RUTHFULLY YOURS

In almost every single state this is a big issue- up these with Obamacare for Republican incumbents and challengers. The Dems (with the exception of about 20 legislators who voted for it,without the limiting amendments) will be tarred with this failure…..to pass a job creating and energy freedom providing initiative….rsk

“On Good Friday, President Obama made a bad call. The State Department announced that it would delay its decision on the Keystone XL pipeline until after the Nebraska supreme court rules in a case involving the route. The administration insists the decision to punt has nothing to do with politics. Pretty much everyone else thinks otherwise.

Obama, who is rarely reluctant to act unilaterally when it benefits him politically, and who regularly brags about his red-tape cutting, is paralyzed by perhaps the only big shovel-ready jobs project he’s been presented with.

He welcomes the Keystone red tape because he’s trapped between an overwhelmingly popular initiative and an overwhelmingly powerful constituency within the Democratic party opposed to it: obdurate rich environmentalists and the door-knocking minions they employ.

Obama’s predicament is just the latest example of how climate-change monomania has become a problem for environmentalists — and the country.

The mark of a truly successful political constituency or lobby is clout in both parties. Since climate change started crowding out other concerns, the environmental movement at the national level has become little more than an adjunct of the left wing of the Democratic party.

Conservation used to be a fairly bipartisan affair. Dubbed the “father of conservation” by the National Park Service, Republican Teddy Roosevelt did more than any other president to preserve large swaths of wilderness. Richard Nixon created the Environmental Protection Agency, expanded the Clean Air Act, signed the Marine Mammal Protection Act, and proposed the Safe Drinking Water Act.

The Cliven Bundy case in Nevada provides many insights into the state of our nation with respect to the relationship between the people and the government.

The Bundys appear to be honorable American citizens without adequate legal counsel to help resolve a federal land issue about which they disagree with the Bureau of Land Management. Without question, they violated some of the innumerable laws and regulations that continue to entangle every aspect of American life.

Their violations certainly could have been handled through a multitude of less brutal means than those employed by our federal government, which through the mouthpiece of Senator Harry Reid emphasizes how important it is for the government to enforce its laws.

It is quite interesting to see, though, that those same bureaucrats refuse to enforce some of our federal border-protection laws and other domestic policies with which they disagree. Perhaps Reid’s time could be better spent explaining why it is acceptable for the federal government to pick and choose which laws it wishes to enforce.

The senator readily referred to the Bundys and their supporters as “domestic terrorists,” but the current administration is reticent about applying the same term to Major Nidal Malik Hasan, who admitted to slaughtering more than a dozen people in 2009 at Fort Hood in Texas. What does this tell us about our government and its perceptions and alignments?

The massive show of federal force in the Bundy case is frightening because it gives us a brief glimpse of the totalitarian regime that awaits a sleeping populace that does not take seriously its voting responsibilities and places in public office (and returns to public office) people who do not represent traditional American values.

The fact that the ranchers were well armed and willing to literally fight for their rights probably tempered the enthusiasm of the federal forces to engage in further aggression. It was clear from the body language and from some of the reported verbal responses of the government forces that they were not prepared to engage in lethal combat with fellow Americans.

There’s a reason they call it “progressivism” — for years, the main legal question contested in affirmative-action cases, from Bakke to Grutter, was whether the state should be allowed to engage in racial discrimination. In the Michigan affirmative-action case decided today, Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, the question was whether the state should be required to engage in racial discrimination. The progress, then, has followed the Left’s familiar ratchet-effect model, inching its way from “not forbidden” to “compulsory.” Indeed, as the Wall Street Journal put it, the question here was not whether the use of racial discrimination for putatively benevolent purposes is constitutional but whether states “may end racial preferences without violating the U.S. Constitution.”

The Court came to the correct conclusion, but both Justice Anthony Kennedy’s opinion and Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s dissent suggest very strongly that there is trouble afoot on our highest bench.

