Families in Iowa can celebrate a victory that unfolded last week and was finalized Monday at around 1:10 pm in the Iowa House of Representatives. But it may only be a temporary win.
The Prevailing Wage Bill (HF 333), if passed, would force local and state government entities to pay labor union wage rates to all workers on public projects. In effect, the prevailing wage would impose government mandates on what has traditionally taken place in the free market. It would force local and state governments to spend taxpayer money inefficiently, and place an even greater burden on family budgets. Additionally, the bill would indirectly strengthen labor unions, who are notorious for partnering with groups that undermine traditional family values in Iowa.
Five Democrat representatives joined the entire House Republican caucus in bi-partisan fashion to keep this anti-capitalist bill from threatening family budgets.
The bill resulted in an unprecedented series of events in the Iowa House. Never before has there been a weekend long camp out in the House chambers, but Iowa House Speaker Pat Murphy decided to stay in the building for three days and three nights, only closing the vote on HF 333 after more than 67 consecutive hours of trying to change the outcome.
Unfortunately, due to some procedural acrobatics by Democrat leaders, the issue of prevailing wages is not dead. It will come up again before the end of session, so we encourage pro-family values Iowans to contact their legislators, kindly asking them to stand firm against ANY derivative of the Prevailing Wage Bill.
In particular, people should contact Representatives McKinley Bailey, Doris Kelley, Larry Marek, Dolores Mertz, and Brian Quirk. Thank them for their strong stand against their Democrat Party leaders and ask them to keep standing against the Prevailing Wage Bill and the socialistic wage control principles behind the bill.
Additionally, Representative Geri Huser should also be contacted – she didn’t vote and has been a vocal opponent of the Prevailing Wage Bill, but could also use some encouragement to stand firm through the remainder of the session.
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
From The Same Fine Folks Who Brought Us Legalized Gambling
Senate File 227 passed out of committee on Monday, and is now eligible to come to the floor for debate. There seems to be little concern that the bill violates both the letter and the spirit of the electoral process spelled out in the Constitution. According to Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal, “If states that represent a majority of electoral votes in the country pass this compact, we can get a national popular vote without Congress, without a constitutional amendment, without any of those folks.”
It’s hard to imagine what might motivate any Iowa Senator to promote a bill that would politically neuter the state, but that is exactly what Senate File 227 would do. What could possibly motivate the Democrat Senators who voted to pass the bill out of committee to support to a bill specifically designed to circumvent the United States Constitution?
It would appear that our friends over at the Iowa Defense Alliance have uncovered an interesting wrinkle in the effort to strip
Helping states institute what is arguably one of the most regressive taxes via state sponsored lotteries was evidently not enough for this destructive duo. Now they have their sights set on undermining the US Constitution itself.
In a 2006 New York Times article, Dr. Koza addresses the fact that the effort is an attempt to end run the Constitutional process by saying, “When people complain that it’s an end run, I just tell them, ‘Hey, an end run is a legal play in football.”
According to FEC records, Dr. Koza has donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to the Democratic Party. While not nearly so substantial, it is not surprising to find that all of Mr. Fadem’s political contributions have also been to Democrat candidates.
In an interesting twist of hypocrisy, Dr. Koza has even served as a Democrat elector in the Electoral College - twice!
Senate File 227 appears to have been born of an extremely partisan effort to dramatically reshape the way we elect our presidents. It not only undermines the process outlined in the Constitution, but also Iowa’s role in that process. It’s a move that is as ill-advised as legalized gambling, and promoted by the exact same people.
This bill must be defeated.
Contact your State Legislators today and urge them to oppose Senate File 227.
House Switchboard - (515) 281-3221
Senate Switchboard - (515) 281-3371
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Out of the abundance of the heart...
"A good man out of the good treasure of his heart brings forth good; and an evil man out of the evil treasure of his heart brings forth evil. For out of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaks."
Luke 6:45
“Destroy the family, you destroy the country.”
“The way to crush the bourgeoisie is to grind them between the millstones of taxation and inflation.”
“Give me four years to teach the children and the seed I have sown will never be uprooted.”
“The Capitalists will sell us the rope with which we will hang them.”
“It is true that liberty is precious; so precious that it must be carefully rationed.”
“The goal of socialism is communism.”
“The way to crush the bourgeoisie is to grind them between the millstones of taxation and inflation.”
“Give me four years to teach the children and the seed I have sown will never be uprooted.”
