IFPC Action Responds To Joy Corning

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

IFPC Action Responds To Joy Corning

11/11/08 Pleasant Hill, IA – In response to media inquiries regarding thousands of automated pro-homosexual “marriage” phone calls to Iowans from former Lt. Governor Joy Corning, IFPC Action wishes to publicly thank Corning for reminding Iowans why it is such a bad idea to compromise with political figures who do not promote Iowa values. Corning, a public supporter of abortion and homosexuality, would have little or no public platform from which to undermine the traditional family if she had not served as Lt. Governor.

Corning, who has served on the board of Planned Parenthood, also partnered with former Lt. Governor Sally Pederson in signing a letter to the editor promoting homosexuality shortly after the April Supreme Court Opinion concerning the definition of marriage. The current recorded phone messages are consistent with Corning’s long-standing anti-family ideology and leftist political social agenda.

According to IFPC Action President Chuck Hurley, “She would never have become Lt. Governor without the electoral support of tens of thousands of Christians and conservatives, and we have no one to blame for this but ourselves.” He went on to say, “Joy Corning has given us another clear example of just exactly why as Christians and conservatives we should no longer sacrifice our convictions for perceived political victories. When we elect people like Joy Corning, we elevate and advance the destruction of the family.”

With the 2010 campaign now in full swing, many Iowans are beginning to pay more attention to where candidates stand on key issues. Hurley said, “We need reminders from time to time as to why personal convictions and party platforms are so important, and Joy Corning has given us a gift that punctuates the need for a new paradigm in Iowa politics.”

IFPC Action is a non-profit organization dedicated to equipping, empowering and encouraging Iowans to build communities where families are valued and strengthened.

###

CONTACT:
Bryan M. English
Iowa Family Policy Center ACTION
Phone (515) 263-3495
Fax (515) 263-3498
Cell (515) 210-7475
www.ifpcaction.org

Thoughts On The Iowa GOP "Leadership For Iowa" Event

Saturday night, after many folks had spent the afternoon at the Iowa Tea Party, they again assembled at the Iowa State Fairgrounds to hear an early 2012 presidential speech from Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty, and to listen to the 2010 Iowa GOP gubernatorial hopefuls. Interest was especially high as this was the first event attended by former Governor Terry Branstad as a 2010 candidate.

With marriage taking such a central role in the 2010 gubernatorial campaign, we at IFPC Action have been keeping a close eye on the race. While I wasn’t able to attend the GOP event in person, I did catch it on C-Span.

In many ways Saturday evening’s event was great for those who would like to see the Iowa Marriage Amendment passed – every GOP candidate is now on record supporting its passage.

One of the best lines early on was when Senator Jerry Behn encouraged people to help the judges who want to become legislators to clear up their schedules by voting them off the bench so they can go run for the legislature. Christian Fong also distinguished himself as a pro-family candidate by pointing out that he is the only 2010 candidate born after Roe v Wade, and that because 1/3 of his generation is missing due to abortion he takes the issue personally.

Rod Roberts proved again that he can consistently give a solid performance. He’s not the guy to deliver a hard hitting rhetorical jab, but he is steady, reliable and consistent. Christian Fong, on the other hand, can deliver a well placed zinger and make it look easy. His comment about the communists in China sweeping over the country side offering “hope and change” was well delivered. Considering that the speech was broadcast around the world on C-Span, he might now find himself the recipient of some interesting hate mail. He is starting to prove his mettle by stepping up and delivering one of the best lines of the night with a smile on his face in what was a well delivered speech overall.

The sleeper candidate in this field remains Christopher Rants. He had to go last again on Saturday – like he did at the IFPC Action Hog Roast. Even when a crowd is tired and ready to go home, he can capture their attention and deliver a speech with passion and conviction. He does a good job of taking just a slightly different tack than the other candidates and keeps his speeches interesting with stories and specific examples from his time in the legislature. Rants proved again tonight why he remains a serious contender even though most of the attention is on Branstad and Vander Plaats.