In a perfectly Orwellian dissenting opinion, which she read dramatically from the bench, Justice Sotomayor argued that the decision of the people of Michigan to end racial discrimination is itself an instance of racial discrimination and that the only way to mitigate such racial discrimination is through the mandatory maintenance of racial discrimination. In this opinion she was joined by Justice Ginsburg, with Justice Kagan recusing herself from the case. Justice Sotomayor argued that Michigan’s Proposal 2, which mandates race-neutral state policies, is the sort of legislation used to “oppress minority groups.” By outlawing racial discrimination, she argued, “a majority of the Michigan electorate changed the basic rules of the political process in that State in a manner that uniquely disadvantaged racial minorities.”

Justice Sotomayor is here arguing in effect that if a constitutional referendum doesn’t go the NAACP’s way, then its effects are invalid. This is not an exaggeration: Justice Soyomayor argues explicitly that Michigan’s voters would have been within their rights to, for example, lobby university authorities to adopt race-neutral admissions standards but that by adopting a constitutional amendment insisting on race neutrality, thereby transferring the decision from the education bureaucrats to the people themselves and their constitution, they “changed the rules in the middle of the game.” Her opinion is legally illiterate and logically indefensible, and the still-young career of this self-described “wise Latina” on the Supreme Court already offers a case study in the moral and legal corrosion that inevitably results from elevating ethnic-identity politics over the law. Justice Sotomayor has revealed herself as a naked and bare-knuckled political activist with barely even a pretense of attending to the law, and the years she has left to subvert the law will be a generation-long reminder of the violence the Obama administration has done to our constitutional order.

Sonia Sotomayor picks a new euphemism for the endless fixation on race. By John Fund

You can often tell when advocates of one side in an argument fear they will ultimately lose. They change their branding. A few years ago, warnings about “global warming” were replaced with scare stories about “climate change.” One reason? The Earth had stopped appreciably warming in the late 1990s, making the change a PR necessity.

Supporters of affirmative action are now signaling similar weakness. What was called “racial quotas” in the 1970s and has been referred to as “affirmative action” since the 1990s is giving way to a new term: “race-sensitive admission policies.” The language shift is telling — race-based preferences are losing intellectual, judicial, and political support.

Yesterday, the Supreme Court voted six to two to uphold the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative (MCRI), which was passed with support from 58 percent of that state’s voters in 2006. It simply enshrines in Michigan’s constitution that the state should not engage in race discrimination. Opponents of the initiative sued, claiming the measure discriminated against racial minorities who might wish to lobby for preferential treatment.

The MCRI was put on the ballot in response to a 2003 Supreme Court opinion upholding an affirmative-action program at the University of Michigan. The Supreme Court properly held yesterday that Michigan voters were free to change the program, noting that if the state legislature and university regents had the right to do so — as even the plaintiffs agreed they did — so too should voters.

As narrowly written as the opinion was, it elicited a blistering dissent from Justice Sonia Sotomayor. At 58 pages, her dissent was longer than the opinions of all the other justices combined — and she took the relatively unusual step of reading it passionately from the bench.

“The stark reality is that race still matters,” Sotomayor said. “The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to speak openly and candidly on the subject of race, and to apply the Constitution with eyes open to the unfortunate effects of centuries of racial discrimination.” She went on to chastise the majority’s opinion: “My colleagues misunderstand the nature of the injustice worked by” the Michigan amendment.

Chief Justice John Roberts directly confronted Sotomayor in his own concurring opinion: “It is not ‘out of touch with reality’ to conclude that racial preferences may themselves have the debilitating effect . . . that the preferences do more harm than good. To disagree with the dissent’s views on the costs and benefits of racial preferences is not to ‘wish away, rather than confront’ racial inequality. People can disagree in good faith on this issue, but it similarly does more harm than good to question the openness and candor of those on either side of the debate.”

http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/detail/torquemada-invades-america?f=puball

Torquemada has landed in America. This nation of free and open inquiry has been seized by totalitarians who refuse to entertain other points of view. The debate about global warming is over say adherents of this position. When, if ever, has the debate about any scientific issue been over?

