Sheriff Richard Mack, Co-Author of "The Democrat Murder of America"

This is Iowa Talking Points, the candidates, produced by Studio 5 at Mud Advertising and totally Iowa Media, where you hear from candidates in the November 2026 general election.

Now, Iowa Talking Points, the candidates.

From Studio 5 at Mud and Cedar Falls, here is Jeff Stein.

Hello and welcome.

There will be a new U.S.

Senator representing the state of Iowa in Washington in January of 2027.

It's an open seat due to the retirement of Senator Joni Ernst after two terms, and you'll find three candidates on the November General Election ballot.

One of them joins us at the Iowa Talking Points table today.

He is Thomas Lane.

Mr. Lane is the Libertarian candidate for U.S.

Senate.

Lane4Iowa.org is the website.

Mr. Lane, thank you so much for taking the time, sir.

Jeff, thank you for having me.

You currently serve as an elected official, and again, the Libertarian Party has been around in Iowa for some time, but you hold a distinction with regard to elective office and that party.

Yes, I was elected in 2018 as the Green County attorney, becoming the first libertarian to hold an elective partisan office in the state of Iowa and then was reelected in 2022.

So it can be done.

Green County is an overwhelmingly Republican county, but I was able to win as a libertarian and then win reelection four years later.

So why U.S.

Senate in 2026?

So when I was elected county attorney, I swore an oath to defend the constitution.

And unlike our elected officials in Washington DC, I took that oath seriously.

And I believe today the best way I can defend our constitution is by running for the United States Senate.

What are some of the key issues that are the foundation of your effort?

It is one thing to say, well, the established system isn't working, but

From a proactive standpoint, what are some of the things that interest you in particular as a representative of Iowa?

So the issue for which I've achieved the most notoriety up until my decision to run for office was my fight against the summit carbon pipeline.

There has been no greater test in Iowa history of whether our legislature is working for the people or for the economic elites, the corporations.

that fund their campaigns.

And our legislature and our representatives in Congress have failed that test miserably.

78% of Iowans oppose the use of eminent domain for the construction of this hazardous liquid pipeline.

I drafted the original draft of the bill.

that passed through the House and the Senate that would have prevented the use of eminent domain for the construction of this pipeline on agricultural land.

And then Governor Reynolds vetoed that bill over the wishes of 78%.

of the people of Iowa.

And it's not a coincidence that Bruce Rastetter, the millionaire, mega Republican donor who is behind this pipeline project, has contributed, you know, close to $200,000 to her.

political campaigns.

And the same is true for our Republicans in Congress.

You know, Ashley Hinson is receiving significant financial support from Bruce Rastetter.

And Congress has the power to stop this project.

Not only this particular project by ending the tax credits that are funding it, but also Congress has power pursuant to Section 5 of the 14th Amendment to pass legislation protecting our constitutional rights.

One of those rights is

the protection of property and the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment, which prohibits the taking of private land unless it's for a public use.

So if our members of Congress were serious about protecting our property rights, they could pass legislation stopping the use of eminent domain for private gain, but they don't.

because their major donors are funding their campaigns.

And the more money their donors can get through projects, boondoggles such as this, the more money they can then give to the legislators who are more concerned about doing the bidding of their donors than abiding by the wishes of the people who elected them.

And again, you mentioned Congress, and it was a Congress a few years ago that established all of the tax benefits that led to these things being

viable for people with means who wanted to invest so when you say Congress can end it

They could certainly remove the incentive that led to the whole thing to begin with, correct?

Absolutely, Jeff.

That's exactly right.

Sections 45Q and 45Z of the IRS tax code pay investors $85 per metric ton of carbon dioxide that are captured and sequestered underground.

This project, if I may, the idea is that

This company, Summit Carbon Solutions, will capture the carbon dioxide that would otherwise be emitted from our state's ethanol plants.

They will liquefy the carbon dioxide under immense pressure, pipe it across the state, and bury it underground.

We don't know where.

The original plan was North Dakota.

That has been scrapped.

We don't know where this carbon dioxide is going.

But for every metric ton of carbon dioxide they capture and sequester, our federal government will pay a private company

$85 and this particular company Summit Carbon Solutions Stands to make billions of dollars in our federal taxpayer dollars and the the irony is that the environmentalist groups Who we think would support this are opposed to it?

Because it will do more damage to the environment Building the pipeline then it will do good

capturing carbon dioxide.

So it's a project that will actually end with end results that are contrary to the very purpose for which is being built.

The only good this project does is to make Bruce Rastetter and his investors, potentially billionaires.

And then to make it even worse, what I find especially problematic, in fact, I find it unconstitutional, is that to build this network of pipelines

our state has vested summit carbon solutions with the power of eminent domain to take property from unwilling landowners along the pipelines proposed route.

So it's a boondoggle, it's a waste of taxpayer money, but even worse, the only way it can succeed is by violating our fundamental constitutional rights.

Now, again,

as an attorney and will ask about your background because you've got an extensive background, but you study this.

This is not just off the top of one's head.

So I get a sense that when I ask you what kind of a U.S.

senator will you be, I have a feeling that your beliefs are rooted in the founding documents as formally amended, not informally amended by practice.

Exactly right.

I not only

put the Constitution into practice every day in my job as a prosecuting attorney and as the lawyer for Green County, Iowa.

I also used to teach constitutional law.

I believe in the Constitution, I believe in the rule of law, and it is something that our current elected class in Washington D.C., our elected officials in D.C., are absolutely willing, they have demonstrated that they are willing to sacrifice our Constitution, our Republic on the altar of their own ambition.

In order to get reelected, they are willing to sacrifice it all.

I ask everybody at the table.

Republicans and Democrats because you can't just say you're a Republican because there are categories.

You can't just be a Democrat, there are categories.

So when I ask you this question, it's not because you are a member of the smaller party of these three I've just mentioned, but what does it mean to be a libertarian

in a political framework like this.

What would a libertarian US senator do?

So libertarians generally believe that everyone should be free to live his or her own life as he or she sees fit.

So long as we're not interfering with the ability of others,

to live their lives as they see fit.

That's philosophically what it means to be a libertarian.

I'm a true libertarian vis-a-vis the federal government.

I believe that's what our founding fathers envisioned that the federal government should largely stay out of our lives and let us be free to live our lives as we each individually see fit.

I'm not a true libertarian vis-a-vis state and local government.

I believe there's room for state and local governments to do more in our lives.

than the federal government, but I say with sincerity that I've always said my life should only intersect with the federal government on two occasions.

when I try to cross the border to get into the United States, and when I go to the post office.

Otherwise, the federal government should stay out of my life.

And that's the way the founding fathers designed the system, that certain responsibilities would be given to the national government, like national defense and a post office.

But most policy-making areas would be reserved to the states, education policy, health policy, transportation policy.

These would be reserved for the states.

That's what the Constitution says.

But what we've seen

instead is this growing concentration of power in the national government and especially and most problematically in the person of the president.

We hear about separation of powers and we typically think of that between at the federal level legislative judicial and executive branches but when you've got the federal constitution in concert with constitutions of the states that's a separation of powers.

Similarly within Iowa we have home rule

to suggest that cities and counties should be able to row their own boats on certain things.

What you're suggesting is that the folks in Washington have just tried to, this is my phrase, not yours, steamroll on the idea of a republic and instead elevate the role of the national government.

Absolutely right.

Our founding fathers

sought to fragment power, first through federalism, as you said, dividing power between the national government and the state governments, and then within each layer of government, they further divided power across the three branches.

And the reason they did that was because they knew that the greatest threat to liberty was the concentration of power.

Concentrated power is arbitrary power, and in a system of arbitrary power, none of us is free.

What we have seen over the course of at least the last 75 years is more and more power being concentrated in the White House.

