Justices on the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments this week on a controversial California law that requires non-ambulatory livestock at slaughterhouses to be immediately euthanized and removed from the food supply and, based on their questions, it appears the justices are leaning toward a ruling in favor of the meat industry and the Obama administration.

The 2008 law, which was set aside by a federal judge pending this further legal action, was prompted by whistleblower video at a slaughterhouse that showed non-ambulatory, or “downer” cattle being shocked, kicked and hit with heavy equipment at one California facility. As The Iowa Independent earlier reported, state lawmakers sought to prohibit the sale of meat for human consumption from such animals, and mandated under its penal code that any “downer” livestock be immediately euthanized.

Federal law, however, requires that “downer” livestock be moved away from other animals and inspected. If inspectors find no disease or “adulteration” of the animal, it is allowed to continue through the slaughter process as a part of the food supply.

The National Meat Association, which sued on behalf of the pork industry, has asked SCOTUS to strike down California’s edict on grounds that it over-stepped the federal rule. California’s attorney argued mostly on the grounds of scope and semantics. The latter appeared to be an argument that did not resonate with the Court.

“In other words, you’re saying, ‘Well, just because the federal law says you can, doesn’t mean the state can’t say you can’t,’” noted Chief Justice John Roberts during the testimony of California Asst. Attorney General Susan K. Smith.

When Smith affirmed her argument, Roberts added, “Isn’t the exact flip side of saying … you can’t sell it, is that you can? So when federal law says you can, that preempts the rule from the states that says you can’t.”

Smith was arguing that because California was immediately removing “downer” livestock from the food supply, and the scope of federal law had to do with slaughterhouse operations leading to the food supply, that the state’s requirements remained outside of the scope of what federal authorities had already mapped out as their own territory. In other words, California needed to prove that it’s new law was attempting to “preempt,” or cancel out, existing federal law, which the Constitution holds as the winner in all conflicts.

The meat industry argued that the Federal Meat Inspection Act over-rules any state law that addresses cruelty or humane treatment of livestock slated for slaughter.

The state believes it has the right to explicitly decide what types of livestock can be slaughtered for human consumption, and that its decision in such matters is outside of the federal regulations regarding slaughterhouse operations because it is making its requirement in advance of the federal law. So, if the state decided that no purple hogs or white cows could be slaughtered for human consumption, the state believes the requirement would automatically remove such livestock from jurisdiction by the Federal Meat Inspection Act.

“The federal law doesn’t say you must,” argued Smith. “It does not say that you must sell the meat or you must…”

Justice Antonin Scalia interrupted, saying, “We are not talking about conflict preemption. If it said you must and the state says you can’t, then there would be conflict preemption. But we are talking about express preemption, which says in so many words no additional requirements. And I don’t know how you can get around the fact that this an additional requirement.”

The audio file embedded below provides a portion of the oral arguments in which the justices question Smith:

A video clip featuring some of Beck’s words was uploaded Monday by the Santorum campaign:

The campaign also offered the following transcript of Beck:

I don’t endorse candidates, I don’t get involved in politics, I don’t make donations to any politician. Rick Santorum is a friend of mine, but I choose my friends carefully and I would never tell you someone was a friend of mine if I didn’t have great respect for them. I will tell you this. People ask me all the time, ‘who is out there?’ I tell them the same thing, I don’t trust any of them, but if I had to trust the reins of power with one person that is currently in this field and, because I think the next president has got to be Abraham Lincoln, he has got to be somebody who knows exactly who he is, knows exactly where he stands and is willing to, in the end, turn those reins of power back over. The temptation and the pressure is going to be absolutely enormous. If there is one guy out there that is the next George Washington, the only guy that I could think of is Rick Santorum. I would ask that you would take a look at him.

To place the Santorum-promoted piece in context, visit The Right Scoop blog, where a nearly 17 minute clip has been posted of the same exchange.

“We think all of the candidates suck,” Beck said after Santorum joined him by phone.

Beck added that there are only two candidates, in his opinion, that don’t have “scary policies.” Those two being Santorum and U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann.

“So, what do we need to do to get you and Michele Bachmann to be the president? Vice-president? I don’t care — you can switch chairs whenever you want. You can work it out. What do we do?” asked Beck.

Santorum’s response was his website address and a request for campaign donations.

