I’d like to commend Annette Sweeney to the voters of the new Iowa House District 50.  State Representative Sweeney I believe has the best handle on the issues facing the district, namely, agriculture.  She has been a leader in the House in area of agriculture.  She has chaired the House Agriculture Committee.  She has led trade missions on behalf of Iowa agriculture.  She has been the co-author of model legislation, the Ag Protection Act,  that protects family farms.  She understands the issue.

She has been a leader for life who most recently sponsored the “Sweeney Amendment” in an attempt to defund abortion providers of Iowa taxpayer money.  She has been the co-sponsor of numerous pro-life bills.  She also was a co-sponsor of the Iowa Marriage Amendment which passed the Iowa House last session.  She is an advocate of local control in education which is very important to me.  We need such leaders in the House to push back against Governor Branstad’s education agenda.

While State Representative Pat Grassley is a good man I believe Iowa District 50 and the Iowa House would be best served by Annette Sweeney.  So please vote for Annette Sweeney on Tuesday and send her back to the House!

I expect even while facing a challenging margin in voter registrations after redistricting he will not only give Congressman Braley a run for his money, but beat him as well.  Congressman Braley simply has not represented his constituents well.

Ben Lange is solidly pro-life believing that life begins at conception.  I believe he will be a strong champion for life in Congress.  I also like that Ben is a supporter of local control in education who believe that there needs to be minimal involvement by the federal government.  He also believes that parents need to be empowered with greater school choice.  He is a strong pro-2nd Amendment advocate as well understanding that it is necessary for the security of a free state.

He believes in a limited federal government.  He has said on this issue that “we cannot have a free society without limited government. It is time to discard the arrogant governance that divides us, in exchange for a humble government that unites us.”  He believes that we need to simply the tax code, reduce bureaucratic influence on small businesses and hold Wall Street accountable for their poor decisions.

Unlike Congressman Braley he wants to open markets and expand free trade in order to help our state’s agricultural interests.  He also favors a comprehensive energy policy that includes renewable energy and responsible drilling for oil and natural gas.

He wants to repeal Obamacare and replace that with a patient-centered, consumer-driven system.  He rejects amnesty for illegal immigration, but he also wants to make our current immigration more efficient for lawful immigration.   He supports auditing the Fed.  His top priority if elected to Congress is to restore the generational compact and solve the nation’s debt crisis.  He understands that we can’t keep kicking the can down the street.  He also understands our debt problem to be our greatest national security risk.

I hope that you vote for Ben Lange on Tuesday, June 5th and send him on to challenge Congressman Braley in November.

Nemschoff, a subsidiary of Herman Miller Inc., will close its doors in Sioux Center, Iowa citing the negative direct impact of ObamaCare – a law King’s opponent Christie Vilsack supports. The closure leaves 111 employees out of work.

“For too long Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Christie Vilsack have stood behind ObamaCare and it’s job-killing effects,” said King. “Sadly, we don’t need to look any farther than Northwest Iowa to see the devastating impact government-run healthcare is having on Iowa families and business. My language to repeal ObamaCare passed the House last year, and I am the only candidate in the 4th Congressional District race who will continue fighting to repeal ObamaCare and restore our American dream.”

The announcement of this business closure due to ObamaCare comes just a week after King launched his “Restoring Our American Dream” tour. Congressman King used the tour to unveil his plan to get Americans working again. The first part of his four-point plan is repealing ObamaCare.

“As we saw this morning from the Labor Department’s employment report, Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Christie Vilsack’s desire to continue assaulting free enterprise by burdening business with onerous regulations is stalling America’s recovery and sending unemployment higher. My plan to get Americans working again will remove government regulations like the job-killing ObamaCare law, balance the federal budget, harness American energy and provide economic opportunity through economic certainty,” King added.