“The Capitalists will sell us the rope with which we will hang them.”
“It is true that liberty is precious; so precious that it must be carefully rationed.”
“The goal of socialism is communism.”
-- Vladimir Ilyich Lenin
Say NO to Socialism.
CLICK HERE to download a "No Socialism" sign.
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Retreat?
I try to frequent a handful of blogs and listen to an assortment of pod(broad)casts to keep aprised of the goings on in the world. One of my favorite sources of concise, constructive cultural commentary is Breakpoint, with Chuck Colson and Mark Earley. Breakpoint always points to the necessity of applying Christianity to all spheres of life. This was also articulated by theologian Abraham Kuyper, who rightly declared: “In the total expanse of human life there is not a single square inch of which the Christ, who alone is sovereign, does not declare, 'That is mine!'”
The underlying reason for this Christian involvement should flow not from a desire of cultural subjugation, but cultural sanctification. Instead of undermining the spheres of society (which we do by disengaging from them), we are called by Jesus to boldly speak the truth in love, thereby improving life for individuals and society as a whole. In last Friday’s Breakpoint commentary, Mark Earley spoke to the need for Evangelical Christians to stay engaged in the political arena:
“Cal Thomas, a conservative evangelical columnist, is someone I really admire. But shortly after Barack Obama’s historic election victory, he wrote a column called “Religious Right, R.I.P.,” which I strongly disagree with. In it, Thomas asserts that evangelicals should abandon their efforts to impact culture through political involvement.
He says, ‘Evangelicals are at a junction. They can take the path that will lead them to more futility and ineffective attempts to reform culture through government, or they can embrace the far more powerful methods outlined by the One they claim to follow.’
By following the example of Christ, Thomas continues, ‘they will get much of what they hope for, but can never achieve, in and through politics.’
Well, Thomas, in my opinion, is both dead right and dead wrong. He is right in the sense that all of the followers of Jesus should indeed emulate Christ’s life. Thomas is also right that some of those who have led the evangelical movement in the political culture have been strident in tone and hungry for power.
But Thomas is wrong in setting up an either-or proposition. Either you are involved in politics seeking change—or you live like Jesus and effect change merely by your exemplary life. Unfortunately, neither Jesus nor the whole of Scripture gives us that choice. Instead, we are called to work and live in all areas of life, living like Jesus in the process. We cannot withdraw from any area—especially not politics.”
Please read or listen to the rest of this helpful commentary. We must not keep our relationship with Christ from flowing out and transforming our engagements in the public arena, be they personal, cultural, or political.
The underlying reason for this Christian involvement should flow not from a desire of cultural subjugation, but cultural sanctification. Instead of undermining the spheres of society (which we do by disengaging from them), we are called by Jesus to boldly speak the truth in love, thereby improving life for individuals and society as a whole. In last Friday’s Breakpoint commentary, Mark Earley spoke to the need for Evangelical Christians to stay engaged in the political arena:
“Cal Thomas, a conservative evangelical columnist, is someone I really admire. But shortly after Barack Obama’s historic election victory, he wrote a column called “Religious Right, R.I.P.,” which I strongly disagree with. In it, Thomas asserts that evangelicals should abandon their efforts to impact culture through political involvement.
He says, ‘Evangelicals are at a junction. They can take the path that will lead them to more futility and ineffective attempts to reform culture through government, or they can embrace the far more powerful methods outlined by the One they claim to follow.’
By following the example of Christ, Thomas continues, ‘they will get much of what they hope for, but can never achieve, in and through politics.’
Well, Thomas, in my opinion, is both dead right and dead wrong. He is right in the sense that all of the followers of Jesus should indeed emulate Christ’s life. Thomas is also right that some of those who have led the evangelical movement in the political culture have been strident in tone and hungry for power.
But Thomas is wrong in setting up an either-or proposition. Either you are involved in politics seeking change—or you live like Jesus and effect change merely by your exemplary life. Unfortunately, neither Jesus nor the whole of Scripture gives us that choice. Instead, we are called to work and live in all areas of life, living like Jesus in the process. We cannot withdraw from any area—especially not politics.”
Please read or listen to the rest of this helpful commentary. We must not keep our relationship with Christ from flowing out and transforming our engagements in the public arena, be they personal, cultural, or political.
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
The Law Of Unintended Consequences
The law of unintended consequences has been known to severely punish those who neglect to respect it.