The big surprise of the evening was Terry Branstad’s performance. This was his first campaign speech in a long, long time, so some jitters and missteps are to be expected. While the event was expected by many to be Branstad’s coming out party, he obviously struggled. He never seemed to quite connect with the crowd, he stumbled over his script, and his extended pauses never generated the applause he seemed to anticipate. The silver lining for Terry Branstad is that every speech he gives from now on is sure to be better by comparison. It was encouraging to hear Branstad speak in favor of passing the Iowa Marriage Amendment, even though he had recently promised not to run on that issue. The addition of a pro-marriage component in his stump speech was a wise adjustment given the overwhelming national trend of voter support for marriage.

Due to the attention that is on the competition between Branstad and Bob Vander Plaats, it probably would have benefitted Branstad if the speeches had been delivered in alphabetical order so that there would be about as much separation from Vander Plaats as possible on this first go-round.

In what was a stark contrast, Bob Vander Plaats gave a solid performance immediately following Branstad. The expectation was that this would be the night where Branstad would challenge Vander Plaats for the “frontrunner” position. It would be hard to spin the back to back, side by side, performances into any sort of momentum changing moment for team Branstad.

Instead, Vander Plaats gave a well delivered red meat conservative call to action. He doubled down on his executive order idea, which drew loud applause. He talked about Ronald Reagan, but instead of offering the 80/20 compromise party insiders prefer, he referenced the “bold color conservative” speech and told about how Reagan said to those who want to moderate the message that they could go “their own way.” He spoke with few or no notes, seemed to keep his eyes on the crowd and delivered a speech from the heart. It wasn’t measured, and it was not calculated to appease or placate, instead he basically told the establishment to stop their whining and get in touch with their base if they want to win.

Additionally, in as much as Branstad would have benefitted from some distance between him and Vander Plaats the order absolutely benefitted Bob Vander Plaats. The contrast between the two was stark, and Vander Plaats walked away having not just survived his first encounter with Branstad, but convincingly showed that he is in it to win it.

It appears that the 2010 GOP field is now set. Unless Governor Culver receives an unexpected primary opponent, we can begin to evaluate all of our options for the 2010 election. All of the candidates, including Culver, have said they support the only definition of marriage – one man and one woman. The difference lies in what they intend to do about the April 3 court opinion.

Culver has proved he is unwilling to do anything. All of the GOP candidates say they will support and promote passage of the Iowa Marriage Amendment. Only Bob Vander Plaats has proposed specific action to reestablish the proper constitutional separation of powers through his executive order.

The question for all the other GOP candidates remains: What will you do to stand up to an out of control court? If you were Governor last April, what would you have done?

This is an important question. The people always vote to uphold the only definition of marriage when given the chance. It has now happened in 31 of the 31 states where it has been placed on the ballot. So, what happens when the people of Iowa pass the Iowa Marriage Amendment and then the State Supreme Court tries to overturn the will of the people? What will the other two branches of government do in that situation?

When the Iowa Marriage Amendment comes to the people of Iowa for a vote, it will pass. We must begin preparing now to defend it. The 2010 election is shaping up to be a watershed event for the future of our state. The institution of marriage and the authority of the constitution quite literally hang in the balance.

LUV Iowa At The Tea Party

Saturday was an interesting day for political observers and for those of us who are working toward passage of the Iowa Marriage Amendment. First on the docket was the Iowa Tea Party event held at Hy-Vee Hall, and the second was the Iowa GOP event at the Iowa state Fairgrounds. This is the first of two posts reviewing both events:

It was obvious that the organizers of the Tea Party anticipated a much larger crowd than actually showed up, but who could have anticipated that we would get a sunny day with temperatures in the 70’s on November 7^th? They were also competing with home games in both Ames and Iowa City. With those dynamics taken into consideration, the crowd that did assemble was a reflection of the drive and dedication of patriots and activists from all across the state. Several folks commented that they were in from quite a distance in order to attend both the Tea Party and the Iowa GOP event later in the evening.

As with past Tea Party events in Des Moines, the speakers were fired-up citizens rather than professional speakers. Minnesota Congresswoman Michelle Bachman was the obvious exception to that rule, but her pre-recorded comments included an outtake that her staff failed to delete. The snafu provided a little comic relief, and actually seemed to help warm the crowd to the idea of watching a pre-recorded message. A former Iowan, Congresswoman Bachman’s message certainly had some in the crowd wondering if maybe we could make a trade with Minnesota for one of our liberal Iowa Members of Congress.

