefining one day.  According to the change in house rules, from today until the end of September 2025, it shall not be considered one day for Resolutions of Inquiry.

Why does any of this matter?

Officially, for the President to implement tariffs, he is required to designate a national emergency.  Congress has the authority to end that resolution and any vote to do so must be voted on within 15 days.  Declaring a day to be THE ENTIRE LEGISLATIVE SESSION allows Congress to ignore the resolution and not bring it up for vote.

Resolutions of Inquiry in the House of Representatives mean that various segments of the Executive Branch are required to provide information to the House within a specific number of days.  Redefining the rules of the House to declare the entire timeframe from now until October 2025 is technically one day is yet another mechanism by Congress to avoid accountability from Congress.

This is just another example a feckless Republican Congress choosing to abdicate their responsibility to serve as a check on the President. 

 

Sources:

House Republicans move to block vote on Trump’s tariffs – Live Updates – POLITICO

CommitteeOnRulesDraftRule118

House Republicans block Democrats from forcing votes on Signal, Elon Musk

 

 

“I don’t know.”
– Donald Trump, in response to whether he has to uphold the Constitution.

There is no ambiguity in this question, or this response.  He simply said he doesn’t know if he has to uphold the Constitution.

I will give credit that he ultimately did say this: “[his lawyers] are going to obviously follow what the Supreme Court said” but he did not say he would follow any other courts, and he seemed to suggest following through on his campaign pledge to deport people outweighed their rights granted by the U.S. Constitution.

In another question related to the Constitution, a judge has ruled that an Executive Order targeting the law firm Perkins Coie is unconstitutional.  Personally, I hope this emboldens other law firms to stand up for their rights, in addition to Universities and Media organizations.

Furthermore, I would like to hear Congress demand the President obey these court orders and uphold the Constitution.

Sources:

Trump, asked if he has to ‘uphold the Constitution,’ says, ‘I don’t know’

 

Yesterday, Donald Trump unveiled his new budget proposal for 2026 which included significant cuts to many programs in the United States – including an 84% cut to State and International Programs, 56% to the National Science Foundation, and 54% to the Environmental Protection Agency while also increasing the budget for Defense by 13% and Homeland Security by 65%.

I would now like to give a quick reminder that the power of appropriations lies with Congress, not the President, and it is Congress that decides the programs the federal government is allowed to spend on:

No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time. Article I; Section 9 – U.S. Constitution

During the campaign trail, President Trump mentioned the idea that even if Congress approved funding, he would still be able to simply not spend it – known as impoundment.  In response to President Nixon holding congressionally approved funds in the early 1970s, Congress codified impoundment and does allow the President to request rescission of funds but if Congress does not grant the request, the President cannot legally impound approved spending.

With the release of his new budget, an official with OMB said they will not rule out impoundment if Congress does not approve the budget Donald Trump wants – meaning he is suggesting illegally overruling the will of Congress if they don’t do what he asks.

Senators Grassley and Ernst, Representative Nunn, please stand up and demand the President follow the law, and demand that he stop trying to intimidate Congress to bend to his will.

I would also like to strongly recommend this episode of River to River – specifically the discussion with ISU Economist Peter Orazem on the impact of trade policies on the Iowa Economy.  In the interest of full disclosure, Dr. Orazem was my major professor at Iowa State.

How national economic uncertainty is affecting Iowa consumers | Iowa Public Radio

 

Sources:

President’s Budget – OMB – The White House

Trump wants big budget cuts, but not for defense or the border : NPR

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2025/05/02/us/trump-budget-2026?unlocked_article_code=1.EU8.AcMW.c8goxewSOzVl&smid=url-share

U.S. Constitution | Constitution Annotated | Congress.gov | Library of Congress

What you need to know about impoundment, and how Trump vows to use it | PBS News

Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 – Wikipedia

I am a straight, white man, born male.  I will never be able to TRULY understand what it is like to live my life as ANY minority.