Members of the Chicago Teachers Union and Stand Up! Chicago performed a “mic check” at the beginning of Walker’s remarks that continued for several minutes, despite attempts by others at the breakfast to stifle the statements.

It’s an outrage and a shame that we sit here at this fancy breakfast to listen to someone who has wreaked havoc on the lives of working families. Governor Walker has vilified unions and insulted the 99 percent who depend on living wages and adequate benefits to support their families while on the payroll of the right-wing billionaire Koch brothers.

It is not so different from our own state where corporations and bought-off politicians clamor to find ways to grant a $100 million tax break to the Mercantile Exchange, one of the most profitable companies in the state, while social services are being slashed, while workers’ pensions are being threatened and homelessness, poverty and joblessness continue to rise. The CME has already taken $15 million of our TIF dollars. That’s our tax money that would have gone to help students in the Chicago Public Schools.

It is ironic that we give Governor Walker free rein to say what he wants while the Mayor has ordered the arrest of over 300 people in Occupy Chicago who have simply tried to express their rights to freedom of assembly. The bottom line is that Governor Walker is out of touch with America, and working people will not honor anyone seeking to undermine our lives for the benefit of the 1 percent.

Demonstrators then repeatedly chanted, “Union busting is disgusting” and “we are the 99 percent.”

Watch:

Only last week, roughly 100 Iowans gathered outside of a West Des Moines hotel to demonstrate against Walker, who was delivering a private message at an event sponsored by The Heritage Foundation. Both Walker and Iowa Gov. Terry Branstad have maintained that they are not anti-worker and that they are trying to protect the middle class.

Following a ruling Friday by a federal judge, thousands of farmers who endured racial discrimination by the U.S. Department of Agriculture during the 1980s and 1990s should start receiving portions of a $1.25 billion settlement.

U.S. District Judge Paul Friedman said in his written opinion that the proposed settlement, which creates a system of compensation for black farmers and their descendants who joined the class-action suit claiming discrimination by the government, is fair and workable.

“Historical discrimination cannot be undone,” Friedman wrote.

There are two compensation streams available to the farmers, depending on the individual paper trail in each case. The first stream, known as “Track A” would provide an uncontested payout of $50,000 to qualified claimants. The second stream, known as “Track B,” could provide up to $250,000, but requires more documentation of wrongdoing. Farmer must choose one track or the other, and it is estimated that nearly 70,000 farmers across the nation will be eligible for compensation. More details regarding the plan can be found in an earlier report by The Iowa Independent.

The black farmers’ case is an outgrowth of Pigford v. Glickman, a federal class-action lawsuit originally settled in 1999. The farmers alleged that the USDA had violated the Equal Credit Opportunity Act and the Administrative Procedure Act by maintaining a pattern and practice of discrimination against African American farmers.  Such pattern and practice delayed, denied, or otherwise frustrated the efforts of African American farmers to obtain loan assistance and to engage in the vocation of farming, they said.

The Obama administration agreed in February to provide a second round of damages to people who were denied earlier payment because they had missed  filing deadlines. The person who pushed to allow more black farmers to join the case and for more money to be set aside for settlements was Iowa’s own U.S. Sen. Chuck Grassley. In a February press release, Grassley noted that “many people were shut out of the process.”

But not all elected officials have been similarly supportive. U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann, while on a recent tour of flooded areas near the Missouri River in Iowa, characterized the government settlement with black farmers as fraud. Bachmann and King, while noting the damage done by the flooded Missouri, said the money set aside for the discrimination settlements could have been put to better use if it had been given to the flood victims.

It isn’t the first time that U.S. Rep. Steve King and Bachmann have beat on this particular drum. Bachmann sent out a press release last November alleging that the numbers of farmers involved in the settlement didn’t add up, because there were many more claims than black farmers — a claim nearly identical to what has been made by King. In addition, King has referred to the settlement as “slavery reparations.”

King said in November 2010 that the American people should be outraged by the development, since it sends the message that “if you’re a minority, you deserve a check from the government.”

The Obama administration is “focused on race,” King said in an interview with WHO-AM’s Jan Mickelson. Essentially, the entire lawsuit was pitched to black farmers as their “40 acres and a mule,” he added, referencing the Civil War era practice of providing land to former slaves who became free as Union armies occupied areas of the Confederacy.