Most of the speeches were consistent with the pro-constitution, pro-liberty, patriotic Tea Party reputation that has developed over the last several months. In addition to the speakers, there were booths around the perimeter of the room hosted by a wide variety of activist groups and candidates. IFPC Action hosted a LUV Iowa Table that saw a steady stream of folks stopping by to volunteer to help pass the Iowa Marriage Amendment.

Several candidates for Governor were also in attendance, and it looked like folks took advantage of the opportunity to connect with a few of them. Christopher Rants, Terry Branstad, Bob Vander Plaats, Rod Roberts, and Christian Fong all had tables. Only Rod Roberts was at his table when I walked by, but I bumped into Bob Vander Plaats who had stopped at the LUV Iowa table while I away, and later Christian Fong stopped by the LUV Iowa table to say hello and give us a little encouragement. One other attendee of note was pro-abortion former Lieutenant Governor Joy Corning.

It is also probably worth noting that the Democrat Party of Iowa had a “Terry Loves Taxes” table. I can only imagine how hard it must have been for the poor folks who had to staff that table to sit there while many of their core convictions and party principles were held up to constitutional scrutiny. Much has been made of late over the rift in the Republican Party between conservatives and moderates, but I also get the impression from some Democrats I talk to that a similar struggle is going on within their party between more traditional centrist Democrats and the liberals that currently set the agenda. (Think of how three more rational Democrats in Congress might have saved us from the healthcare debacle that occurred Saturday night in DC.)

On his way out of the hall, what appeared to be a staffer from the “Terry Loves Taxes” table stopped by the LUV Iowa table to tell us that he thought we were promoting government intrusion by pushing for the Iowa Marriage Amendment. Even as I explained that the Iowa Constitution places political power in the hands of the people, and we are just asking for access to the process the constitution guarantees, he insisted that the courts have the final say. When I reminded him that “We The People” have the constitutional authority to override an out of control court, he was adamant that legal precedent trumps the constitution. He was wrong.

Much of the activity in Hy-Vee Hall had begun to dwindle as the last speaker for the day took to the stage. In fact, a good chunk of the crowd had left before the speeches were complete. The folks who left early missed what was without a doubt the best speech of the day.

Jonathan Narcisse is well known in the Des Moines area as the firebrand school board member who used an overwhelming pile of empirical data, and regular visits to WHO radio, to bring about sweeping reforms in just one term. He is a regular on “The Deace Group,” which airs on WHO radio every Friday afternoon, where he has built a reputation for his willingness to take on the status quo of both the left and the right.

The man who walked to the stage on Saturday was not the firebrand, or the radio personality, but instead appeared to have the quiet determination of someone who is both angry over the current state of affairs, and more than a little concerned that the people of Iowa will not wake up in time.

While his mood and tone were not typical of Jon Narcisse, his calm and measured delivery did not stop him from offering some of the hardest hitting lines of the day. Early in his speech, he said, “Iowans have placed their trust in career bureaucrats, faithless politicians, and party leaders loyal only to their private ambitions.” He followed that up with the stinging observation that, “they have betrayed our trust on issue after issue.”

His speech talked about how both parties have at times been responsible for raising taxes, growing government, ignoring immigration enforcement, and “cowering to a corrupt, privileged and runaway judiciary.” He concluded his bi-partisan indictment by saying, “So fiercely are Republican and Democratic bosses entwined with the same vested interests, championing the same misguided causes, sold out to the same compromised agenda, that only their red or blue garbs of deception distinguish them.”

After addressing the failure of past political leadership in Iowa, he shifted gears to the solutions he is promoting around the state. Narcisse is a publisher, and had with him a paper entitled “An Iowa Worth Fighting For.” The publication outlines ten steps that he claims will restore the greatness of Iowa. In his comments, he said that he has traveled nearly 10,000 miles promoting his plan. Those ten steps are:

1. Reorganizing, reducing and reprioritizing state government

2. Creating efficient, effective, accountable local government

3. Eliminating excessive taxation

4. Restoring a true free market economy

5. Instituting real education reform rooted in accountability and competition

6. Promoting a healthy Iowa

7. Restoring local control, zealously protecting private property and Constitutional liberties such as the right to bear arms

8. Making Iowa safe again, returning beat cops, practicing restitution based justice and waging a winning war on meth

9. Enforcing illegal immigration laws ending Iowa’s sanctuary status for illegals, and

10. Bringing back honest, hard working leadership with integrity to state and local governance

In classic John Narcisse style, he expands on each point in his written publication. A copy of An Iowa Worth Fighting For is available on line.