Most of my writing focuses on federal issues – the executive branch ignoring the judiciary, the legislative branch not responding when their appropriations are slashed, or the impacts of this administration’s cuts to almost all federal agencies.  Today, I am going to focus on diversity, particularly LGBTQ+ issues and what seem to be contradictions among state lawmakers’ words and actions.

I invite civil, bipartisan discussion on this post.

In late February, Governor Reynolds signed a bill redefining protected rights in Iowa.  Specifically, this bill removed gender identity as a protected class in Iowa, and changed the definitions for male and female.

This bill was pushed through the Iowa legislature expeditiously.  Despite numerous demonstrations against the bill, the public comment period was limited, and statements were given by Iowa lawmakers and the Governor in support of the legislation:

• “Because of a court decision citing gender identity in Iowa code, taxpayers have been paying for hormone treatment and sex reassignment surgeries for Iowans on Medicaid. Additionally, we have recently passed common sense protections regarding girls’ sports, locker rooms, and restrooms and prohibiting sex reassignment surgeries on minors. These are common sense policies Iowans have begged us to take action on and supported in subsequent elections. It has become clear because of that court decision that those popular policies are at risk as long as gender identity remains specified in the civil rights code. It is for that reason, and at the urging of many Iowans, that we have decided it is time to give this bill the full consideration of the Iowa House Republican caucus.” – Speaker Pat Grassley

• “Transgender individuals will be protected, like all Americans, by the U.S. Constitution, the Bill of Rights, federal law, the Iowa Constitution and Iowa law,” – Representative Steven Holt 

• “Unfortunately, these common-sense protections were at risk because, before I signed this bill, the Civil Rights Code blurred the biological line between the sexes,” Reynolds said in a statement. “It has also forced Iowa taxpayers to pay for gender reassignment surgeries. That is unacceptable to me, and it is unacceptable to most Iowans.” – Governor Kim Reynolds

Here is my own concise summary of comments above:

• This is to protect girls in sports
• This is to keep men out of women’s bathrooms
• This is not about other trans rights
• This is to stop trans surgeries on minors
• This is not related to any other LGBTQ interests

I am going to examine the above bullet points as rationally and calmly as possible, using logic and sources.

This is to protect girls in sports

Trans women playing in sports has become one of the biggest controversies related to the trans community.  It seems much of this push started when a trans NCAA swimmer broke records and started winning, causing questions regarding whether it was an unfair advantage in women’s sports to be born a male.  While I am not an expert on this topic, it certainly seems a legitimate case can be made to bar trans women from participating in women’s sports.

However, I have always been a proponent of government not getting involved if it is not necessary.  Almost every sport already has a governing body of its own, and they are almost certainly better equipped to address this question – so did we really need the government to intervene?  Moreover, the NCAA has stated there are “less than 10” total trans women athletes across all of their sports nationwide.  Was this topic really such a significant priority that it had to be expedited through the Iowa legislative process?

This is to keep “men” out of women’s bathrooms

Due to this law, I would like to point out that this will now mean trans men will be required to use women’s bathrooms.  Moreover, transgender people are significantly more likely to be abused than cis-gender people yet we don’t seem to be addressing that issue.  In fact, due to removing trans people from a protected class, I believe this now means targeting trans people can no longer be considered a hate crime in Iowa.

This is not about other trans rights

It is possible that Iowa politicians believe this will not impact any other rights of Iowa trans citizens.  But this modification already means trans people can legally be discriminated against.  If this were truly only about the aspects they’ve mentioned, why didn’t the legislature add language to the bill that said all protections afforded to legally protected classes not explicitly mentioned in this bill must be legally provided to trans individuals?

This is to stop trans surgeries on minors

I have seen this argument time and time again.  However, all gender-affirming care had already been outlawed in the state of Iowa for minors.  For vaccines, school choice, and child-related topics, I hear these same lawmakers tout the importance of parent’s choice and that a child’s parent knows best.  If you truly believe parents know what is best for their children, why doesn’t that apply here?

This is not related to any other LGBTQ+ interests

I find this hard to believe, and I will use the rest of this post to explain why.