“The Department of Agriculture has admitted that discrimination occurred,” Grassley said during a Senate floor speech on the matter. “We are obligated to do our best in getting those who deserve it, some relief. This is a chance for people who believe they were wronged to show their case before a neutral party and have it judged on the merits. It’s time to give justice to these claimants who were previously left out, and move forward into a new era of civil rights at the Department of Agriculture.”

Final approval for the settlement came after a fairness hearing in early September. Although some farmers argued they should be allowed to pursue higher damages, Congress left little flexibility into the plan, which prevented Friedman from pursuing such alternatives.

In a statement distributed by the White House, President Obama said, “The U.S. District Court’s approval of the settlement between the Department of Agriculture (USDA) and plaintiffs in the Pigford II class action lawsuit is another important step forward in addressing an unfortunate chapter in USDA’s civil rights history. This agreement will provide overdue relief and justice to African American farmers, and bring us closer to the ideals of freedom and equality that this country was founded on. I especially want to recognize the efforts of Secretary Vilsack and Attorney General Holder, without whom this settlement would not have been reached.”

U.S. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said he is “thrilled” by the court’s decision, and looks forward to the process being completed.

Since my first day at USDA, I made it a priority to treat all Americans with respect and dignity and to ensure equal access to our programs. Court approval of the Pigford settlement is another important step to ensure some level of justice for black farmers and ranchers who faced discrimination when trying to obtain services from USDA. President Obama, Attorney General Holder and I are thrilled by the court’s approval so we can continue turning the page on this sad chapter in USDA history. In the months and years ahead, we will not stop working to move the Department into a new era as a model employer and premier service provider for all Americans regardless of race, ethnicity or gender.

Government officials estimate that it will take a year, if not more, for all the affected farmers to work their way through the compensation process.

A major disconnect is underway that makes it difficult to know exactly how the caucuses would play out if they were held tonight. That is, the candidates who are surging in polling are those who aren’t spending time in Iowa, a state that values its grassroots, retail politics.

So while the field itself became clearer with the final announcements by New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie and former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin that they would not seek the nomination, the path out of the caucuses has become more muddy. Social conservatives are rumored to make up 60 percent of GOP caucus-goers in Iowa, and we’ve yet to see them coalesce around a single candidate. Republicans who focus more on fiscal issues also have yet to find a home within the current field.

The situation, according to our group of assembled panelists, has opened a door for individuals previously expected to do “just enough” in the Iowa caucuses due to assembled core support to grab the golden ring of victory.

Here’s how our panel, comprised of grassroots activists, state political reporters, consultants, academics and strategists, believe the caucuses would play out if they were held tonight:

1. Ron Paul — The Texas congressman surges to the top of our rankings for the first time, but not without caution.

   “If the caucuses were held today, [Paul] would win because he’s the only candidate with an excited base and an excellent organization,” a panelist noted.

   “However, the caucuses being held January 3 could hurt him because a lot of his young voters will still be on Christmas break.”

   The panelists have given props to the Paul organization for some time, and there is no denying that the Texan has a core group of supporters that are incredibly loyal and excited. The question, at least for our panelists, has always been if there were enough supporters to compete against a candidate that drew large swaths of social conservatives (i.e., Huckabee in 2008).

   But, in this 15th edition of our rankings, our panelists now see a social conservative base so fractured in the Hawkeye State as to allow Paul’s seemingly limited base — that is, a base that doesn’t appear to be drawing vast numbers of new supporters — to exit Iowa with a victory.

   “Paul has been back in the state, and he is drawing good crowds. But, from what I’ve seen, these are the same people who have been showing up at Paul’s events for ages. There’s not much new blood here, which made a difference in 2008, but may not really matter in 2012.”

   Paul was given an opportunity to shine in the last presidential debate in New Hampshire due to its focus on the economy. The format also, as one of the panelists noted, didn’t lend itself to Paul’s past problems where his differences with others in the field were a focus.

   “He’s also started airing TV ads. The two I’ve seen focus mostly on core Republican issues as one is pro-life and the other concerns national security. These should help him with the Republican base and he might pick up some supporters who are ambivalent about the other candidates. Then again, I don’t think he’ll pick up many. Those who don’t want to go with Romney will be looking mostly at other choices. Like Romney, Paul has been through this before and is a known quantity for most likely caucusgoers. As such, it’s unlikely that we would see any surge for him.”

