87,500,000 reasons to vote Republican 3

By Tom Quiner

Who pays the union dues for public employees? You do, Mr. Taxpayer.

Who on average makes more money and has better benefits, public or private employees? Public employees.

Who pays for these lavish salaries and benefits? Private employees.

To whom did President Obama give $160 billion in stimulus money to protect them from the impact of the recession? Public employees.

Who paid for this largesse? Private employees.

Who has suffered the most during the recession? Private employees.

In this election cycle, who is the single biggest campaign contributor? The NRA?  No. Big Pharma? No. How about the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME). They have given $87,500,000 to help elect Democratic candidates.

Who funded this $87,500,000?  The taxpayers.

AFSCME workers on strike

Is there anything wrong with this? Plenty. To quote a liberal President:

“The process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. A public employee strike, looking toward the paralysis of government by those who have sworn to support it, is unthinkable and intolerable.”

Thus spoke President Franklin Roosevelt in the 1930s. President Obama certainly disagrees.

We now enjoy a situation with large public unions with tremendous political clout gained at taxpayer expense. Some state budgets are nearing the buckling point under the weight of public pension liabilities. Public employee unions want bigger government and less accountability in direct conflict with taxpayer interests.

Do you want bigger unions, bigger government, and more taxpayer liability? Vote Democrat.

If you don’t, you have 87,500,000 reasons to vote Republican.


It’s all about me 7

By Tom Quiner

Rick Warren

“It’s not about you.”

That is the first sentence in Rick Warren’s best-selling book, “The Purpose-Drive Life.”  Mr. Warren’s premise, that our lives belong to God, that true happiness only comes when we do what God placed us on earth to do, is counter-cultural.

American culture disagrees with Mr. Warren.

Our culture suggest that we need a lot of money to be happy.

Our culture suggests that we need pretty hair, big breasts, and stick figures to be happy. That we need bulging biceps and flat tummies.

And our culture suggests that children are expendable if they get in the way of our happiness.

This last aspect of American culture has a partisan twist to it. One party supports the idea that an inconvenient baby in the womb is expendable. However, both parties have embraced the notion that marriages should be easily terminated through “no-fault” divorce laws. No-fault divorce has wreaked havoc on the growing army of children being raised in broken homes.

The premise of no-fault divorce laws suggests that the emotional needs of the couple supercedes the emotional needs of the children.

The logical extension of abortion and no-fault divorce is gay marriage, which is again a partisan issue. The underlying principal of gay marriage is that one’s personal desires and behavior supercede the greater good of society and children. And yet it is children who need the benefits of traditional marriage more than anyone.

Tom Chapman is the Executive Director of the Iowa Catholic Conference. He stated it well in his piece in this morning’s Des Moines Register:

“The Des Moines Register’s Oct. 18 editorial opposing a marriage amendment and a constitutional convention – “Wrong Reason for Constitutional Convention” – called “same-sex marriage” a civil right. While it sounds fair, if one follows that reasoning to its logical conclusion, any association of any number of adults could be classified as marriage. And when everything becomes “marriage” those who need its benefits most – children – will continue to be marginalized by a debate that focuses primarily on the emotional desires of adults.”

It’s time to get serious and ask ourselves a tough question: who is it really about?

Politics, not justice 6

By Tom Quiner

I’ve just become aware of a website called Justice, Not Politics.

The premise of the site is this:  if you vote against retaining the three Iowa supreme court justices up for retention (re-election), it is somehow unjust.

Why, then, does the Constitution even give us a vote on this issue if a contrary opinion of judges’ worthiness is automatically unjust?

The answer is: our vote against retaining Chief Justice Marsha Ternus, Justice Michael Streit, and Justice David Baker is not unjust, it is legal, and it is logical.

Think about it.  Marriage is the bedrock of civilization.  It is a beautiful institution established by civil and religious society to reproduce, sustain, and grow our communities.