That is the least of it. So complete is the feminist assault on the culture that one can no longer say men and woman aren’t interchangeable. Should a military officer challenge the faith, he can be sure promotion is not in his future. Common sense is in retreat before the gods of cultural reformation.

It is now part of the orthodoxy to contend that all nations and cultures are equally good, with the possible exception of Israel. Ayaan Hirsi Ali, the author of Infidel, had the temerity to challenge this “truism” and was denied an honorary degree Brandeis authorities had promised her. Skeptics are not welcome at American universities. In fact, should one leave the herd of independent thinkers, he will feel the full wrath of faculty and student chastisement. The orthodoxy will not accept a challenge.

Here is American fundamentalism with a vengeance. A business executive gave money to an organization that supports traditional marriage and he is hounded by homosexual activists. A photographer refuses to take pictures at a homosexual wedding and he is treated as a sinner who must be punished. A business executive argues against homosexual marriage and his entire food chain is imperiled until he repents.

http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/detail/islam-for-dummies-a-journalist-guide-whitewashes-islam

“[U]ninformed, inaccurate or consciously provocative journalism” concerning Islam worries Lawrence Pintak, founding dean of Washington State University’s Edward R. Murrow College of Communication.

Unfortunately, Pintak’s remedy to this problem, the online guide “Islam for Journalists” edited by Pintak, betrays an absurdly benign understanding of an Islam whose apparent only fault is being slandered by others.

“Across the Muslim world today,” Pintak’s introduction notes, “extremists are wielding their swords with grisly effect, but the pen…can be just as lethal.”

The 2012 “lewd cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad” in the French satire magazine Charlie Hebdo, for example, receive Pintak’s censure while, like many journalists today, he uncritically applies the honorific “Prophet” to Islam’s founder. Charlie Hebdo’s editor had condemned the weapons used in violent reactions to the anti-Muhammad “Innocence of Muslims” internet movie trailer preceding his cartoons. Yet the “weapon he controlled can do far more damage,” Pintak warned in equating speech with the violent reactions of others, then “evident in the conflagration…erupting across the Muslim world.”

Screenshot of the “Innocence of Muslims” portrayal of Muhammad. (Image: YouTube screenshot)

Screenshot of the “Innocence of Muslims” portrayal of Muhammad. (Image: YouTube screenshot)

“A commitment to press freedom is in my blood,” Pintak qualified against suspicions of censorship. Yet speaking of the 2005 Danish Muhammad cartoons and their violent response, Pintak showed sympathy for those who refused their publication.

“[M]any Muslim journalists,” Pintak related in denying these “Motoons” any news value, “simply couldn’t understand why Western news organizations would republish the offensive images just because” of a legal right. Yet “journalism is not supposed to be a weapon” but rather “to inform, not inflame; to understand, not distort,” in contrast to “propaganda.”

The Danish cartoons exhibited “in our increasingly interconnected world,” writer Jonathan Lyons similarly relativized, “a number of central issues.” These included the “proper extent of press freedoms; minority rights; the shifting landscape of blasphemy laws and prohibitions; and the history of Muslim grievance toward the West.”

Rather than criticize Muslim rioters, Lyons complained that “almost no one reported on…the Danish media and its supporters as cynical provocateurs motivated by domestic political concerns.”

Beyond free speech controversies, “Islam for Journalists” favored Islam with numerous biased and false statements.

After discussing how Islam “roughly translates as ‘surrender’ or ‘submission’…to the will of Allah,” Pintak noted that Muhammad in Islam, “although he is not divine, he is considered ‘the Perfect Man.'”

“By imitating him,” Pintak stated without any critical questioning of Muhammad’s example, “Muslims hope to acquire his interior attitude-perfect surrender to God.” Pintak also takes an uncritical approach towards Muhammad’s migration or hijara to Yathrib (Medina) in order to escape his pagan opponents in Mecca.