You know, the Constitution says only Congress can declare war, and yet we're clearly at war with Iran because President Trump unilaterally decided to take our country to war.

That's unrepublican, it's unconstitutional.

Presidents are making

laws via executive order, which is a violation of the separation of powers.

And what's especially concerning is not that presidents are taking power.

Our founders would have anticipated that presidents would try to expand their power.

What's alarming and is really almost treasonous is that members of Congress have simply given their power to the president.

They have abdicated their responsibilities because they're more concerned about doing the things they think will help them get reelected, meeting with donors, lobbyists, doing constituency service.

They're doing the things they think they need to do to get reelected rather than

in fulfilling their constitutional responsibilities, and presidents have simply stepped into the void.

And Congress, I would suggest, please disagree if I'm wrong, but they've sped up that process by saying, all right, here's a piece of legislation, we're setting up an agency, and we have given you the broad parameters, but now we're going to leave it up to the executive branch, namely the agency to determine its rules and regulations, et cetera,

And so basically all they've done is be like a parent with an allowance and say, here you go, and then be surprised when the kid doesn't spend the money properly.

Correct.

Congress passes a broadly awarded legislation that could mean anything to anyone and then leaves it to the administrative agencies and the executive branch to implement.

And what's happening simultaneously is not only is Congress giving power then to unelected bureaucrats in the executive branch.

At the same time, we now have this theory called the Unitary Theory of the Executive.

that the president can direct those bureaucrats to do whatever he wishes.

So you have this transfer of power to an unelected bureaucracy, but then even worse, those unelected bureaucrats now, the theory is, have to do whatever the president tells them to do.

So that power first shifted to the executive branch, but is now shifting upward into the White House.

We're speaking with Thomas Lane.

Mr. Lane is a libertarian running for the United States Senate.

His name is pronounced Lane, but not spelled the same as another candidate on the statewide ballot.

Like to be very clear when they're looking for your website, which is lane4iowa.org.

We will continue the conversation with Senate candidate Thomas Lane.

As Iowa talking points, the candidates continues in a moment.

One opportunity, change your career.

Mud advertising is hiring product specialists.

$20 an hour, paid weekly.

That's 52 weeks a year plus record-breaking profit sharing.

Let me repeat, $20 an hour plus record-breaking profit sharing.

But we're just getting started.

The best in the business 401k company match, gold standard health plans, on-site fitness center, generous pay time off, and so much more.

Apply today and don't look back.

You're watching Iowa Talking Points.

The candidates.

Here again is Jeff Stein.

And we continue this conversation with Thomas Lane.

Mr. Lane is currently the Green County Attorney.

You'll see him on the November statewide ballot.

Libertarian running for U.S.

Senate.

Lane4Iowa.org is the website.

So I mentioned your current title.

You mentioned in the prior segment some college teaching.

Give us a little more of a sense about you that brought you to this point.

So I did my undergraduate degree at Drake University in Des Moines.

I grew up in a town called Allison, Iowa.

Graduated from Allison Bristow High School, a little public school that doesn't exist anymore.

Did my undergraduate at Drake.

I then went down to Louisiana and earned a master's in PhD in political science at Louisiana State University.

After that, I had my first job at Hebrew University in Jerusalem, where I was a research fellow there for one year, and then I came back to Louisiana, and I taught political science, especially classes in political philosophy and constitutional law, at a little university called McNeese State University in Lake Charles, Louisiana.

I wanted to get back to Iowa.

I was still a bachelor at the time, but I knew someday I wanted to get married and have kids.

And I wanted my kids to grow up in a small town like Allison, the one I grew up in.

So I thought law school would be a good path back.

to rural Iowa.

Nationally, there are more people graduating from law school than there are jobs for lawyers.

So if you look nationally, it's really not a good time to go to law school.

But that national surplus hides a lot of variation at the local level.

And we actually have a shortage of attorneys in rural Iowa.

So I knew if I went to law school in Iowa, there would be a job somewhere in rural Iowa.

And STARS aligned, the county attorney in Green County announced he was not running

for reelection.

So right after law school, I moved to Jefferson, had a very brief stint as assistant county attorney, and then ran for county attorney.

So what have you learned as a county prosecutor?

Again, Allison, that's Butler County, right?

It is.

All right.

So again, small town Iowa, and I say that in a very positive endorsement sort of way.

I'm a product of it myself.

What have you learned as a prosecutor?

Or as the county's attorney, because there are a lot of civil matters people don't necessarily think of, what have you learned in that position that will help inform you as a United States senator?

So I've learned that the people of Iowa, or it's probably just reaffirmed something I already knew, which is the people of Iowa are generally very well informed, very engaged, and share the concerns I have about the state of our political system.

In Green County, where I'm now County Attorney, we do a really good job of governing ourselves.

Our Board of Supervisors does a great job of passing ordinances, listening to the concerns of constituents.

I still believe in the people, and I think the two-party system has corrupted our political system and is now, you know, the ideal of a political party or of a party system is that parties help implement the will of the people.

There's a democratic process and people can rally around the party that shares their values or concerns and the wishes of the majority can be expressed on election day.

What has instead happened is that the two-party system is actually obstructing the will of the people.

And I know I still have faith in the American people and the people of Iowa.

We just need to get the two-party system out of the way and return power to the people so our wishes can actually be implemented into law.

If my numbers or my memory is correct, there are two individuals in the current 100-member U.S.

Senate who are independents and they both caucus with Democrats.

I don't know how other states are going to go, but when you become a U.S.

senator from Iowa, you may well be the only libertarian.

Well, that's a small caucus.

Maybe there'll be a few others of you, but is there one of the existing parties or the other that you might tend to caucus with, or would you be the absolute free agent of the class?

That is a great question, and I've given a lot of thought to this.

I would caucus with whichever party

Was the party opposite the party of the president?

Right, so one of the reasons we are

regardless of who the president

is regardless of what I want to

be

very clear You're you're making a philosophical point.

Yes that one of the functions of Congress is to hold the president in check and Likewise the president supposed to hold Congress in check and the courts are supposed to hold the other branches and check system of checks and balances we all learned this in grad school or in high school

What's instead happened is members of Congress, if the president is of the same party as they are, they are more loyal to the president than they are to their own institution.

And they're willing to sacrifice Congress in order to implement the agenda of the president.

You know, when Ashley Hinson announced she was running for the United States Senate, she said,

President Trump will have no greater ally in the United States Senate than me, Ashley Hinson.

And I thought to myself, you either don't understand the role of Congress, you've never read the Constitution, you don't understand your function, or you just don't care.

Because the goal of Congress isn't just a rubber stamp, whatever the president

And we've seen her do this.

She's had opportunities to vote against the war in Iran.

She hasn't.

She's had opportunities to vote against the tariffs.

She hasn't.

She said, with respect to the tariffs, we need to give the president the time and the means necessary to implement his economic agenda.

But that is an absolute betrayal of the Constitution and the function of Congress.

And this is part of the problem of our party system.

Members of Congress are more loyal to their party and to the president if he belongs to their party than they are to the Constitution or to Congress.

So if I'm elected, when I'm elected, I will caucus with whichever party is the party opposite the president.

If the president's a Republican, I'll caucus with the Democrats.

If the president's a Democrat, I'll caucus with the Republicans because that's how the system was designed

to work, that we are there to check the president and not simply to rubber stamp his agenda.

I'm just going to clarify because I think you were very clear, but that does not mean you vote lockstep against whoever is in office or that president.

It's a matter of saying you're not going to feel beholden to vote lockstep.

with the person.

Exactly right.

And that's what differentiates me from Josh Turrick and Ashley Hinson is that not one cent has been spent on my behalf by a political action committee.

No political party has spent one cent on my behalf.