Our criteria for evaluation for the primary election this Tuesday, June 5, includes not only responses to the survey but news reports, interviews by us or others, voting history if an incumbent, consistency of the candidate within these aspects and an analysis of their legislative and political prospects in light of our legislative priorities.  It is imperative that there be an understanding of the dignity and worth of each human life, whatever his or her state of circumstances before and after birth. Certainly the courtesy of returning a response to this survey on behalf of Pro-Life constituents is of paramount importance.

For purposes of succinctness we have listed the candidates we find sufficiently meet our judgment criteria reflecting ability, sincerity and responsiveness in support of our Pro-Life legislative priorities.

Readers should also be aware that we have specific legislative goals and priorities that are determined by legislative and political experience and with reference to legal scholarship by the best the pro-life movement has to offer. A candidate who says they oppose abortion in all circumstances and pretends that is sufficient as a legislative approach given the realities of abortion on demand imposed on the states as a result of the Roe v. Wade decision or accuses an opponent of insincerity for supporting measures consistent with our experienced goals and priorities at best we believe would be an ineffective legislator.

We believe our readers will find this information crucial to evaluating the candidates for the Iowa primary election Tuesday, June 5. After the primary we will evaluate candidates for the general election, resurveying as necessary.

Candidates Iowa Right to Life Believes Best Meet Evaluation Criteria:

U.S. House 01:  Ben Lange

State Senate:

04:  James Black

06:  Mark Segebart

08:  Col. Al Ringgenberg

14:  Steven Everly AND Stephanie Jones AND Amy Sinclair

22:  Jeff Mullen

36:  Jane Jech

42:  Lee Harder AND Larry Kruse

Iowa House:

01: Kevin Wolfswinkel

02: Josh Davenport AND Megan Hess

06: Ron Jorgensen AND Matthew Ung

07: Tedd Gassman

08: Bob Dishman AND Henry Rayhorns

10: Maison Bleam

22: Greg Forristall

23: Mark Costello

24: Cecil Dolecheck AND Jane Jensen

25: Julian Garrett AND Joan Acela

26: Steve McCoy AND Ruth Randleman

27: Joel Fry

28: Len Gosselink AND Greg Heartsill

30: Jim Carley

34:  Patti Branco

37: Matt DeVries AND John Landon AND Jim Robidoux AND Jeffrey White

38: Kevin Koester

39: Erik Helland

50: Pat Grassley AND Annette Sweeney

55: Marshall Nessa

59: Howard Lyon

76: Larry Wilson

81: Blake Smith

Not even a peep about Planned Parenthood of the Heartland at her campaign launch July 19, 2011, in Ames.  But in her brief launch speech Vilsack did mention Jake, her grandchild she was carrying around like a campaign prop—twice.  And mentioned there’s “another one on the way.”

Why Christie, Why?

Even her friends have noticed.  One liberal blog opined in 2011 that Vilsack was chosen as one of four promising candidates by abortion activist group, “Emily’s List”:  “So far I haven’t seen any mention of the “Emily’s List” announcement on the Christie Vilsack for Iowa website, Facebook page or Twitter account.” (Source: www.bleedingheartland.com)

Here are a few other things Christie might be mum on:

• Christie Vilsack donated money to Planned Parenthood in 2009. Now they donate to her. Planned Parenthood and Emily’s List have both donated to Christie’s campaign, according to The Iowa Republican.
• · Nancy Pelosi gave Christie $4,000 (Now we know where that grandchild-as-a-campaign-prop comes from.)
• Christie was the guest of honor at open houses for new Planned Parenthood of the Heartland’s in Fort Dodge and Creston in 2008.
• Christie was keynote speaker at a Planned Parenthood of the Heartland fundraiser in Burlington in 2008 and visited the Mount Pleasant Planned Parenthood of the Heartland in the same trip.
• Representatives of Planned Parenthood of the Heartland were recognized at Christie’s fundraiser at Prairie Moon Winery in Ames July 1, 2011, the Ames Tribune reported. A Planned Parenthood of the Heartland donor was master of ceremonies.