Narcisse concluded his remarks with a Frederick Douglass quote that maybe should have been used to kick off the event:

“Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will. Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have found out the exact measure of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them, and these will continue till they are resisted with either words or blows, or both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress.”

The Tea Party was a great way to spend a Saturday afternoon. It was encouraging to see so many people and so many organizations come together to promote liberty and to stand up for the constitution. Unfortunately, those who left early missed out on the best speech of the event.

Dignity

A fair presentation from an unexpected source, NBC's Law and Order.

Video Recaps | Full Episodes | Webisodes

Social Conservatism? Here to Stay.

The Public Discourse is a great site for commentary on the intersection of morality and law. Hosted by the Witherspoon Institute in Princeton, New Jersey, the contributors weigh in on the cultural landscape of the Twenty-first Century.

This morning's entry provides some great insight into the foundations and necessity of social conservatism - that much feared, much maligned cultural philosophy that champions the family and the dignity of human life (to varying degrees of effectiveness). Matthew Schmitz writes about how certain factions on the political landscape would love for social conservatism to sail off into the sunset. At a recent gathering of conservatives at Princeton University, former Bush staffer David Frum argued it was necessary to "turn down the volume" on social issues.
Schmitz responded with the following:

"Frum called for a wealthier, more suburban, and more North-Eastern Republican party. Such voters tend to see social concerns like restrictions on abortion or divorce as restrictions of their personal autonomy. These constituencies are less concerned with social issues precisely because their economic and educational privilege has insulated them from the negative effects of divorce and non-marital sex. The country’s poor Black, Hispanic, and rural White communities suffer some of the highest rates of out-of-wedlock pregnancy and divorce and, not coincidentally, tend to be among the most socially conservative in their political views.

Frum’s proposal might appeal to those safely perched on cushions of monetary and social capital who experiences these institutions as restrictions on their personal freedom rather than as necessary bulwarks of stability. But it does little for the plight of the rest.

This brings us back to the central problem with Frum’s argument. All political positions in the end appeal to a set of moral and social and cultural concerns, even if implicitly. It is difficult to elaborate the problems with massive imprisonment of black males, and the related problem of black single motherhood, unless one is willing to talk about the importance of family.

Misguided attempts to reduce the role of social conservatives in political discourse will make it more difficult to address some of the most complicated problems our nation faces. The way forward for social conservatives—whether within current political coalitions or outside them—is not to retreat on social issues, but rather to show how social conservatism is a flexible, fertile philosophy as necessary today as ever. Let’s turn the volume up to eleven."

You can read the rest of the article here.

“It’s The Economy Stupid!”

Just before midnight Sunday night, California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed a bill to create a state endorsed “Harvey Milk Day” in honor of the first openly homosexual politician elected to public office. Additionally, he signed a bill that thumbs its nose at the people of California, and the constitutional amendment they passed, by recognizing so called “marriages” between same sex couples preformed in other states.

As the state of California falls off the left coast and into the abyss of financial destruction, the country is once again reminded that an inability to stand firm on the more contentious “social issues” is often an indicator of an unwillingness to make the tough decisions required to shrink government and reduce the burden on taxpayers. These bills also illustrate that no matter how loud moderates and liberals bloviate about the condition of the economy, their commitment to promoting their “social issues” trumps everything else.

It was a financial crisis that opened the door for Governor Schwarzenegger to become governor. It was then Governor Gray “Gray-Out” Davis’ mismanagement of the state’s budget, and his inability to literally keep the lights on in California, that led to him becoming only the second Governor in the country’s history to be recalled by voters. So why is it that after 6 years in office, California is in worse fiscal shape than when Schwarzenegger took office, and why is he and the California legislature “wasting time” on issues that are “less important” than fixing the economy?