I will owe my office and my allegiance to the people of Iowa.

And I will not be beholden to any party or interest group in Washington, DC.

Thomas Lane is our guest.

Mr. Lane is the Libertarian candidate for U.S.

Senate on the November ballot.

Lane4Iowa.org is the website.

More with Thomas Lane as Iowa Talking Points.

The candidates continues.

Studio 5 at Mud is built to get attention and get results.

From radio and television to digital video and live productions, it all happens inside our 3100 square foot production studio.

An infinity wall, multi-camera live webcast capabilities, massive green screen, audience seating and a full creative team for pre and post production.

Whatever you need for media or production, get noticed and get results.

At Mud Advertising, we love it when you succeed.

Watch all the programs in the Iowa Talking Point series online at IowaTalkingPoints.com.

Iowa Talking Points, the candidates, continues with Jeff Stein.

And we continue with Thomas Lane.

Mr. Lane is a Libertarian.

He is running for U.S.

Senate.

You'll see his name on the ballot.

There are three individuals, Republican Democrat Libertarian on the November ballot.

Lane4Iowa.org is the website.

I just mentioned you're one of three.

Distinguish yourself from the other two.

Now, you've talked a bit about some of these things issue by issue, but if people are looking at the race in a fresh way, what separates you from either the Republican or the Democrat?

So, Ashley Hinson, the Republican, is running against the Democrat, Josh Turrick.

Josh Turrick, the Democrat, is running against the Republican, Ashley Hinson.

I'm running not against Josh or Ashley.

I'm running against the two-party system itself.

That's the first consideration that clearly distinguishes me from the other candidates.

But secondly, and I've alluded to this, we know this has been reported on.

A super PAC in Washington DC has pledged to spend $29 million on Ashley Hinson's behalf.

A PAC aligned with Chuck Schumer, the New York Democrat, spent $9.7 million on Josh Turrick's behalf to help him secure the Democratic nomination.

There's another PAC that has pledged to spend, you know, millions upon millions of dollars on his behalf to get him elected this November.

And the people of Iowa have to ask themselves, if Josh or Ashley were to be elected, whom would they serve?

Would they serve the people of Iowa or would they serve the economic elites who propelled them into office?

And we know that when people arrive in Washington DC as freshman senators, they immediately start campaigning again for reelection.

And again, so to whom will they be attentive?

Will it be the people who elected them or will it be the mega donors who fund their campaigns?

And we know there are issues with respect to which the people of Iowa are united.

You know, as I mentioned, 78% of Iowans are opposed to the use of eminent domain for private gain.

We know that 88% of Americans support term limits for members of Congress.

We know that 78% of Americans want to reduce or eliminate the role of money in our elections.

The real divide in America is not between Republicans and Democrats.

The real divide is between a parasitic elected class and the people.

We cannot rely on Republicans and Democrats in Congress to impose term limits.

It'd be against their self-interest.

They want to hold office for life.

We can't rely on members of Congress to overturn Citizens United and reduce the role of corporate spending in our politics because they benefit from the system.

They rely on that money.

We can't rely on Ashley Hinson to propose legislation to eliminate eminent domain abuse when Bruce Rastetter is raising tens of thousands of dollars for her campaign.

The members of Congress have proven Republican and Democrat alike have proven that they are willing to sacrifice our Constitution and our Republic on the altar of their own private ambition.

And you cannot expect politicians who are elected under the current system to pass voter integrity laws, because once again, regardless of which party you put by your name, you got elected with the old system.

This is why they're having a hard time addressing another one of these so-called 75, 25, or 80, 20 issues.

I agree completely.

We will never have meaningful change in Washington, DC, so long as the people who hold office have a vested interest in the preservation of the existing system.

And in fact, and I ask this because I know of your background and what you've studied and taught.

The Framers warned us about parties from the

start.

Yes.

George Washington in his farewell address.

He said a number of things, but he gave one warning.

As he left office, a man who could have been king.

He commanded the allegiance of the military.

He could have set himself up as king.

And instead, he was devoted to the idea of a constitutional republic.

And after eight years in office, even though he could have been reelected, he voluntarily left office.

And in his farewell address, he said, whatever you do, don't form political parties.

And I think the reason, and it took me a long time of studying and teaching and thinking about this, the reason is, as I mentioned, our founding fathers wanted to divide political power, fragment political power, and keep power in check.

And political parties are not unconstitutional, but in a sense they are contrary to the spirit of our constitution, because they seek to unite.

What our founding fathers wanted to keep separate so that Trump is now colluding with the Republicans in Congress because they belong to the same party when Congress was meant to keep the president in check

Washington had the warning and then Adams and Jefferson cemented opposite political parties

Yeah, the irony is that the two parties were already forming kind of in the womb of Washington's cabinet sure

All right.

You already had this division within Washington's cabinet between those who wanted more centralized power and those who are more Republican in their philosophy.

When you are elected, you'll take the oath in early 2027, which means during your term, Social Security will become insolvent and there will be automatic cuts across the board.

It's already in the law.

So the next U.S.

Senator is going to have to address

this issue.

Tell me how Senator Lane would do that.

That's a great, great question.

Yeah, the Social Security Trust Fund becomes insolvent in 2032.

And this is a symptom or a product of Congress's total abdication of its responsibilities.

You know, we're spending billions of dollars fighting a war in Iran that's never been authorized by Congress.

We need to get spending in check so that we can take the money we're wasting overseas and use it to do things like

show up our Social Security Trust Fund.

It is absolutely a byproduct of our refusal to abide by the Constitution.

It is an absolute product of Congress's abdication of its constitutional responsibilities that we now can't fulfill basic promises that have been made to the American people.

I would support a constitutional amendment to require a balanced budget.

I would absolutely fight against unnecessary and costly wars.

You know, during this war in Iran, we dropped a bomb on a girl's elementary school, right?

Our taxpayer dollars killed children.

Would it not be better to use that money to shore up our social security trust fund?

Well, and since we're running such a deficit,

It's not like there's a pile of money there and we have to figure out where to spend it, which you just mentioned with regard to the constitutional amendment.

But with regard to spending broadly, are there some areas where your libertarian principle suggests to you the federal government should not even be doing anything here.

We need to get out of this altogether, save that money, apply it toward paying down the deficit quote unquote to get to your goal of a balanced budget.

Are there some areas that

Just don't even belong in the conversation.

Oh, yes, there's low hanging fruit here as a softball question Department of Education that nowhere in the Constitution does Congress have any authority any jurisdiction over education policy in the United States about I would support the abolition of the Department of Education

immediately.

And I feel similarly about other policy areas, but also I do want to underscore the cost of war, all of these unnecessary wars in the Middle East that have drained our nations.

coffers.

And we now know, you know, our munitions are depleted, so we're going to have to spend money to build more bombs because we've used so many in Iran.

I mean, I think foreign policy is where we can actually probably find the most savings.

But absolutely, whole departments in Washington, D.C., should be eliminated.

I mean I would I would I would support going back to the original three right State Department Defense Department and The the economics Treasury Department those are the only three.

I think we actually need I don't however believe in radical change I am philosophically quite conservative and I think change should be incremental and some of the

problems we see in Washington DC is because Trump made such radical abrupt changes, not going through the legislative process, but doing things via executive order or unilaterally.

So even though my view of the federal government of its proper role is quite different from what we see in operation today, I don't support radical change.

Change has to be gradual and incremental.

You mentioned constitutional balance budget amendment.

which we have in Iowa.

How long would it take?

Because if you pass the amendment and we're so far in the hole, how long of a grace period would you give or would there be instantaneous no further addition and then X period of grace period realistically?

incrementally to get to the point where there's no more deficit.

Now, I would support an amendment that required Congress immediately, the very next budget session, to pass a balanced budget.