2. Mitt Romney — Speaking of the former Massachusetts governor, he and Paul are separated in this edition by less than two percent. Our panelists believe that Romney’s long-standing core support in Iowa, combined with the inability thus far of the “anti-Romney contingent” to find a suitable home with a specific candidate would allow him to exit Iowa in very good shape if the caucuses were held tonight.

   “The biggest problem Romney has had in Iowa is the group of social conservatives that find him uniquely undesirable,” wrote a panelist. “Whether that is because of his religion or for other reasons, it doesn’t really matter because these are individuals who won’t simply not support him, but individuals who will actively pursue a strategy to prevent him from exiting Iowa with a victory. In the past that has meant some supporting a candidate they otherwise would not, just because they see an opportunity to elevate someone ahead of Romney.

   “I think we saw that in 2008 with the Arkansas governor. Yes, Huckabee had good support, but there were some who viewed his candidacy as the anti-Romney campaign, even when they knew Huckabee was not likely to go the distance.”

   And that last point of electability might be the one place where Romney bests Paul and other members of the GOP field.

   “His support has been steady. He has had good debate performances and is generally well versed on the issues. He isn’t great at retail politics, but isn’t horrible either. People know his weaknesses and may be willing to look past them if they believe he has the best chance to beat Obama, which is the key factor for most Republicans. To the extent that the ‘not Romney’ candidates continue to split the support of both social conservatives and tea partiers, Romney could be the caucus winner.”

   Another panelists put it even more bluntly, “Regardless of how hard Romney is working Iowa, he still looks like the candidate most likely to defeat the President due to his message discipline.”

3. Herman Cain — The Atlanta businessman is seeing a national surge, which didn’t go unnoticed by our panelists. But it is also difficult to see a path to a Cain victory in Iowa due to lack of organization.

   “Each of the candidates have come to Iowa, stood up and presented themselves as ‘not Romney,’ but that can only take you so far — as they’ve all hopefully realized by now. Cain was one of many and found to be lacking shortly after coming on the scene. Iowans are willing to take another look, but there had better be some substance there this time around or it will be a very short look.”

   Cain has another big problem in the Hawkeye State: visibility. He hasn’t returned to Iowa since the Straw Poll, which makes is rather difficult for grassroots activists to kick the tires. He does, however, plan to return to the state this weekend and those stops will likely provide a clearer picture of his caucus hopes.

   “I do love to hear Cain speak. I like his passion and the energy he leaves behind in the room. But if he isn’t going to be in Iowa building that energy, building an organization that will push people to their caucus site, he isn’t going to do well in Iowa. He has got to be on the ground, and he’s got to be serious. We’ve already got the ‘teleprompter president’ and Iowans don’t want another person who can speak well but accomplish nothing. He’s got to show us more than a good speech.”

   Another panelists agrees. “Cain could argue that he’s managed to increase his popularity in Iowa despite not having been here in over two months. That’s true, but there’s a big difference between telling a pollster that you like Cain and whether you would go out to caucus for him on a January evening. Like Bachmann and Perry before him, Cain is — and I hate to use this phrase, but I suppose it fits — the flavor of the month. In other words, the candidate that many are looking to at the moment to fill the not-Romney slot. … Right now, there are probably enough supporters who would turn out for Cain that he would finish in the top five, but I think he has a lot of work to do to seal the deal, and it doesn’t seem that he’s planning on doing it.”

4. Rick Perry — The honeymoon has officially come to an end for the Texas governor.

   There is one aspect of Perry’s candidacy in which our panelists all agree: horrible, horrible, horrible debate performances. While national debates typically aren’t enough to toss someone out of the running, especially in retail-heavy Iowa, they do make an impression.

   “Perry remains on a downward slide, with no end in sight until he finds a game-changer.”

   Perry has been back in Iowa and has emphasized his successes in meeting one-on-one. He has reached out to Iowa supporters and potential supporters in the wake of his dismal debate performances. But it might be too little, too late.

   “There was a rocky start for Perry in Iowa to begin with because of the way his announcement seemed to step on the Ames Straw Poll. It was good that he came into the state right after that announcement and began retail politics here — something he seems to be pretty good at doing. But no matter how much I like him as a person, no matter how much I think he might be a good leader, all I have to do is imagine him on a national stage with Obama and I cringe. We can’t afford another four years of Obama, and the general election isn’t a retail contest.”

5. Rick Santorum — After many months of beating the Iowa bushes, it appears that the former senator from Pennsylvania is finally beginning to gain traction in Iowa.