JONI ERNST IS RUNNING FOR THE SENATE IN IOWA SHE IS A SOLDIER, MOTHER, GRANDMOTHER AND CONSERVATIVE…THESE ARE HER ISSUES
Joni Ernst (R) Challenger

http://www.joniforiowa.com/

HEALTHCARE Repeal and Replace Obamacare Joni is staunchly opposed to the Obamacare law. Joni supports immediate action to defund Obamacare, repeal it, and replace it with free-market alternatives that put patients first, and healthcare decisions back in the hands of doctors rather than bureaucrats.

SCRAP THE TAX CODE The IRS is a disaster. The greatest nation on earth should not have one of the most predatory, bureaucratic, out of control tax agencies on the planet. Our system is backwards. Joni believes real, fundamental tax reform will require more than tweaks to the tax code. It’s time to scrap it and start over, to make our tax system fairer, flatter, simpler and more certain.

UNITED STATES/ISRAEL PARTNERSHIP http://www.joniforiowa.com/u-s-israeli-partnership/ Since recognizing Israel’s official founding on May 14, 1948, the bond between the United States and the Jewish State has steadily grown stronger through many historic and turbulent moments, to include the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, Six-Day War, and Gulf War to presently underway efforts to downgrade, and ultimately eliminate, the offensive capabilities of terrorist groups such as Al Qaeda and Hezbollah and to eliminate the regional threat posed by a potentially nuclear Iran. As history has proven time and time again, America has no better friend or more loyal ally than she does with Israel.

Today this strategic alliance has grown well beyond these essential military and intelligence ties to other vital areas such as rapid expansion of trade, cultural exchanges and shared interest in the sciences. What has nourished this growth is the fact that these two powerful nations share the values of democracy, appreciation of free market principles, strict adherence to the rule of law, and culture of innovation.

While over the last few years there has been an unfortunate slight uptick in misguided rhetoric coming from Washington concerning matters related to Israel and her self-interest and security, Joni Ernst believes the United States must remain committed to growing and nurturing this relationship in a host of ways, including the continuation of aid programs, sharing of intelligence, close coordination on foreign policy relating to strategic international and regional importance, and extension of a mutually-beneficial and growing trade relationship.

As a soldier who has commanded an Army unit in the Middle East in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom and current Lt. Colonel in the Iowa National Guard, Joni Ernst looks at the U.S.-Israeli relationship not only through the standard foreign policy and national security prism, but also from an on-the-ground, military readiness and capabilities standpoint. And as the next United States Senator from Iowa, she will enthusiastically fight to expand the bond that exists between these two partners while prioritizing efforts aimed at strengthening the only democracy in the Middle East with a recognition that doing so will preserve the safety and security of both America and Israel for generations to come.

http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/detail/iowa-2014-candidates-for-congress-where-they-stand

To see the actual voting records of all incumbents on other issues such as Foreign Policy, Second Amendment Issues, Homeland Security, and other issues as well as their rankings by special interest groups please use the links followed by two stars (**).

U.S. Senate

Chuck Grassley (R) Next Election in 2016.
Tom Harkin (D) Retiring in 2014.
Bruce Braley (D) Challenger

Is the Congressman in Iowa District 1 http://www.brucebraley.com/ http://braley.house.gov/ http://www.ontheissues.org/house/Bruce_Braley.htm **

•Rated +2 by AAI, indicating pro-Arab pro-Palestine voting record. (May 2012)

HOT BUTTON ISSUES

ENERGY Ending our dependence on foreign oil and promoting Iowa renewable energy is critical to our national security and economic growth. I’m working on the House Energy and Commerce Committee to shift the United States’ energy focus from the Middle East to the Midwest — so we can invest more in renewable energy like wind and biofuels and create the good-paying jobs of the future.