Now, it's still going to take decades, maybe centuries, to pay down our national debt.

But Congress can spend prudently on day one.

And as a member of Congress, I would never... I'll take this a step further, Jeff.

Would never with maybe some exceptions which I'll explain I would never support any bill That would result in greater debt Now I would the only exception I would make is if there's a true national emergency like Pearl Harbor then we may have to

spend beyond our means for some period of time.

But as a general rule, if a bill would increase our national debt, I'm gonna vote against it.

They tried for

a

while

to say there had to be offsets.

It didn't work very well, did it?

It did not, no.

The interest groups have too much power.

Thomas Lane is our guest.

He is the Libertarian candidate for U.S.

Senate in the November 2026 general election.

A few more moments with Mr. Lane after this short break as Iowa talking points, the candidates continues.

Iowa has a wonderful heritage and each day I'll share these stories of historic people and events with you.

I'm Jeff Stein.

Join me for the Iowa Almanac program and learn more about this great place we call home.

Now, seven days a week.

Listen on radio stations across the state via podcast or at IowaAlmanac.com.

Signs can set the tone.

Signs can direct, instruct, and motivate, and even seal the deal.

At MUD Advertising, we create signs in every shape, size, and material for clients nationwide.

From point-of-purchase displays that turn heads and drive traffic to campaign signage that brings your marketing to life.

Need to go big?

We do that too, with large format banners, trade show displays, vehicle wraps, and more.

Whatever the message, whatever the size, wherever it needs to go,

Whatever your signage need, call us today.

At Mud Advertising, we love it when you succeed.

You're watching Iowa Talking Points, the candidates.

Here again is Jeff Stein.

A few more minutes with Thomas Lane.

Mr. Lane, currently the Green County Attorney.

He is a libertarian and running for U.S.

Senate.

You'll find him on the November General Election ballot and you'll find him online at lane4iowa.org.

We've been talking a bit about campaigns and financing.

U.S.

Supreme Court issued a ruling during this most recent session that has a role to play in that in terms of how close interest groups can get to campaigns and coordinate messages, et cetera.

What sort of legislation could you propose that might put a little more sanity into that system?

Yeah, so Congress absolutely has the power to enact meaningful campaign finance reform.

And members of Congress don't want us to know that, right?

So

Section 5 of the 14th Amendment gives Congress the power to enact legislation to protect our constitutional rights.

They play a role.

They can play a role in defining the scope of our constitutional rights.

That's important.

Secondly, Congress has the power to strip the Supreme Court's jurisdiction.

Congress has not done this since the Civil War.

But Congress has the power to pass a bill and to attach a provision that the Supreme Court can't hear challenges to the bill.

So Congress could enact meaningful campaign finance reform, eliminating interest group spending in our elections, and include language in the bill saying, by the way, you can't challenge this law before the Supreme Court.

and we would overturn Citizens United like that.

Now, again, Congress, having wholly abdicated its constitutional responsibilities, has all but stopped playing any role in the defense of our constitutional rights as evidenced by their failure to stop eminent domain abuse in our country.

And they have instead just ceded the authority to define our constitutional rights and to protect them to the Supreme Court.

And then members of Congress get the best of both worlds because they can stay on the campaign trail all I support.

campaign finance reform, I'm as angry as you are about the role of money in our elections.

But unfortunately, the Supreme Court has said in Citizens United that we have to allow this interest group spending.

And I am the beneficiary, you know, Ashley Hinseng has said, I got $29 million from a political action committee.

And that's just the reality of the game because of the Supreme Court's ruling.

And that is a total abdication of

Congress's constitutional responsibilities, and it's actually quite deceptive, because Congress could enact meaningful campaign finance reform and strip the Supreme Court's jurisdiction to hear a challenge to that law.

And then because the Supreme Court could not overturn the law, it would be the law of the land.

And I would propose that legislation day one when I'm elected to the Senate, legislation eliminating interest group spending,

in our federal elections and including language, stripping the Supreme Court's jurisdiction to hear challenges to that law.

Now, if you were a Republican or Democrat who made that statement, you could make it with all sorts of honest intention knowing that it's never going anywhere within your respective caucus because they'd start the conversation with, I don't think you understand how this works.

Someone who does not

Oh, their seat to one of the two larger parties might have a little more, I don't want to say influence, but the ability to get that in front of the American people.

Yes.

And if a Republican or Democratic candidate, if my opponent said that, they'd be hypocrites because they are getting money from the PACs that are part of the source of the corruption of our republic.

But you know, Jeff, if when I'm elected to the United States Senate,

You know, I'd only be one vote.

And there's probably no other libertarians, so I'm caucusing with the Democrats or the Republicans.

But if I'm elected, I believe within four years libertarians would be a major party in the United States, because it would prove to the world that it can be done.

And all of the voters who are concerned about voting for a spoiler, you know, they want to vote for the lesser evil to prevent the greater evil, that false narrative that both parties are propagating, that you have to vote for the lesser of two evils on election day, that false narrative would explode.

And it would show that, you know, we know in Iowa there are more registered independents than there are Democrats.

And I believe, without a shadow of a doubt, if you were to add together independence, disaffected Democrats, people who are Democrats, but they are only Democrats because they want to stop the Republicans, and disaffected Republicans who are only Republicans because they want to stop the Democrats, we're the majority.

The politically disaffected are the majority.

And if we all go and do the voting booth on election day and vote our conscience, we would vote for the winning candidate.

Well, you are asking Iowans to vote for you.

In the November general election, I'll let you have the final couple of minutes of this program to make your case directly to them.

Thank you, Jeff.

Now, when I'm elected to the United States Senate, I will owe my office and my allegiance to the people of Iowa.

On June 2nd, I submitted a nominating petition signed by nearly 10,000

Iowans, nominating me for the United States Senate seat for the state of Iowa.

My opponents were not nominated by the people.

They were nominated by their respective parties.

Ashley Hinson was nominated by the Republican Party.

Josh Turrick was nominated by the Democratic Party.

And they will owe their allegiance to their respective parties.

I was nominated directly by the people

of Iowa and when I am elected this November I will owe my office and my allegiance to the people.

of Iowa.

I have promised that when I'm elected, I will serve only one term in the United States Senate.

And that way, every vote I take, every decision I make, the people of Iowa will know I'm doing it because I believe it's what the Constitution requires or because it's in the interest of the people I represent.

I will have no ulterior motive.

I will not be making decisions in order to get reelected, but I will be doing what I know to be right.

I will, unlike Ashley and Josh, who owe their offices to their parties and the interest groups that are funding their campaigns, I will have no greater loyalty than my loyalty to the Constitution and to all of you, the people of Iowa.

Mr. Lane, thank you so much for the conversation and good luck in the election.

Thank you, Jeff.

Thank you for coming in and thank you for joining us.

He's Thomas Lane, Libertarian, U.S.

Senate LaneForIowa.org.

And that brings us to the close of this edition of Iowa Talking Points.

The candidates, again, we thank you for being with us.

This

has been Iowa Talking Points.

The candidates produced by Studio 5 at Mud Advertising and totally Iowa Media.

For more information on this series, go to IowaTalkingPoints.com.

It is a privilege to welcome to the news line retired Sheriff Richard Mack.

Sheriff Mack is co-author of a new book entitled The Democrat Murder of America.

You find it and can purchase it online at murderofamerica.com and the full name of the book is The Democrat Murder of America Demagoguery in the First Degree.

Sheriff Mack, thanks so much for taking the time.

Good morning to you, sir.

Well, good morning, Jeff.

Thanks so much for having me.

Thank you for pinning the badge on your shirt for so many years.

For those who are not familiar, give us a sense of your background, please, sir.

Well, I spent 20 years in law enforcement.