I remember attending a Rotary Meeting in Muscatine with Bob Vander Plaats as speaker – sometime around 2005.  He was strictly opposed to same-sex marriage and repeatedly made the point that children fare better when they are raised with both a mother and father in the home and thus, we should not allow same-sex marriages and adoptions as they would not receive the same benefits as heterosexual married couples.  After his presentation, I remember thinking we should be cautious in allowing same-sex marriage and adoptions for the sake of our state’s children.

I still believe we should always be cautious for the sake of all Iowans, and I have always believed in having a government which was designed to allow people to live their lives as they see fit, provided they do not infringe on the way others wish to live their lives.  If we are going to take away the rights of others, it should only be with strong evidence that exercising that right causes undue harm to others.

There have been numerous studies done on the impacts of same-sex marriage on the children who were raised in such a family.  There is ZERO evidence that same-sex marriage is detrimental to children.

A few years after listening to Mr. Vander Plaats speak, he took over as President of the organization the FAMiLY LEADER.  His organization has an annual dinner honoring people who exemplify family values.  I don’t know how many are honored, but this year I noticed quite a few honorees mentioned online:

• Speaker of the Iowa House Pat Grassley
• Iowa Representative Steve Holt
• Iowa Representative Henry Stone
• Iowa Representative Barb McCulla
• Iowa Senator Jason Schultz
• Iowa Attorney General Brenna Bird

I consider “family values” to be extremely important and I think it is imperative that we, our society of Iowans, works hard to help all children benefit from strong families wherever possible.  What though, exactly, does it mean to care about “family values”?  How do they define a family?  Who gets to make that decision?

With THE FAMiLY LEADER, their objectives are published on their website, making it abundantly clear what they consider to be strong family values.  I agree with some of their values, namely that every child deserves a strong education regardless of their family’s income level.  But along with some policies I can agree with, these are the top priorities of THE FAMiLY LEADER:

• “oppose anything that undermines God’s design for human sexuality, including fornication, pornography, homosexuality, and transgenderism”
• “encourage the election of Christ-like leaders”

With many of Iowa’s political leaders proudly and publicly proclaiming their respect and affiliation for an organization that is dedicated to stripping away the rights of all LGBTQ+ people, I find it exceptionally difficult to believe they are prepared to stop now.

When I was at Iowa State, I read an article in the university newspaper written by a trans woman.  She talked about her experiences as a student – this was my first real introduction to the issues of the trans community, and I distinctly remember thinking that the article and these issues were kind of weird.

In addition to thinking that the article was kind of weird, I also clearly remember thinking that it would have exactly ZERO NEGATIVE IMPACT on the life of anyone else, so if the person wanted to transition, WHY ON EARTH would I have any reason to object?

I have since met many more members of the LGBTQ+ community.  The main thing I have realized about each and every one of them is that they are just like anyone else, working to do their best for themselves, their families, and their communities.

 

Sources:

Child Well-Being in Same-Sex Parent Families: Review of Research Prepared for American Sociological Association Amicus Brief – PMC

Kim Reynolds signs law removing gender identity from Iowa civil rights

Iowa GOP bill would end civil rights protections for gender identity

Bill would remove protections for transgender Iowans from the Iowa Civil Rights Act | WVIK, Quad Cities NPR

Iowa Supreme Court won’t rule on Medicaid ban for transgender surgery

Trump Administration: Penn Violated Title IX with Lia Thomas

A Look At the Numbers and Times: No Denying Advantages of Lia Thomas

Penn’s Lia Thomas wins 3 events and sets 5 records at Ivies on her way to the NCAA championships

Iowa governor signs restrictive transgender sports bill | PBS News

NCAA president says there are ‘less than 10’ transgender athletes in college sports

Transgender people over four times more likely than cisgender people to be victims of violent crime – Williams Institute

SF418.pdf

About – The FAMiLY Leader

Iowa transgender kids are now barred from getting gender-affirming care and using certain school bathrooms | Iowa Public Radio

Q&A: Bob Vander Plaats, Iowa’s Social Conservative Kingmaker | TIME.com

TFL honors legislators for championing family values – The FAMiLY Leader