“Keystone XL has attracted rare bipartisan support because of the enormous economic benefits it will provide. It should move forward quickly once it’s approved.” – Bruce Braley – Braley reinforced his strong support during the House Energy and Commerce Committee markup, voting for the Keystone Pipeline bill. (H.R. 3, Ordered reported favorably to the full House 30-18: R 26-0; D 4-18, 4/17/13, Braley Voted Yea)

One month later, Braley voted against approval for the Keystone Pipeline – the exact same bill he voted for just a month earlier. (H.R. 3, CQ Vote #179: Passed 241-175: R 222-0; D 19-175, 5/22/13, Braley Voted Nay)

HEALTHCARE Providing affordable, accessible and quality health care to all Americans is one of my top priorities. I was proud to help pass the Affordable Care Act, which will decrease health insurance costs, expand access to quality, affordable health care, improve reimbursements for Iowa medical providers and allow Americans to maintain their choice of health insurance. This bill will provide much-needed relief for thousands of businesses in Iowa’s First District and will reduce our deficit by more than $100 billion over the next 10 years and over $1 trillion in the 10 years after that.

We are already seeing the positive impact of the Affordable Care Act. Medicare reimbursements to Iowa providers increased by 5% in 2010 and 10% in 2011, as a result of my work on this bill. This means more Iowa providers will accept Medicare patients, providing greater access to care for Iowa seniors. In Iowa, the Affordable Care Act is already working.

DEFENSE Feb 24, 2014 Braley to Defense Secretary: ‘Don’t Gut Iowa’s National Guard’ – Washington, D.C. – Rep. Bruce Braley (IA-01) today sent a letter to Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel outlining his opposition to possible cuts to Iowa’s National Guard forces after reports that the Pentagon could seek to significantly reduce spending on the National Guard.

“With weapons systems that are tens of billions of dollars over budget and additional billions being spent on projects halfway around the world in Afghanistan, there are far better areas to look for savings at the Pentagon than in gutting Iowa’s National Guard,” Braley said. “The last thirteen years have illustrated the National Guard’s critical value to our national security-as hundreds of thousands of these soldiers have bravely served in Iraq, Afghanistan, and around the world.

Joni Ernst (R) Challenger

http://www.joniforiowa.com/

HOT BUTTON ISSUES

HEALTHCARE Repeal and Replace Obamacare Joni is staunchly opposed to the Obamacare law. Joni supports immediate action to defund Obamacare, repeal it, and replace it with free-market alternatives that put patients first, and healthcare decisions back in the hands of doctors rather than bureaucrats.

SCRAP THE TAX CODE The IRS is a disaster. The greatest nation on earth should not have one of the most predatory, bureaucratic, out of control tax agencies on the planet. Our system is backwards. Joni believes real, fundamental tax reform will require more than tweaks to the tax code. It’s time to scrap it and start over, to make our tax system fairer, flatter, simpler and more certain.

UNITED STATES/ISRAEL PARTNERSHIP http://www.joniforiowa.com/u-s-israeli-partnership/ Since recognizing Israel’s official founding on May 14, 1948, the bond between the United States and the Jewish State has steadily grown stronger through many historic and turbulent moments, to include the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, Six-Day War, and Gulf War to presently underway efforts to downgrade, and ultimately eliminate, the offensive capabilities of terrorist groups such as Al Qaeda and Hezbollah and to eliminate the regional threat posed by a potentially nuclear Iran. As history has proven time and time again, America has no better friend or more loyal ally than she does with Israel.

Today this strategic alliance has grown well beyond these essential military and intelligence ties to other vital areas such as rapid expansion of trade, cultural exchanges and shared interest in the sciences. What has nourished this growth is the fact that these two powerful nations share the values of democracy, appreciation of free market principles, strict adherence to the rule of law, and culture of innovation.