My dad was an FBI agent, and I thought I'd try to follow in his footsteps, but I did apply for the FBI back in late 70s and early 80s.

It never worked out.

And so I hired on with the police department at Provo Utah, Provo PD.

I did everything in law enforcement imaginable, anywhere from murder investigations all the way down to bicycle theft and shoplifting.

And I was a patrol officer for five years.

And then I did a year spent as, and this is like one of the most horrible times of my life.

I was an undercover narcotics agent.

and

I never did drugs in my life and the only time this is kind of unique the only time I ever smoked marijuana was when I was a police officer when I was undercover and so I learned a lot at that but I've never shot anybody I have never beaten anybody up I stopped fights but I just used my old football moves to do that tackled them and and but I didn't beat people into jail I talked people into jail and I was

very respectful of everybody I dealt with and then I Moved home to Arizona and ran for Graham County Sheriff in 1988 I was elected miraculously and reelected in 1992 then in 1994 I became the first sheriff in American history To launch a major lawsuit against the federal government.

I actually sued the Clinton administration

and lived to tell about it, by the way.

And it was on the Brady Bill, and the Brady Bill was a gun control scheme that required the sheriffs of the United States, all sheriffs across the country, to enforce this unconstitutional law for the federal government.

And if we didn't do it, if we didn't do it, they said we were faced with arrest and a $10,000 fine or both.

one year in prison sentence if we just told the federal government stay out of my county and stay out of my way and stay out of my life and that's exactly what most sheriffs should be doing in this country when the government is doing overreach and this was like the epitome of overreach by the federal government and we took it to the supreme court six other sheriffs joined me in the lawsuit so there were seven of us two of us actually were the named plaintiffs and that was

Sheriff Jay Prince from Montana, and myself, Sheriff Richard Mack from Arizona.

Two small town sheriffs taking on the federal government, and we won.

And that's the real significance here.

We beat the Clintons, we beat this gun control scheme, and we used the 10th Amendment to do this, and it was the most powerful 10th Amendment decision in the history of our country.

That's available at my website at cspoa.org.

Every American can become a member of the CSPOA because it's all about the people being involved in a peaceful and effective solution.

cspoa.org

CSPOA is the Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association.

Sheriff Mack, our guest, is founder and president of that group.

And through that description, folks, you understand why I said it would be a privilege to have this conversation.

Thank you for standing up for all of our constitutional rights, especially as you note, you live to tell, and that was not the case for everyone during that administration, sad to say.

All right, so you have teamed up with someone who is well-known to folks.

We've talked with Dan Perkins on the radio before as well.

For this new book,

which is called the democrat murder of america what led to the book and what will we find there

well what will you find there is most amazing historical evidence uh... since the democrat party was formed that uh... they've never been pro-civil rights they've never been pro-freedom they've always been pro-slavery uh... uh... pro-death when you look at their record with abortion

And now this has actually been going on some time.

Recently, Massachusetts voted to have abortions up until the time of birth.

And a bunch of ladies were cheering as they cheered that they get to murder babies right at birth.

And that's already been there.

The Democrats have had that for some time.

It's called partial birth abortion.

So literally, while the baby is being born,

usually breach.

They've legalized murdering the baby at that point.

And so I do honestly believe that anyone that is so low and debased and cruel and ruthless and without human feeling thinks it's okay to kill a baby while it's being born.

Well, that's probably the worst thing the Democrats have ever done, and there's a lot of them.

But right now, the book exposes the murders they've done, and especially the murder of our Constitution and civil rights, which they say they support, but they

don't.

And the other thing that you'll see is a backdrop of an analogy that we point out in the introduction of the book, that if you put black ants and red ants in the same jar,

They will get along fine put a hundred of each color in there And this has nothing to do with the racial tensions in America right now.

It's just this is a fact if you put red ants and black ants together in a jar, they'll get along just fine until someone Shakes the jar and then the ants will kill each other completely annihilate each other and we believe that that's the analogy that fits

the political structure of our country today.

It's based on violence and hate and demagoguery and blame and dishonesty, corruption.

And it just keeps going and going.

It never gets better.

And spending us into oblivion and into bankruptcy.

And yes, both parties do that.

But no one does it better than the Democrats And right now it's we can do anything including fraud and spending the taxpayers money and and committing all these crimes and bringing in 30 30 million illegal aliens including cartels and terrorists and all that's fine and it's all Trump's fault and so we expose all of that and also

Tell the truth about what really happened to John F Kennedy the truth about what really happened to Marilyn Monroe the truth of what happened to Martin Luther King and who his family actually said killed Martin Luther King and and and then we take a brief view of socialism and communism and then the threat of Nikita Khrushchev who was the This is his title.

He was head dictator of the

Communist Party and the and the Soviet Union back in the early 60s and I remember him He was scary.

He was he was fat.

He was mean He was ugly and he yelled and and I had nightmares about the guy and He warned us You Americans are so gullible.

He said you won't accept communism outright, but we will feed you small pieces of Socialism until you finally wake up one day and realize

You're already a Communist country.

And then he warned us one more time.

He said this.

We will never have to invade the United States.

You will be destroyed from within.

We will bury you.

And now that threat is being fulfilled by the Democrat Party.

And ultimately, we beg everyone.

And we show an example.

of his state senator in california how she came together with republicans and she was a staunch leftist liberal progressive but she saw what was going on and she had it with the democrat party she had it with what they were doing and they finally came together with republicans and democrats to do something to protect children from pedophiles in california because this one lady stood up we beg everyone to read the book it will help everyone democrats republicans everyone

and then let's meet in the middle and start solving the problems that are facing our country today

in

a peaceful manner.

I'm sorry, I wanted to make sure people remembered how to get the book MurderOfAmerica.com.

MurderOfAmerica.com.

The title of the book is The Democrat Murder of America Demagoguery in the First Degree.

Sheriff Richard Mack and Dan Perkins, the author, Sheriff Mack, joins us on KXEL.

And it is a sad commentary about how bad things are, Sheriff, when it was almost an afterthought.

You're going through the list of all the atrocities and, oh yeah, we're $40 trillion in debt.

It is going to take a profit at the federal government level, a profit of $1 trillion a year for three generations now because of interest.

Just to break even so it's not a matter that It's somebody's children grandchildren great-grandchildren are going to still be paying this debt off And that's almost the afterthought because and I've mentioned this on the air before too you're talking about the abortion issue Yeah, how ghoulish was it the scene in the Massachusetts governor's office last month when the governor is signing the law that allows

infanticide.

That's really what it is.

They can

call it

whatever they want but allows abortion at the point of birth and not only that but there were dozens of women smiling and clapping as the bill was being signed.

I understand somebody might have a political view in favor of that.

I can't understand it but I recognize it I guess.

But to be smiling and cheering and like it's the greatest day in the world, like they served ice cream at school lunch.

I mean, that just shows you how different some people think.

And I'm not sure until they read the pages of the Democrat murder of America, I'm not sure that people listening to the conversation necessarily realize just how twisted the other side is.

And that's exactly the point of the book because it is.

And I believe that there are good people in the Democrat Party, but they've got to realize and and and wake up just as the key to Khrushchev warned us.

We've got it's time to wake up everybody.

That's that you that's why in the book we actually put that the real the only real accomplishment of the Democrat Party is that they've reached a new level of degeneracy.

And that's what this is.

That's what we saw that day and that with those 25 30 women hearing as they were.

cheering and fantasize and and for anyone to think that anyone could cheer while a baby is nine months totally normal ready to be born and and they actually start the birth and Then they kill it.

That's murder You can question When life really starts inside the womb you can everybody could talk about that till the end

cows come home.

But I'm against all abortion, but this has really, at this point, nothing to do with your belief in abortion.