Christie’s Initiative: The Buffet Way

Christie’s campaign website does mention she was Executive Director of the Iowa Initiative, but refers to it as: “a privately funded research program focused on women’s health.”

Women’s health?  Really?

The Iowa Initiative is bankrolled by Warren Buffet.  While many know of Buffet’s financial success, not everyone knows he is one of the biggest donors in the world to population control and abortion organizations like Planned Parenthood, National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL) and the Population Council which promotes abortion worldwide.

Buffet was even instrumental in bringing the abortion pill, RU-486, to the United States.

Iowa Right to Life wants to make sure Christie’s accomplishments at the Iowa Initiative are not forgotten.

• The Iowa Initiative gave Planned Parenthood of the Heartland money to implant 7,000 IUDs (interuterine devices—birth control) in Iowa women, reported ABC News.
• Iowa Initiative’s Avoid the Stork “to reduce unintended pregnancies” campaign, which is supposed to target ages 18-30 is an underhanded way to sexualize children by using a costumed stork mascot (think “Joe Camel”) that shows up in print ads, billboard and TV commercials.  The stork mascot also makes public appearances at the Iowa Speedway and various festivals.
• Children who log onto the Stork website are treated to cartoon images, like praying hands for the “Pull N’ Pray” method, which the site says “is also known as withdrawal, when the male anatomy is quickly removed from the woman’s before the act of ejaculation.”
• Avoid the Stork mirrors a failed federally-funded campaign from the 1970s, “Stop the Stork”, which cost taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Still Involved in Iowa Initiative

We know that Christie is so humble about her accomplishments at the Iowa Initiative, that she has been holding back that she is still on the Board of Directors there.

As under her leadership, Iowa Initiative is stacked with Planned Parenthood of the Heartland’s biggest supporters:  Susan Knapp, whose real estate husband Bill used his fortune to open a Planned Parenthood of the Heartland abortion location near Drake University in her name; former State Senator Maggie Tinsman, Dr. Andrea McGuire, who throws fundraisers for Planned Parenthood of the Heartland in her home. Former Lt. Gov. Sally Pederson is the Executive Director.

Christie Vilsack may be mum on her ties to big abortion in Iowa, but Iowa Right to Life will not be.

Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX) was one of only seven Republicans (see also here) to vote against the Prenatal Non-Discrimination Act of 2012 yesterday.  He is complicit in the bill’s failure.  Selective Sex Abortion are an ongoing practice.  There is documentation that this is occurring here in the United States.

Naturally impossible sex ratios at birth are also occurring in the United States, as documented in survey data from 2000 and after.  Skewed sex ratios (108), favoring boys over girls, have appeared in U.S. subpopulations mirroring the international data (Chinese-Americans, Korean-Americans, and Filipino- Americans).  Douglas Almond and Lena Edlund of Columbia University identified these trends, including a male bias of 50% among third-order births, in U.S. populations of Chinese, Korean, and Asian-American heritage.  “We interpret the found deviation in favor of sons to be evidence of sex selection, most likely at the prenatal stage,” they write.[2]  This fact has prompted several U.S. states to ban sex selection abortion in their jurisdictions.  These states include Illinois (2008), Pennsylvania (2008), Oklahoma (2010), and Arizona (2011).

The federalism argument doesn’t wash here when you have the 14th Amendment.  I am disappointed, but not surprised by Iowa’s Democratic Congressional Delegation’s vote.  Congressman Paul came through Iowa touting his prolife position and record while trying to smear Rick Santorum’s.  Anyone remember this ad he ran before the Iowa Caucus?

Yet he couldn’t vote for this simple bill.  What a fraud.

Update: A transcription of Paul’s statement during debate.