Schwarzenegger is certainly hamstrung by an über liberal state legislature, but he has frequently gone out of his way to remind people that he is a committed liberal himself. His decision to sign the morally corrosive pro-homosexuality bills under the cover of darkness in the middle of the night is likely a good indicator of his unwillingness to confront a host of other difficult issues like the budget. Any politician can give everyone what they want when it costs them nothing, but real statesmen are willing to make difficult decisions, take a stand on important issues, say “yes” or “no” in the light of day, and then accept the scrutiny that comes with their decisiveness.

There are a few lessons that Iowans can learn from California. First, even the current Governor of Iowa finally admitted what most of us already knew: Iowa’s economy is in desperate shape. The lesson from California is that just supporting any alternative “who can win” is not a solution to our economic problems. Second, how a candidate addresses the “social issues” is a good indicator of how well he or she will handle the fiscal issues once in office. Additionally, party affiliation is not necessarily an indicator of a commitment to that party’s stated principles. Finally, if Iowans don’t elect statesmen who are committed to confronting the courts, and are absolutely opposed to promoting homosexuality, we may pass the Iowa Marriage Amendment only to find “our” elected officials overturning it later.

Iowans are constantly being told that social issues are a distraction, that nobody cares about them, and that if Christians would just be quiet, moderates and liberals would fix the economic problems so everyone could live at peace with their fellow man. Any candidate who dares to step forward and publicly commit to preserving traditional moral and social standards is immediately branded a “wing nut” and labeled unelectable. What if the “social issues” are in fact the key to understanding how a candidate will handle the fiscal issues? Maybe it’s time to admit that any candidate who is unwilling to take a strong position on the most controversial of political issues is not qualified to handle any issues.

Why is it that the politicians who fail the “social issues” test are also the ones who will raise our taxes to cover up for their mismanagement of government budgets? This principle seems to be equally applicable to both parties. For instance, Arnold Schwarzenegger and Barack Obama are both committed to promoting sodomy, they are both contributing to the growth of government, and the economic destruction that naturally follows. Chet Culver and Mike Gronstal are sold out to the sodomy lobby, growing government at an unsustainable rate, and are reaping the economic whirlwind that naturally results.

Constitutional scholar and respected American historian, David Barton, of WallBuilders recently reported to several hundred Iowans that there is a direct coloration between the way lawmakers handle “social issues” and the way they handle fiscal issues. His conclusion is that nearly 100% of the time, a lawmaker who fails to protect life or marriage will also fail to protect the taxpayers from a growing government.

Here in Iowa, we find ourselves in a situation that looks more and more like California every day. Perhaps instead of trying to figure out who “can win,” we ought to focus on who can lead and then help them win. Rather than attempting to identify the politician with the most money, or the one who will hand out the most favors, Iowans ought to demand to see the heart and the convictions of the individuals asking for their vote. If a candidate is not willing to take a stand for marriage and the moral absolutes that real marriage represents, if a candidate is not willing to address the constitutional crisis created by an out of control Iowa Supreme Court, they very likely will not properly handle the state budget and do not deserve our support at the ballot box. We will either learn the lessons of California, or surely suffer their fate.

It was President Bill Clinton who once said, “It’s the economy, Stupid.” He was also interestingly enough the President who signed the Defense of Marriage Act. Perhaps he was more accurate than even he knew. Anyone concerned about the future economy of Iowa ought to review each candidate’s position on marriage to see if they have the backbone to make the multitude of difficult decisions that lie ahead.

A Coronation Or A Legacy In Jeopardy?

Today, former Governor Terry Branstad filed papers to run for an unprecedented 5th term as Iowa’s governor. While there has been little doubt that Branstad would enter the GOP gubernatorial primary field, the real lingering question is, “Why?”

Could it be that the current Branstad campaign represents the last gasps of a political establishment that has lost its grip on the grassroots and lost touch with reality?

If his perspective is so unique, isn’t there anyone younger than Branstad within the Republican Party who sees the world like he does? Isn’t 16 years long enough to be governor? What is it about the current political environment that would cause the political establishment to bring a long retired governor out of mothballs?