It's belief in life and liberty and the pursuit of happiness and the tenets that we're supposed to be protecting in this country, and that they cheer.

Like you said, I can't see anything, but this is a new level of degeneracy, folks, and it's time for us

to come together and doing the three things that we promised to do when we started our country, and that is protecting life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

If we can't even do that, then we're in trouble.

And that's why we wrote the book, because we wanted to wake people up, especially this year, that we're going to the polls to vote for communists and socialists and Muslim extremists who are now not just infiltrating our country, but infiltrating the halls of Congress.

And folks, we've got to wake up.

And it's time to come together in a peaceful and effective way to solve the problems facing our country.

And the two that we've mentioned right now on your show is the $40 trillion debt.

We are twice as much in debt as all the money we have in this country.

And our taxes just go to pay the interest, as you alluded to.

That's all our taxes go to, folks.

It doesn't go to any programs.

It doesn't go to anything else.

our taxes all pay just the national debt interest and then of course the abortion thing folks we can make a comeback get the book and study it with your family yes your children should should uh six grade and above can understand this book and especially if you're studying it with your parents this is vital this is the reason we wrote the book to save our country and to wake people up

and this has to start with you, you and your family, and we take back America one person at a time, county by county and state by state.

Sheriff Richard Mack is our guest.

He and Dan Perkins, the authors of the new book, The Democrat Murder of America, and you get the book online, murderofamerica.com.

There's an e-book, there's a hard

or a paper copy, hold it in your hands.

That's how I like to read a book.

And

then

there's also the audio book.

So however you want to get your material, you can get it.

It's at murderofamerica.com.

And also, Sheriff Mack is the founder and president of CSPOA, the Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association.

Anyone can join to support the cause and you do that at cspoa.org.

But to your point, lastly, Sheriff, in terms of, you know, they're all in it together.

As you and I have been talking, here's news from Washington.

The House, and they use the phrase in the story, House GOP leaders, I think leaders is a questionable term, but in any case, House GOP leaders are canceling the last two weeks of September.

So they've been back since Monday.

So this is day four.

Then they're going away today for

the whole next week through Labor Day week, they'll be back on the 14th.

And then they're leaving again on the 17th after another busy four day week, and they're not coming back until after the midterm election.

So

when you've got and they were supposed to be in only for three weeks anyway, but they've knocked two of those weeks off, it's no wonder.

that the people you and I are speaking to, the good folks listening to this, are frustrated because what in the blazes?

There's nothing else to do, so you're just gonna go home early to campaign on what?

The promises you didn't keep?

I mean, that's frustrating, quite honestly.

It is, it is, and it's indicative of the selfishness of Congress, but on the other hand, I think we're safer when they do go home and leave us alone.

I used to say that when somebody would adjourn.

state or federal say, well, at least we're safe.

But,

uh, you know, uh, where's a budget?

Where's a farm bill?

Where's protection for, well, anyway.

Yeah.

How, how well have they taken care of veterans?

They take care of illegal aliens 1,000 times better than they take care of veterans who are actually injured and, and, and, and handicapped because of their service to our country.

And, and that's typical Democrat moves.

And

it's it folks will they will they balance the budget no will they even address the national debt no they will just move on they will spend more and guarantee you of one year from now it'll be 41 and a half trillion dollars in debt they don't realize what they've done to us on that and they don't realize that america is on her deathbed and folks that's why you and i have to get involved in this process that

is the reason we wrote the book for you.

The only thing I challenge you on, Sheriff, is it's not going to take a full year to get to the 41 trillion point.

I'm afraid that it's going to be sooner

even,

which just makes your point even stronger.

Once again,

murder of america dot com that's where you get the book the democrat murder of america cspoa dot org for the constitutional sheriffs and peace officers association if you just go to the web and search for sheriff richard mac you'll find all of this good information sheriff uh... privilege let's do this again sometime

thank you so much jeff i'd be proud

to

Take good care, sir.

And Sheriff Richard Mack was kind enough to join us for this extended conversation.

Live on the Newsline on News Talk 1540, KXEL where Iowa comes to talk.

And as KXEL Live and Local continues on this Thursday morning, time for today's RFD 1540 conversation.

And for that, we draw upon the insight of Dustin Hoffman, supervising editor, Lead Farm Broadcaster, Iowa Agribusiness Radio Network.

You hear the reports nine times each weekday here on the blowtorch.

And Dustin joins us for this extended conversation Tuesdays and Thursdays.

Big doons in Boone.

We previewed it on Tuesday.

You were there for day one.

We're finishing up with day three and lots of news.

came out of the early hours of the farm show thanks to the USDA secretary being on site.

Yeah, that's right Jeff US Ag Secretary Brooke Rollins making her second trip to Iowa in as many weeks She had been in Nebraska the day before during their state fair and had a chance to talk more about some initiatives first of all that have to do with the what's called the ranchers first initiative which is going to be several actions that are going to aim to help rebuild the US cattle herd and Hopefully bring ranchers back to the center of the food supply now She talked about a few of the initiatives and you've been able to hear it on some of our programming see up on the web

website IowaAgnet.com, but it's hoping to reestablish some of the mid to smaller level processors because of the fact that some of the big four have shut down processing.

Look at the Jocelyn plant in Illinois.

Of course, other plants being shut down in other places has really been a problem for the herd.

Also, it's going to involve more procurement of beef from the federal program, such as Department of Justice for the Bureau of Prisons, also for Veterans Affairs for, you know, the VA hospitals and the VA homes, also looking at possibilities with the education department much more.

And so there's a bigger push from the government to get more demand for our beef.

But the problem isn't just about that, though, is the demand is already high.

It's getting that supply encouraged to come back up.

And so that's

That's where it's going to be interesting to see how this is actually going to help build the herd when all you're doing is increasing the demand that's already high.

It's interesting that they said, well, we'll buy more for the VA hospitals and prisons.

Well, why weren't they buying that already?

I'm a little confused as to why we needed to have a crisis in the beef industry for all of a sudden these folks to buy in, but to your point,

That hasn't been the problem.

The problem is how do you get more domestic supply?

Yeah, I'm not sure exactly how far back you got to go to decide where they've been getting the food from.

You know, getting it sourced from American farmers is a good idea.

Help support it.

But again, the supply and demand.

doesn't seem to add up in the ratio.

But again, it comes back to, you know, just probably like anything else, you know, in past administrations, no matter which party is there, it's, you know, go to the lowest bidder, you know, especially when the government's got to provide these meals and do that.

So they're going to go to the lowest bidder.

And so unfortunately, sometimes you don't know what you're going to get.

But it is a good move to help support the mid-level processors, the smaller processors, to get them encouraged to grow.

But again, it's going to come down to is getting the herds built up enough that supply is going to meet the demand.

And so that's something we're going to have to wait and see how this plays out.

There's supposed to be more announcements coming from the Trump administration for US ranchers coming up later this week.

Other things she talked about too, Jeff, were the rising age of the farmers that

out there and how hard it is for younger farmers either to start on their own or even to take over the family farm was another big topic.

Also she talked about the use of the data that comes to the USDA and trying to be more transparent so farmers know what that data is being used for.

And obviously the secretary comes from a beef background.

Her family and her, as she was growing up as I understand but also she and her husband and their family running cattle.

In Iowa, the beef industry is more than a $6 billion concern.

We rank 12th in the nation for beef cows, fourth nationally for cattle on feed.

Those are statistics that I think are important because some of us easily dismiss it and say, well, this isn't big beef country.

We got corn and beans.

We got plenty of beef, and that has a big impact, especially on the feed supply part of it.

So this is an important issue that just shouldn't be dismissed.

Oh, exactly.