   “Santorum continues to put in the most effort in Iowa. He raised less than a million dollars for the third quarter, but he is keeping his spending low. Santorum may very well be the ‘under-the-radar’ candidate of this caucus season. Because of his lack of finances he’s been relying on grassroots campaigning. Moreover, he’s bee going to many of the smaller counties that other candidates have not. At last count Santorum has been to nearly 70 of Iowa’s 99 counties. That effort may not be showing up in the polls, but it might do well for him on caucus night.”

   “We know that some Iowans have been sampling the candidates and hopping around quite frequently. First they were with Huckabee, then moved to Bachmann and then to Perry. As each of those campaigns have fallen off — at least Huckabee was by his own design — those tepid supporters are looking for a home. Some have gravitated to Cain, but others are moving toward Santorum. All Santorum needs to do is keep them, and not make any big mistakes. His base will grow.”

   It’s difficult for our panelists to predict if a compressed caucus season helps or hinders Santorum, who is mostly considered a “slow burn” candidate. Obviously, he doesn’t have the support to win the caucuses if they were held tonight, but the vast majority of our panelists view him as someone who’s going to stick around and gather up the stragglers left behind when when the aforementioned ‘flavor of the month’ isn’t quite as tasty.

   “Each day that Bachmann fails to go on offense, and Perry continues to implode, increases the chances he will be the surprise of these caucuses.”

For the first time in weeks, U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann failed to garner enough support to be listed in our top five. She came in sixth for this edition, only a hair behind Santorum.

Bachmann appears to also be suffering from the syndrome of electability and, interestingly enough, her messaging in Iowa for caucus-goers not to “settle” seems to be somewhat backfiring.

“When [Bachmann] told us to support our values, I understood what she was saying. She wants us to support what we believe in our hearts, to vote and caucus based on our principles. But we already tried that with Huckabee and that got us McCain and we lost the White House. So if the choice is between supporting someone who is 100 percent in alignment with my values or someone who is 70 percent there, but the lesser candidate has a better chance of winning the White House, why wouldn’t I support that other candidate? When everything is said and done, I have to think that 70 percent is better than nothing.”

The panelists agree that Bachmann has a good ground organization in Iowa, but also that she has faltered in overall messaging and by making some big mistakes on the national stage. Retail politics has long been a hit-and-miss game for the Bachmann campaign in Iowa, with the team doing excellent at one event and being plagued by missteps at another. If there was a time for her to rise up, meet the challenge that she’s been presented, this is it.

“I don’t care about flowery speeches. I don’t care about what color her clothes are or if her make-up is perfect. I care about her passion, and I’ve not been seeing it lately. She was hit hard when Perry entered the race, but she has an opportunity to not only win those supporters back, but to show that titanium spine. But if she doesn’t really put herself out there over the next month, this campaign is a loss.”

“As a citizen, I have always supported New Hampshire’s first-in-the-nation primary,” Gingrich said in a prepared statement.

“Now, as a candidate for president, I am committed to competing in and maintaining the first-in-the-nation status of the New Hampshire primary. Therefore, I will not compete in a state which holds its contest inside of one week of New Hampshire. I trust Governors Romney and Perry will join me in protecting the New Hampshire primary and campaigning in New Hampshire towards a January 10th primary contest.”

Earlier Thursday, former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman indicated he would not compete in Nevada if it maintained its current caucus date of Jan. 14. Although Huntsman challenged all the 2012 GOP candidates to follow suit, he, like Gingrich, specifically called out frontrunner Mitt Romney — the campaign that is believed to have played a role in Nevada’s decision to set such an early date. Gingrich, however, is the first to single out Rick Perry.

New Hampshire Secretary of State Bill Gardner sounded the “December alarm” earlier this week, indicating that his state would move into 2011 for its primary if Nevada left it no other choice. By state law, the New Hampshire contest must precede any other contest by at least 7 days. Since Iowa has tentatively named Jan. 3 as its caucus date, and New Hampshire is locked into a Tuesday election, there is no wiggle-room left in January for Gardner.

Although the four states sanctioned by the two prominent national political parties to begin the nominating process — Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina — were scheduled to hold their contests in February, a Florida committee chose to usurp the rules and move its primary to Jan. 31.