Mr. Speaker, as an OB-GYN who has delivered over 4,000 babies, I certainly abhor abortion. And I certainly share my colleagues’ revulsion at the idea that someone would take an innocent unborn life because they prefer to have a child of a different gender. However, I cannot support H.R. 3541, the Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act, because this bill is unconstitutional. Congress’s jurisdiction is limited to those areas specified in the Constitution. Nowhere in that document is Congress given any authority to address abortion in any manner. Until 1973, when the Supreme Court usurped the authority of the States in the Roe v. Wade decision, no one believed or argued abortion was a Federal issue.

I also cannot support H.R. 3541 because it creates yet another set of Federal criminal laws, even though the Constitution lists only three Federal crimes: piracy, treason, and counterfeiting. All other criminal matters are expressly left to States under the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, and criminal laws relating to abortion certainly should be legislated by States rather than Congress.

I have long believed that abortion opponents make a mistake by spending their energies on a futile quest to make abortion a Federal crime. Instead, pro-life Americans should work to undo Roe v. Wade and give the power to restrict abortion back to the States and the people. It is particularly disappointing to see members supporting this bill who rightfully oppose ludicrous interpretations of the Commerce Clause when it comes to the national health care law, which also abuses the Commerce Clause to create new Federal crimes.

Pro-life Americans believe all unborn life is precious and should be protected. Therefore we should be troubled by legislation that singles out abortions motivated by a “politically incorrect” reason for special Federal punishment. To my conservative colleagues who support this bill: what is the difference in principle between a Federal law prohibiting “sex selection” abortions and Federal hate crimes laws? After all, hate crime laws also criminalize thoughts by imposing additional stronger penalties when a crime is motivated by the perpetrator’s animus toward a particular race or gender.

I also question whether this bill would reduce the number of abortions. I fear instead that every abortion provider in the Nation would simply place a sign in their waiting room saying “It is a violation of Federal law to perform an abortion because of the fetus’ gender. Here is a list of reasons for which abortion is permissible under Federal law.”

Mr. Speaker, instead of spending time on this unconstitutionally, ineffective, and philosophically flawed bill, Congress should use its valid authority to limit the jurisdiction of activist Federal courts and (thereby) protect state laws restoring abortion. This is the constitutional approach to effectively repealing Roe v. Wade. Instead of focusing on gimmicks and piecemeal approaches, true conservatives should address the horror of abortion via the most immediate, practical, and effective manner possible: returning jurisdiction over abortion to the States.

Congressman Paul seems to wish the 14th Amendment away.  We have a right to life which is given to us by God and enshrined in our Declaration as organic law.  Our Constitution in the 5th and the 14th Amendments clearly state that the right to life should not be taken away without due process.  So to argue the Feds can’t defend a basic right is ludicrous.  This isn’t to say that you don’t bring up some good points.  It is an imperfect bill.  I’d rather see us vote for imperfect bills that will help save lives than to do nothing until we get that one perfect bill (Sanctity of Life Act, Personhood Amendment, etc) that will protect all children that can finally be passed because we finally get the right make-up in Congress.

Also regarding the states’ rights argument I’ve asked Ron Paul supporters if they know of any state that has allowed murder, and if there was a state that suddenly codified a right to commit murder would they support the Feds getting involved.  No rational person would think it would be ok for a state to allow murder, but Ron Paul would have you believe that it is ok for a state to do so as long as the person is still in the womb.

President Obama and these 168 members of the House are out of step with in the world.  China, Hong Kong, Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan, India, Australia, the United Kingdom and Vietnam all of these countries have outlawed this practice.  We should be leading the world on this issue, instead we are being led.

President Obama and the abortion absolutists in Congress are even out of touch with their own constituencies.  The Charlotte Lozier Institute released a poll showing that 77% of Americans (80% of women) favor banning this practice.  Yet it would seem that President Obama and the 168 would rather placate the abortion lobby and protect Planned Parenthood than listen to their constituencies.  Business as usual, protect abortion for any reason at all costs.

Americans need to remember this come November.