I mean, when you think about beef production, usually you think about, you know, Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, and Nebraska, that, that row going there, even up to Montana, you know, that, that whole row of states there along the Western Plains that, you know, have great and ample pasture lands and grazing areas for these, for these animals to get fed.

But Iowa has got, again, quite a bit.

And, and you look at the, the feed operation, some of our feedlot operations, you know, that's what you see more in the North and the North and the parts of the corn belt is more of the feed.

lot of operations, but there is also quite a bit of open ground ground pastures and grazing going on.

So I mean, it's not just a complete feedlot situation.

But the fact of the matter is Iowa sometimes gets overlooked.

Yeah, we're in that top 10 to 15 spot there with beef production.

But you know, we are still a mover, you know, in that in that industry.

And so there's a lot of concern about the folks that are making money.

And this has been like we've talked before in the past about some of these cattle implications, especially when it came

to like the importation of the 300,000 metric tons of ground beef that's supposed to be coming.

The fact of the matter is, is you've got a cattle market right now that they are making money hand over fist.

Now, take this with a grain of salt though.

If they are not producing their own calves, they are having to take that boatload of money they get for selling those, the cattle they already have, and put it right back into getting more heads to feed out and finish.

Whereas the calf producers are making money.

But the fact of the matter is for how many years were they not making money?

And they finally got a market that's turned around and is helping them make money.

And even for the cattle producers that are buying more head after they sell some out, I mean, they're still making a decent profit.

They haven't made it for years.

And so you can't blame them in a way.

You know, you look at capitalism, the goal is to make money in your business.

So you can't blame them for wanting to make

money.

The problem is right now with that money being made there is no incentive to rebuild the herd and I'm I'm still

trying to look at all the details of this announcement that the secretary made, because again, like I said, okay, you're talking about buying more US produced beef for these entities and help create more demand.

The demand isn't the problem.

The demand at the grocery store is fine.

The only thing hurting the demand right now is the price.

And we're talking about the fact that, you know, the supply is not keeping up with the demand.

And as long as it doesn't, they're going to be making money.

So you've got to find a way.

And that's why

At first you see where the importation of this beef could help put a little pressure on, but you're talking of maybe, you know, the average family getting $10, $14 of savings over a year.

I mean, how much is that really?

I mean $14 a month you're saving by having this beef imported.

that's really not making that big of a dent.

But you can also understand the other side of it where the administration has got the consumers, the consumer side.

We said this before, 2% of the population produces the food, 100% of them eat.

You have 98% of this country that does not get involved in the production of their food.

And so all they see are the fact, again, this is an example I've used before, but a pound of 80, 20 ground beef costs more than the federal minimum wage for an hour's of work.

you can see where there's frustration with the consumer that we want to have this.

Ground beef usually always that safety fallback, you know.

I mean, there ain't no one of us listening that haven't had a pound of ground beef and some hamburger helper or a pound of ground beef mixed with a bunch of other things to stretch that and provide a good meal.

Ground beef was always a failsafe for people when they were in some economic trouble.

At least they had that to go back on.

And you look at it that unless you're butchering your own cattle right now, it's costing a lot of money.

money to just buy a pound of 80, 20 ground beef.

And so you can see where the administration is trying to go.

You can see the USDA is trying to help incentive that's because they've got to the consumers are hurting right now.

But now you look at economic policies that are causing this, you can go back to looking at what's driving these markets to go higher and higher right now.

And there's many causes which we could sit and talk about all day, Jeff.

And we just don't frankly have the time.

But you look at where they're trying to do something for the consumers, but it can

also be a deterrent for the farmers in a situation where are you trying to stomp down on these producers?

So they are forced to rebuild the herd because you're trying to collapse the market in the name of the consumer.

It's a tough situation and you can't blame the farmers and the ranchers for being mad because of the fact that they finally have got a market that is paying them off and they're getting decent money and now the government's trying to stomp on it.

And so it's a tough spot to be in, but again, you gotta go back all these cyclical things.

Where does it all start?

You gotta look at the economy.

What were some of the other things?

I mean the secretary's appearance again has dominated the news and there's much more we could talk about as you noted with that and of course there will be continued coverage on the network during the rest of this week and on the weekend.

But what attracted you?

You got to see some shiny new objects I trust as well.

What was interesting as you look back in the pages of your notebook from your day at Farm Progress Show 2026.

Oh, there were so many things that the newer innovations of what we're doing with technology Yes, AI is involved in some of it and you know You have companies like to say John Deere for one there They're putting a new AI component into their into their digital operations center that they're running because these these Computers and these modules that you see in all these pieces of equipment that are attached to the to the combines and the rippers and the planters and everything else They're compiling lots of data throughout the entire year and let's say you have no

idea where to start looking for some of that data because you've got to either fill out reports or make decisions about next year or you're looking at the combine going what was I doing this year in this field with a planter they've now got a thing where you can just go and access it like a like an assistant and it goes through and analyzes your question and then goes and finds the corresponding data and puts it in a way for you to easily understand what it is you're looking at and what you need it for and that can be for a whole host of options whether that's filling out reports for the USDA whether that is looking at what worked in your

or hey, we're in a low spot right here.

Either we got to look at some tiling or could we decrease plant populations because this spot doesn't produce anyway.

So why waste the input money on putting heavy seed populations?

We can just put a little bit through here and that way the planter can look at that for the next year.

There are so many things now they're interconnecting these combines to these tractors, to these planters, to the tillage machines and everything else.

And so that's been pretty impressive here.

And you include that with your spraying too, your sea and spray technology or any other AI.

the technologies for spraying, whether you see in spray or their other modules.

There are so many things that is bringing every operation that you do in that field into one place and now they're giving you an assistant to help you decipher that easily and help you comb through and get you the information you need for the question or the that you have at that particular time.

So much going on in Boone.

This is day three of the three day Farm Progress show and

As I suggested, I trust there will be additional coverage on weekend ag matters.

Oh, most definitely.

And I'll be talking with Jeff Cooper.

He is the president and CEO of the Renewable Fuels Association.

We got good news out of California concerning E-15 year round.

That state's going to be doing that.

Plus, we talked about the small refinery exemptions that were announced earlier this week as well.

So there'll be some great comments there from him that I will be sharing with you this weekend.

weekend egg matters Saturday mornings at six or if you prefer or in addition Sunday mornings at 11 30 the excellent half-hour program from the network on the weekends Dustin thanks so much for the time today we'll let you get your notes in order for that weekend program get the audio edited and talk to you here again next week sounds good Jeff Dustin Hoffman

is supervising editor and lead farm broadcaster with the Iowa Agribusiness Radio Network and he joins us for this extended RFD 1540 conversation Tuesdays and Thursdays on News Talk 1540 KXEL where Iowa comes to talk.

News Talk 1540 KXCL, where Iowa comes to talk Waterloo's sixth annual food truck festival is coming up on Saturday.

September the 5th is approaching quickly, although Labor Day weekend this year a little later than it might be in other years.

That has provided a little bit of extra time for Jessica Rucker and the crew at Main Street Waterloo to get ready.

Does it feel like you have any extra time, Jessica?

You know, you'd think I would feel like we have some extra time, but there has been so much going on all summer long that it doesn't feel like we gained anything by Labor Day being a little bit later.

Well, what have you been looking forward to when it comes to the Food Truck Festival?

It is a lot of work to put it together, but also there's some payoff for Main Street Waterloo and for having a lot of people downtown.

We're really excited about this year.

We have a lot of new food vendors.

The people that participate every year have been spreading the word for us and we have so much interest in wanting to be a part of this.

So we have probably more new food vendors than we've ever had before.

I think we're at 25 vendors this year.

A lot of our old favorites.

And then we did have some spots open up with some people retiring.

to bring in a bunch of those new ones.

So we've been on a wait list since March for food vendors, because I've been so excited to be a part of it.