In an article that ran in the Dallas Morning News recently, author Rod Dreher pointed out that activists trying to score points in the culture war have a unique responsibility to acknowledge the potential impact of their actions.
The January 23rd article entitled, Next Time, They Come For You, centered around an effort on the part of homosexual activists in California to use technology to identify the homes and businesses of individuals who financially supported Proposition 8, an amendment to the California Constitution that protects the definition of marriage as between one man and one woman.
By electronically cross-referencing donor lists with Google mapping software, these extremists created an interactive web page that allows the user to not only access the name and address of a donor, but also that person’s home pinpointed on a map, and overlays of that map on a satellite image of the donor’s city.
Dreher points out the obvious danger of publishing the names, addresses, and maps, by itemizing several examples of retaliation and intimidation by homosexual activists against individuals and businesses that supported Proposition 8. He goes on to explain the very real potential that the law of unintended consequences may in fact result in negative action against the homosexual community.
He warns, “It won’t be long before far-right radicals draw on publicly available data to create an online map to gay-rights supporters’ homes. How safe will gay folks in small towns feel if gay bashers are one click away from a map to their house?”
All of that is true. There is an inherent danger in providing committed homosexual radicals with driving directions to the front door of pro-marriage supporters, just as it would be no less inappropriate for pro-marriage activists to publish a similar map to the homes of known homosexuals. Still, the damage cuts deeper than the potential for physical harm to an individual donor.
In his conclusion, Dreher asserts that this willingness to misuse public information to punish individuals is a “vicious cultural bellwether.” He fears that the trend away from arguing issues and towards punishing individuals “rips apart a common understanding that makes it possible for us to live together in a diverse democracy.”
Here in Iowa, the lid is locked down and the heat is being turned up on the pressure-cooker that is the marriage debate. For now, the boiling emotions on both sides of the issue are more or less measured and civil, but sooner or later the Iowa Supreme Court will rule, and the lid may blow off.
There are several lessons that Iowa can learn from California on this issue. First, even residents of the most ideologically liberal states agree that marriage is the union of one man and one woman. Second, the division caused by the concept of homosexual “marriage” does not go away with a court order or a constitutional amendment. Finally, if we sacrifice civility in the quest for ideological victory, we run the risk of sacrificing society itself.
In an article that ran in the Dallas Morning News recently, author Rod Dreher pointed out that activists trying to score points in the culture war have a unique responsibility to acknowledge the potential impact of their actions.
The January 23rd article entitled, Next Time, They Come For You, centered around an effort on the part of homosexual activists in California to use technology to identify the homes and businesses of individuals who financially supported Proposition 8, an amendment to the California Constitution that protects the definition of marriage as between one man and one woman.
By electronically cross-referencing donor lists with Google mapping software, these extremists created an interactive web page that allows the user to not only access the name and address of a donor, but also that person’s home pinpointed on a map, and overlays of that map on a satellite image of the donor’s city.
Dreher points out the obvious danger of publishing the names, addresses, and maps, by itemizing several examples of retaliation and intimidation by homosexual activists against individuals and businesses that supported Proposition 8. He goes on to explain the very real potential that the law of unintended consequences may in fact result in negative action against the homosexual community.
He warns, “It won’t be long before far-right radicals draw on publicly available data to create an online map to gay-rights supporters’ homes. How safe will gay folks in small towns feel if gay bashers are one click away from a map to their house?”
All of that is true. There is an inherent danger in providing committed homosexual radicals with driving directions to the front door of pro-marriage supporters, just as it would be no less inappropriate for pro-marriage activists to publish a similar map to the homes of known homosexuals. Still, the damage cuts deeper than the potential for physical harm to an individual donor.
In his conclusion, Dreher asserts that this willingness to misuse public information to punish individuals is a “vicious cultural bellwether.” He fears that the trend away from arguing issues and towards punishing individuals “rips apart a common understanding that makes it possible for us to live together in a diverse democracy.”
Here in Iowa, the lid is locked down and the heat is being turned up on the pressure-cooker that is the marriage debate. For now, the boiling emotions on both sides of the issue are more or less measured and civil, but sooner or later the Iowa Supreme Court will rule, and the lid may blow off.
There are several lessons that Iowa can learn from California on this issue. First, even residents of the most ideologically liberal states agree that marriage is the union of one man and one woman. Second, the division caused by the concept of homosexual “marriage” does not go away with a court order or a constitutional amendment. Finally, if we sacrifice civility in the quest for ideological victory, we run the risk of sacrificing society itself.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