Logically, it was defined as a union between a man and a woman by both civil and religious society since only unions between a man and a woman can reproduce and grow communities.  So it seems pretty illogical for the Iowa Supreme Court to say that traditional marriage laws are discriminatory. Even more, nothing in traditional marriage laws prevented men and women with homosexual desires from marrying.  By definition, though, they could only marry someone of the opposite gender.  By the same definition, men and women with heterosexual desires were prevented from marrying someone of the same gender.

The definition for marriage went further: one could not marry a blood relative, a minor, or more than one person.

The law was consistent, logical, just.

The law discriminated against certain behaviors, such as incest, polygamy, bigamy, adultery, and homosexuality, but not against persons.

So it doesn’t make a whole lot of sense to a whole lot of folks that certain judges somehow found traditional marriage laws discriminatory.

Iowa would be better served with more level-headed thinkers on the court. Thank goodness Iowa’s constitution gives us the right to exercise this choice.  And a just choice it is.

Vending machine abortions victimize women 1

By Jeane Bishop

Elizabeth Cady Stanton

Four years ago I helped my daughter and her friend with their National History Day project.  The 10 year old girls studied Dr. Nancy Hill, a pioneer female doctor in Iowa.

The girls and I discovered that Dr. Elizabeth Blackwell, (1821-1910) the first female physician in this country, became a doctor in order to help women.  She wanted to give the women of her time medical care that was equivalent to the care that men received.

The idea of Blackwell becoming a physician was suggested by a friend dying of cancer, who told her, “If I could have been treated by a lady doctor, my worst sufferings would have been spared me.”

Blackwell saw that women were not getting the same care due to archaic Victorian standards of modesty that kept physicians from adequately examining a patient.  Layers of clothing were preventing doctors from seeing what they needed to see in order to assess and treat their female patients.  Ridiculously, even mirrors were used instead of a doctor looking directly at a female body in need of examination and diagnosis.

I thought about these things as I attended the Iowa Board of Medicine meeting on October 22nd here  in Des Moines.  I listened as speakers voiced concerns about an illegal practice going on in our state which allows a woman to receive medications which will kill the developing baby within her and then send her into “labor” while at home, delivering her dead baby there.

I wondered what Dr. Blackwell, suffragists Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth Cady Stanton and other of our foremothers would think of the shoddy way women in Iowa are being treated by this vending machine attitude to gynecological care.

Women that are not examined by a doctor are at an even higher risk as they may be experiencing an ectopic pregnancy or be unsure of the gestational age of their baby.  Failures and complications exponentially increase when the doctor does not examine her/his patient.

These feminist foremothers worked for equality without apologies.  These brave visionaries struggled for an America where women had the right to be in the workplace, school and home.  They believed women did not need to sacrifice their children to be anywhere.

Stanton, the first champion of women’s suffrage and a mother of seven, said, “When you consider that women have been treated as property, it is degrading to women that we should treat our children as property to be disposed of as we see fit.”

Interestingly, these women came from families involved in the abolition movement.  Abolishing slavery and enfranchising women made perfect sense to these clear-thinking Americans.

What makes perfect sense to me is that the remote-control abortion system discussed at the Iowa Board of Medicine meeting victimizes women further with substandard care.  Women deserve better.

Does Iowa really need another tax increase? 2

By Tom Quiner

Be prepared to vote on a “Land Stewardship” amendment to the Iowa Constitution.

The amendment calls for future taxes to protect Iowa’s environment (sales tax increases).

These taxes will help subsidize farmer’s conservation efforts.

The monies will be housed in a trust fund.

The idea is worthy, however an amendment is the wrong way to handle it. This is a function best left to the legislature. Do Iowa’s farmers really need another subsidy? A letter writer to the Des Moines Register, Kurt Johnson, said it well:

“Those who pollute should pay for the damages they cause — plus penalties — to help encourage prevention. Taxpayers should not pay for this. Polluters should pay.”

Does Iowa really need higher taxes, especially during this steep recession?  No. Let the legislature carve out funding from existing taxes if land stewardship is a priority. And it IS an important issue, but one best left to the legislature to handle.

Be prepared to vote NO on the Land and Water Legacy Amendment.