First, let me explain what the chart below cannot do. It cannot predict what will happen in the real world, but neither can my friends. It is a closed chart, meaning it requires no fudging of the numbers. The reason for this is simple. I am dealing with hypothetical numbers and rates, not real people. This is a math problem, not a people problem.

The specifics of the chart.

First, in order to make things simple, I will do this based upon the idea that the number of children needed to replace two parents is TWO(!). The reason that 2.1 or 2.2 is often used is because the figure is trying to represent the number of children needed, who survive into adulthood. This itself is an unnecessary and arbitrary fudge because the average I give already takes into consideration children who have no children, regardless of the reason (they die in childhood, they are infertile or they remain virgins, etc.).  In other words, to present the information in an understandable format, it is necessary that each family have two and only two children. In the real world, one family could have 8 children, and three other couples could have none and the results would be the same, but using this in the chart would be unfollowable(!) and as big a distraction as this long introduction.

Second, even though the chart mentions father and mother, I recognize we are really only dealing with the number of children particular mothers have. This is necessary for the chart to have any meaning whatsoever. In the real world, mothers may have children by more than one man for various reasons, but mathematically it only confuses things.

Third, the chart only deals with population growth in a closed setting. That is, one world, one nation, or one town. Immigration does not exist. Of course, a nation with a low birth rate could still grow, if you allow for immigration.

Fourth, it is necessary to stretch out the chart to at least as long as the length of life of the first generation. The chart assumes no change in death rate, for this reason: Even if people lived to be an average of 120 years old, after six generations, the population growth would cease, if each couple only had two children.

To make it simple, each couple has a pair of twins at age 20, each of their children have twins at age 20, and so on, until the death of the original progenitors, all which die at age 81.  We start the chart with 8 newlywed couples, all aged 19 in the year 2999.

World Population: 16 in the year 2999.

8 Sets of Twins Born in 3000, World Population: 32.

8 Sets of Twins Born in 3020, World population: 48

8 Sets of Twins Born in 3040, World Population: 64

8 sets of twins born 3060, World population: 80

First set of parents die in 3061 at age 81, world population 64.

8 sets of twins born in 3080, world population: 80

Second set of parents die in 3081, world population 64.

From the fourth generation on, the population will be only 80 and no higher. From this chart it is easy to see that with a birthrate of 2 children per household, the population can only grow if the death rate decreases. Even then, it won’t be by much. If people lived to be a 100, in 3100 A.D. the population would top out at 112 people. Suppose each person lived to be 200.   It would only reach 160 TOTAL and then it would stop. Suppose everybody lived to be 1000 years old.

Let’s revisit our original chart with nobody dying for a 1000 years. Wouldn’t the world population explode? No.

Year and Population

3000, 32.

3020, 48

3040, 64

3060, 80

3080, 96

3100= 112

3200=192.

3300=272

3400=352

3500=432

3600=512

3700=592

3800-672

3900=752

4000 A.D. Population 832.

In other words, only 80 people are added every 100 years. After 1000 years—and nobody has ever lived that long—there would be only 800 people added, making a grand total of 832!  That is the same population as that booming metropolis, Alma, Kansas, where hunger appears to be running rampant.

Boss Bloomberg and the city mothers of New York City have decided to crack down on lethal weapons. No, they are not AK-47s and sawed-off shotguns: They’re large cups. Yes, you heard that right. In typical overreach, a decision was made to fight Big Apple, public enemy number one, HFCS (high-fructose corn syrup, aka “Sugar”), with the country’s first Size of Container Law. Soon, in NYC it will be illegal for fast food restaurants to serve soft drinks (or soda or pop or sweet tea) in cups larger than 16 ounces.