Any state in violation of the nominating calendar set forth by the political parties can face sanctions, namely a loss of delegates to the national convention. Because the political parties have not historically followed through with such penalties, however, states have mostly scoffed at the possible consequences.

As crop prices pushed toward record highs in 2011, farmland values have followed. After slowing somewhat during the 2007-09 recession, cropland has surged since 2010, with values jumping 20 percent or more compared to a year earlier. In some cases, fertile land that sold for $6,000 an acre in 2009 is now going for $12,000 an acre.

But, this surge in farmland values has raised some concerns about its sustainability. Recent figures from the U.S. Department of Agriculture show that while farmland values have risen 40 percent since 2004, cash rents have risen only 17 percent. …

“The apparent decoupling of land values and rents suggests that other factors could be driving the farmland value surge,” said Jason Henderson, vice president and Omaha branch executive at the Kansas City Fed. “One of these factors could be interest rates, which remain at historically low levels and are likely helping drive the rise in land values.”

Despite strong export demands and tight supplies, corn and wheat prices have doubled since June 2010. According to the report, much of the export demand is due to countries such as China, “where rising incomes, improved diets and a weaker dollar are making U.S. agricultural exports more attractive.”

… For now, agriculture market observers don’t see a high probability that crop prices will fall soon. … As a result, aggressive bidding at land auctions appears to remain in play for at least the near term. …

The full report is embedded below by our sister site The Iowa Independent:

Growing Value: Is the farmland boom sustainable?

Mills, who has already been serving as the 4th District co-chairman of the Paul campaign and a member of the national advisory board of “Homeschoolers for Ron Paul,” said he was making the endorsement to clarify his support as a leader within the Republican Party of Iowa.

“I’m pleased to endorse Congressman Ron Paul for the Republican nomination to defeat President Barack Obama next year,” said Mills, a Mason City educator and resident of Nora Springs.

“Dr. Paul’s consistent record of unwavering principles continues to attract new voters to the Republican Party. His ability to unite a diverse, grassroots following is a testament to his message of Liberty. Dr. Paul’s firm belief and confidence in the power of the individual, free markets, sound money, and a non-interventionist foreign policy is needed to lead the charge at the top of the ticket.”

Mills is a native Iowan who was raised on a family farm. He graduated with a bachelor’s degree from the University of Northern Iowa in math education. He worked as a teacher in the Nora Springs Rock Falls Community School District and the Mason City-based Sylvan Learning Center, which he now owns.

“The endorsement of Ron Paul by Republican Party of Iowa State Central Committeeman James Mills is further proof that Dr. Paul’s message resonates with Republicans,” said A.J. Spiker, also a member of the Republican SCC and Iowa vice-chairman for the Paul campaign.

“Dr. Paul has been endorsed by more members of the Republican Party of Iowa’s State Central Committee than any other candidate seeking the presidency. Five of the 17 members of the RPI leadership have now endorsed Ron Paul.”

Mills joins Spiker, Drew Ivers, David Fischer and Jeremiah Johnson in endorsing Paul.

“Each of these party leaders represent more than 100,000 registered Republicans in their respective districts,” said Spiker.

The presidential campaigns of U.S. Reps. Michele Bachmann and Ron Paul have announced additional support in the Hawkeye State.

Veteran communications consultant Eric Woolson, who most recently worked for the Tim Pawlenty campaign, will now lead Bachmann’s Iowa communication efforts.

“Eric Woolson is well-known not only by Iowa reporters and party activists but he has also earned a reputation among the national media as someone who works hard, knows his state and gets things done,” Bachmann said. “We’re very happy to have someone with his experience and can-do attitude join us as we begin the critical push to win the Iowa caucuses.”

Woolson managed former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee’s 2008 Iowa campaign, and provides the Bachmann team with more than 20 years of experience as a print journalist in Iowa. Woolson also served as Gov. Terry Branstad’s communications director and press secretary.

Prior to his service in the governor’s office, Woolson was the Iowa communications director for George W. Bush’s 2000 presidential campaign, and served on the communications teams of the previous three Republican National Conventions. In 2010, he provided counsel to Iowa gubernatorial candidate Bob Vander Plaats and congressional candidate Mariannette Miller-Meeks in addition to serving as the spokesman for U.S. Sen. Charles Grassley’s re-election campaign.

In addition, two Clay County GOP officials have given their endorsement to Paul’s White House bid.