As the spring of 2009 turned into summer, and the impact of the Iowa Supreme Court’s April 3 homosexual “marriage” opinion began to help define the GOP primary field, some of the establishment powerbrokers began to get nervous. While most polls continue to reveal that between 60 and 70% of Iowans want to vote on the definition of marriage as only between one man and one woman, many political consultants and partisan insiders want to either downplay or completely ignore the issue. There seems to be an organized effort to move away from the Biblical and moral underpinnings that helped establish our nation and our state.

Somehow they missed the fact that it is the marriage issue, that helped propel Bob Vander Plaats into the “front runner” position among 2010 GOP gubernatorial candidates. Likewise, it was a masterful navigation of the legislative process, the use of House rules to force a vote on the Iowa Marriage Amendment, and his passionate speech on marriage during the debate that breathed new life into the political career of Rep. Christopher Rants. Now, Rants is widely considered a serious contender to win the primary. Other candidates, like Rep. Rod Roberts, received instant credibility when they entered the race, in part, because of their consistent and long term support for real marriage. Cedar Rapids businessman Christian Fong, and Senator Jerry Behn have also recognized and begun to address marriage as an important issue in their run for governor. In addition, Fong, Rants, Roberts, and Vanderplaats, all commmented on marriage when they spoke at the 2009 IFPC Gubernatorial Forum in September.

As Iowa voters look ahead to the type of Governor they want after the 2010 election, many are saying that it is well past time to reaffirm the constitutional separation of powers and elect someone who is willing to confront the court. Even the polls designed to encourage Branstad to run indicated that the majority of Iowans want to pass the Iowa Marriage Amendment, and the majority of GOP voters want their next Governor to confront the court by issuing an executive order staying the court’s opinion.

Just this past weekend, Constitutional expert and respected historian, David Barton of WallBuilders was in Des Moines. During his remarks, Barton clearly explained that the courts do not have the final say, and that there are examples of executives confronting the court through executive orders.

So, as public opinion continues to coalesce around the concept of a constitutional confrontation with the court, and specifically the need for an executive to put the court back in its place, we return to the question at hand: Why is Terry running? Does he have the personal and political will to take decisive action on the definitive societal issue of his time? Or could his candidacy be an attempt to shift attention away from what has become a defining issue in the Republican primary?

One of the benefits of having served for 16 years already, is that Terry Branstad has a record. The first time Terry Branstad ran for Governor, I was 9 years old. I now have children who are older than I was the first time he ran. What is it that a Branstad candidacy brings to the table that we were somehow lacking in the field that had already announced?

It is widely known that during the Branstad years, the size of government more than doubled. He gave a statewide platform to pro-infanticide Lieutenant Governor Joy Corning. Branstad brought gambling to the state. He was governor at the tail end of Iowa’s golden years as a leader in education, and then earned the endorsement of the ISEA after he made a “180 degree” flip concerning education in Iowa. He was governor when Iowa began allowing homosexual couples to adopt, and appointed two of the justices who created homosexual “marriage.”

It is hard to imagine how the man Des Moines Register columnist David Yepsen once called “one of the best liberal governors this state has ever had” is now going to somehow become the champion of confrontation with the court, conservative values, or Biblical principles as applied to public policy. In addition to his record, Branstad has found it hard to downplay his association with Des Moines lawyer Doug Gross who has been on a bit of a crusade to purge “social issues” from their place of prominence within the Republican Party.

If Branstad wants to compete for his party’s base and the grassroots activists, he is going to have to take decisive action almost immediately to show that he is a different politician than the one who rode off into the sunset in January of 1999. He must present a plan for restoring the constitutional separation of powers. He is going to have to not only go on record with a commitment to issue an executive order staying the opinion of the court, he is going to have to spell out his plan to use the office of Governor to force the Legislature to “Let Us Vote” on the Iowa Marriage Amendment.

Today Terry Branstad entered a political arena that is much different than the one he left. Platitudes and political posturing is no longer sufficient. People want genuine statesmen to take the lead on the difficult issues we face. If Branstad is willing to illustrate that he understands the dynamics of the current political and policy debates, and convince the electorate that his heart is committed to doing what's right, he could well be on his way to a coronation in June of next year. If, however, his candidacy is an attempt to distract from the issues that drive a large segment of his party’s base, if his campaign is a call to fondly remember his past performance, and if there is any hint that he will compromise on key issues in the future like he did in the past, he could in fact be placing his political legacy in jeopardy.