It would be easy to go after the good mayor for his do-gooder, nanny-like inclination to control the people of his kingdom, but it is the citizens themselves—and others like them all over the country—that I want to talk to today. Most people will comply and not make such a fuss over this new law. That is find and dandy. I don’t think it does much good to hoot and holler when you are inconvenienced, when there are so many more important things in this world to fight for. I am often surprised at the indignity cigarette smokers are willing to put up with, however. Smokers who are 50 years old, but look 39 (like myself) often have to present ID to prove they are not 17. (Mind you, I don’t smoke, I only mean that I am 50-plus years old, but look 39-ish).

Many people think the Bloomberg ban iss ridiculous, but here is a smattering of the responses from Bloomberg supporters at the New York Times:

“The problem is a nationwide and, now, a worldwide crisis. This Bloomberg effort is a baby step, but should be applauded wholeheartedly.”

“I think the ban should include diet sodas as well.”

“Something does need to be done.”

“This is a great idea and should be imitated by other localities.”

“And distasteful as it may be, if it saves lives, and much needed dollars in our medical system, it will have been a good thing.”

The last reason given above was the most common justification for regulating cup sizes: the burden on society for shelling out for the insulin costs of fat people. Of course, this begs the question as to why everybody is paying everybody else’s medical bills in the first place.

The Scriptures suggest the big-government impulse is at work in people since the fall.

“Adam and Eve’s sin in the Garden of Eden was not just a single act of wrongdoing. It was the first blast of man’s

rebellion against his Creator and Ruler. One of Satan’s temptations was that Adam and Eve would be like God if they ate what God said not to eat. From that moment on, man’s offspring—rogues who want to be ruled by nobody and busybodies who want to rule over everybody—became mutineers. Rejecting God as ruler of the Universe (a violation of the First Commandment), the hearts of these men erected an idol in His place (a violation of the Second Commandment). One of the strangest paradoxes in the world is that Anarchist and Tyrant, Libertine and Legalist, Sadducee and Pharisee, natural enemies all, will unite in agreement: God must go….

It is quite possible for these two forces to coexist for a long time in a dying culture, just as fever and chills can live in the same sick body. When a nation permits parents to kill their own offspring with impunity, anarchy is at work. When the same culture criminalizes selling two-gallon flush toilets, buying 100-watt light bulbs, eating Happy Meal toys, or throwing Frisbees on a beach, tyranny is at work.”(1)

C. S. Lewis warned us about the likes of Mayor Bloomberg and the masses who are from the government and just want to help us in his book God in the Dock (see also Luke 22:25f):

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. (p. 292)

________________________________________

(1)    David J Shedlock has written a book, With Christ in the Voting Booth, dealing with the causes of and the relationship between tyranny and anarchy. One chapter is entitled, “Anarchy: The Rule of a Thousand Tyrants.”

RightOnline

Misguided attacks, smears and accusations have often been directed toward conservative activists. But during the dawn of the tea-party movement, this hatred warped into attacks which became increasingly personal and hostile. No one knew this better than Andrew Breitbart, a nationally renowned conservative advocate and blogger who passed away suddenly earlier this year.

“Hating Breitbart” – two and a half years in the making – documents Breitbart’s rise in the media world, from the birth of the Tea Party in 2009 to early this year. The film shows behind the scenes footage of many of the explosive media controversies that Breitbart found himself at the center of, including the Congressman Weiner Twitter-scandal and the undercover recording of ACORN tapes. Learn more at www.hatingbreitbart.com.

We’re proud to announce that Americans for Prosperity Foundation and RightOnline will host a Hating Breitbart screening of select scenes on Friday, June 15th at the annual RightOnline Conference. RightOnline is the must-attend yearly conference for right-leaning media and bloggers to educate on and encourage online activism.

Full disclosure, yours truly is an official blogger for the event and I look forward to attending.  The conference will also have numerous speakers such as: Scott Rasmussen, Michelle Malkin, Jonah Goldberg, Dana Loesch, S.E. Cupp and Hugh Hewitt.  You can register online here.  If you use the promo code, “fightbackonline” you will receive a $10 discount on your registration.

Here’s the trailer of Hating Breitbart (warning some explicit language):