“The reason I was first impressed with Congressman Paul and continue to be is his strong stand to preserve our individual freedoms, personal responsibility and States’ rights, and to limit the power of the federal government,” said Clay County Republican Chairwoman Kris Thiessen.

The first round of federal bailouts and stimulus inspired Thiessen to organize Spencer’s first Tax Day Tea Party rally. A small business owner for 25 years, she has led the Clay County GOP since July 2010. Her husband George is a 20-year Navy reservist who served in Afghanistan in 2006 and also supports Paul.

“I am starting to hear people say, ‘This is the Age of Ron Paul.’ I think they are right. It’s the age where Americans across the country are saying our government is too big. Republican candidate Congressman Ron Paul is the only one who will bring sanity to the White House,” said Thiessen.

She publicly endorsed Paul at his Spencer Town Hall on Tuesday, which attracted 135 supporters and interested voters.

“Ron Paul’s economic plan and his principles of limited government are what our nation needs more than any other political promise that is being touted. Whether we want to realize and admit it or not, things have really changed economically to the point of threatening our national security,” said Josh Davenport, Clay County Republican Party co-chairman.

Davenport is a Baptist pastor in Spencer, as well as a Spencer Tea Party leader. He says that most people would consider him to be an evangelical fundamentalist Christian, and that he supported Huckabee in the last presidential cycle. Adding that he likes a lot of what Paul’s colleague Bachmann says, he settled on the idea that Paul has a solid track record.

“So many things have happened that Ron Paul said would happen, what he says makes sense to me and he has a proven legislative track record to prove what he would do as president. Our nation is tired of the nonsense. The people don’t want to vote for another party-establishment candidate who won’t dare to make the necessary changes and Ron Paul is the only one who can defeat President Obama in 2012,” Davenport said.

Military families and retirees who depend on Tricare military health plan have been confused by an awareness campaign launched by Walgreens as part of a contract dispute the pharmacy is having with Express Scripts, which manages Tricare’s prescription drug benefits. And now Express Scripts is firing back by taking Walgreens to court.

Filed Wednesday in U.S. District Court of the Northern District of Illinois, the suit alleges Walgreens breached its contract and staged an aggressive campaign targeted toward end users of both company’s services.

Walgreens sent out a letter to Tricare members this summer, which very directly provided the drugstore’s viewpoint regarding the dispute. More recently, the company has launched a website, ichoosewalgreens.com, to further get its side of the story before customers.

Military families and retirees have been confused by the outreach, many believing that Tricare has decided to no longer do business with Walgreens, says Patricia Kime of the Military Times.

Express Scripts spokesman Thom Gross issued a media statement concerning the lawsuit saying that “Walgreens has crossed a line and is not negotiating in good faith” and is instead hoping to “mislead and manipulate” customers using Express Scripts.

Walgreens flatly denies such charges, saying the company needed to do outreach to help their pharmacy customers understand what might happen if the impasse between the companies continues.

Tricare proper is not involved in the negotiations or the lawsuit, according to Rear Adm. Christine Hunter, deputy director of the Tricare Management Agency. She said her agency has received calls from concerned health care providers and wants patients to understand they have time to switch prescriptions, if it becomes necessary, and explore other options if they currently use Walgreens.

“There are 56,000 other pharmacies [in our network] where they can obtain prescriptions. They also have mail order and home delivery,” Hunter said.

In July Walgreens officials said they wouldn’t sign the proposed contract because they believe Express Scripts’ reimbursement rates fall below market rates, and the proposal gives Express Scripts an unfair advantage in future decisions.

Express Scripts officials say Walgreens’ payment rates are higher than industry standards and they believe the company should be more competitive.

Negotiations remain at a standstill and, if no agreement is reached, Walgreens will leave the Tricare pharmacy network on Jan. 1, 2012. It’s also worth noting that the two companies — Walgreens and Express Scripts — were involved in a similar standoff in 2008 and ultimately reached an agreement.

The bottom line from Hunter is that Tricare users shouldn’t “let that advertising, letter and Internet outreach campaign scare you.” Regardless of the ultimate outcome, she said, members will be able to have access to the medications they need.

“There is no emergency, and there is time for people to understand and consider their options.”

In addition to Tricare, some private insurers and government medical insurance programs utilize Express Scripts. If the companies are unable to reach agreement, all prescription plans managed by Express Scripts would no longer have Walgreens in the provider network.