So really excited to bring those into downtown.

And then it's just a really fun day that thousands of people come into downtown.

And while they're doing a lot of their eating at the Food Truck Festival, they're still taking time to explore downtown and see all of the different things that we have.

They're maybe going and doing a little shopping or visiting a watering hole.

We're talking with Jessica Rucker, Executive Director of Main Street Waterloo.

The annual food truck festival is Saturday from 11 until 6.

It's at Riverloop Expo Plaza and just kind of walk us through how the layout works, how it's changed over the last few years because this is a bigger event than it was when it started.

Yeah, when we started this in, I think, 2021, we expected it to be kind of a Friday loo with a whole lot of food trucks and it has grown to be so much larger than that.

We take over both plazas as part of the Expo Plaza and we close Jefferson Street between Park Avenue and Third and squeeze as many food trucks as we can into that area.

You know, we've played with the layout a little bit, what works best for the vendors, the attendees, and everything that we want to bring in for the event.

So this year, there will be an entrance off of Park Avenue at Jefferson.

You'll enter through the corner gate that's built in at the Plaza versus through the street.

And then we're going back to having the main gate over at the public market building off of that parking lot right there.

So there's a ring, I guess I would say, of food trucks that are kind of around the perimeter of that space.

And boy, it's amazing to see just the lines that form.

And that's a good thing because there's a lot of great food to be enjoyed.

Could you talk about just keeping everybody organized and keeping hungry people especially organized when they're trying to get to the front of that line?

The vendors have done a great job learning and working and working with us to better organize and make it flow smoothly.

One of the things that we do is every food vendor has a $5 sample, so they're taking one of their signature dishes, creating a smaller serving of it, and it's for sale for $5.

That would be the item that all attendees get to vote on for the People's Choice Award, but they do have their full menu.

But since most people are trying to try all 25 food vendors,

It goes pretty quick because they have those, you know, they have some things prepped and they're able to put those $5 samples together pretty quickly versus saying, hey, I want to rack a rib some mac and cheese and some cornbread that they have to they have to finish cooking and then prepare and put in a box.

So those keep the lines moving pretty quickly.

I don't know how you'd prove this, but it seems like you ought to get some sort of award as a participant if you can actually get to all 25 food trucks.

I think that we should have an award for that.

I admire our judges.

They've been secret judges most years, but we have about four judges that go around and they have to try all of the food in order to award that Yummo Award, that best of the best food track.

And I don't know how they do it.

I barely get one sample in and I'm full with how much is going on all day and they're eating all of it.

So I like that idea.

Maybe for 2027 we should launch a Did You Eat It All Award.

Well, and again, there is a People's Choice Award, so you don't have to be one of these judges to contribute to this whole awards process.

Are there some local favorites?

Are there some defending champions that are going to be back that might have an inside track?

You know, what's been amazing is why we have some local favorites, and several have won multiple years.

It's been a good variety.

It changes every year.

There hasn't been a, this will be the sixth year that X food truck is winning again.

I think it's what dish they decided to put out that year is really making an impact on the votes.

And then we've changed up how the voting works so we get more votes every year.

So for this year, we're excited to be working with the Blackhawk County elections again.

So when you arrive at the event, you'll be handed a little business card.

go try all the food, you take that business card, you turn it in at the voting table and they'll give you a ballot to fill out to vote for the People's Choice Awards.

It's a way for us to better do the voting as well as helping the community get used to voting with elections coming up too.

Talking with Jessica Rucker, executive director of Main Street Waterloo and looking ahead to Saturday's Food Truck Festival downtown at Riverloop Expo Plaza.

It's the sixth annual Food Truck Festival.

This event began in 2021 and has been growing up to 25 food trucks this year.

You mentioned earlier that there are some food truck vendors that have retired, some new ones that have come in.

And I know that the interest for this in past years has really extended.

Fairly far.

Where were you getting some applications from that might surprise people?

Every year we get applications from Canada and then we make sure that they really want to come to Waterloo, Iowa.

There's been a couple that have really actually thought about it and have come close to coming, but we get some from Minnesota and Wisconsin, Kansas area.

A lot of them are from Iowa and then maybe like right around the Quad Cities area.

You know, you mentioned Canada because of Waterloo, Ontario, which has confused people in the past.

I know, by the way, if there's a poutine food truck that wants to come down from Canada, you make sure that they get here, okay?

You'll make sure they're one of the people's choice.

I will do

everything I can to try to help out, yes.

Anything that's just totally off the radar compared to past years that you're really excited about because it's new and different.

There are so many and we deal with so many food vendors throughout the year.

I think I'm excited to try them out We have a new noodles one coming.

We have a couple new barbecue ones We're really excited to welcome TNT barbecue back this year.

They took a little bit of a break Ty has been on Some of the Netflix barbecue throwdown shows so we're excited to welcome him back and have his amazing barbecue

We love having Cedar Valley Fish Market.

They always go well out and try to create a new menu item for this competition.

Dominique's is a local favorite that we were really glad that she started joining us because she had been having other events.

And then I love ice cream, so I'm excited for Outside Scoop to come back and join us and have some ice cream for dessert on a hot day.

So $5 for admission, kids 12 and under are free.

Any upside to doing that in advance as opposed to just handing over $5 when you get to the gate?

I guess the upside would be you can avoid that line.

If people are paying at the gate, obviously there's going to be that line.

It's going to slow them down exchanging the money or running their card.

If you buy your ticket online...

As a receipt, you get your QR code that all we have to do is scan and welcome you to the event.

So we'll have a separate line for anyone who has prepaid and it's going to save you that time at the line getting in so you can get in and get started and enjoy some food.

Is there a lull between the people who are arriving early and as we get closer to that dinner hour, is there a window there that's particularly valuable to keep in mind where you might be able to really make it through those lines quickly and get to more of those vendors?

A lot of people definitely come right at the beginning.

They want to come and they want to eat.

It does slow down as the day goes on, but we have had problems with food vendors running out of food from time to time.

You might miss out on one of those amazing dishes if you wait too late, but the lines are shorter later in the day.

Ever since we started showing the college football games, there hasn't really been a lull.

The first year we had live music and we saw that lull as people came, watched football and then came back in between games or something.

As soon as we added football back in, people stay all day long.

And the Hawkeyes kickoff around 3.15 on Saturday, so it's right in the middle of this 11 a.m.

to 6 p.m.

windows.

So I'm sure you'll have a lot of people watching that game and the others on Saturday.

And just one last thing, you know, we mentioned that the kids 12 and under are free to get in and you're doing something new for families starting with this sort of a soft rollout of this new opportunity for families on Saturday.

We are really excited to be kicking off our family comfort station this weekend.

We'll be looking for feedback on what's missing and what people like about it.

But we are converting our trailer that people most typically know us for selling beer box out of.

We're converting it into a comfortable area where a parent could go in and feed their child or it's a place where you can change the diaper without have to doing it on the ground or on a picnic table.

It's an opportunity for you to be able to not have to go hide in a car to take care of some things.

And have a comfortable place like maybe maybe somebody's acting up and you just need to quiet down a little bit So we are really excited.

We've had some great sponsorships with Ashley furniture And then it's just kind of been a pet project of mine that I'm really excited to finally be getting off the ground

Main Street Waterloo's sixth annual Food Truck Festival returns on Saturday.

It's in downtown Waterloo at Riverloop Expo Plaza with 25 food truck vendors.

It's from $11 to $6, $5 for admission.

Kids 12 and under are free.

Jessica Rucker is Executive Director of Main Street Waterloo.

Thanks for being back with us and sharing the details about this continually expanding event on Labor Day weekend.

Thank you so much for having me.

This is the station where Iowa comes to talk.

News Talk 1540 KXCL.