While over the last few years there has been an unfortunate slight uptick in misguided rhetoric coming from Washington concerning matters related to Israel and her self-interest and security, Joni Ernst believes the United States must remain committed to growing and nurturing this relationship in a host of ways, including the continuation of aid programs, sharing of intelligence, close coordination on foreign policy relating to strategic international and regional importance, and extension of a mutually-beneficial and growing trade relationship.

As a soldier who has commanded an Army unit in the Middle East in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom and current Lt. Colonel in the Iowa National Guard, Joni Ernst looks at the U.S.-Israeli relationship not only through the standard foreign policy and national security prism, but also from an on-the-ground, military readiness and capabilities standpoint. And as the next United States Senator from Iowa, she will enthusiastically fight to expand the bond that exists between these two partners while prioritizing efforts aimed at strengthening the only democracy in the Middle East with a recognition that doing so will preserve the safety and security of both America and Israel for generations to come.

District 1
Bruce Braley (D)

Please note: Braley is a now a candidate for Senate to replace Senator Tom Harkin who is retiring.

Pat Murphy (D) Challenger

http://patmurphyforiowa.com/ http://patmurphyforiowa.com/issues/

HOT BUTTON ISSUES

ENVIRONMENT Pat understands the connection Iowa’s environment has to its economy. In Congress, he’ll work to enforce current federal environmental standards and regulations protecting air and water quality, and responsible economic development that measures all costs involved, including public health and global warming considerations. Pat is opposed to the Keystone XL project because it won’t create long-term jobs and endangers our largest aquifer, and he supports a moratorium on sand fracking in Northeast Iowa.

HEALTHCARE Protecting Affordable Health Care While Speaker of the Iowa House, Pat expanded access to health care to 40,000 Iowa children by raising the cigarette tax. In Congress, he’ll continue to fight for affordable health care by standing up to right-wing efforts to repeal Obamacare, which would put big insurance companies back in charge of health care decisions, and he’ll help families and businesses take full advantage of the benefits of the law.

Rod Blum (R) Challenger

http://www.rodblum.com/

District 2
Dave Loebsack (D) Incumbent

https://loebsack.house.gov/ http://www.loebsackforcongress.org/

http://www.ontheissues.org/house/david_loebsack.htm **

•Rated +1 by AAI, indicating a mixed Arab/Palestine voting record. (May 2012)

HEALTHCARE Voted for Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) and against repeal.

ENERGY Voted against Keystone XL Pipeline without limiting amendments.

Washington, Feb 12 – Congressman Dave Loebsack announced today that he introduced legislation that would establish a grant program through the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to invest in renewable and alternative fuel infrastructure. The Renewable Fuel Utilization, Expansion and Leadership (Re-FUEL) Act (HR 4051) will help create new and retrofit existing infrastructure, including pumps for biofuels and hydrogen, tanks, piping and electric vehicle chargers. The legislation is paid for and does not add to the deficit.

“I believe in making things in America and there is no reason our fuel sources shouldn’t be made here as well. It’s also important that consumers are able to choose where their fuel source comes from when they go to fill up. Too often, infrastructure constraints are cited as the reason for not giving consumers the choices they deserve. This holds back the development of our renewable and alternative energy sources that create jobs in Iowa and across the country. – “The Re-FUEL Act will help bridge that divide by making important investments in the infrastructure needed to provide consumers with choices at the pump. We must do more to decrease our dependence on foreign oil, expand our use of renewable energy sources that boost economic development in our rural areas, and promote homegrown fuel sources such as biofuels and wind power.”

Mariannette Miller-Meeks M.D.(R) Challenger

https://www.millermeeks.com/ Mariannette Miller-Meeks M.D.(R) – Dr. Mariannette Miller-Meeks is an ophthalmologist (eye doctor) who most recently served for three years as the Director of the Iowa Department of Public Health. Mariannette enlisted in the United States Army at age 18 and retired honorably from the reserves as a Lt. Colonel. During those 24 years, active duty and reserve, she served as a private, nurse, and physician.

Why I’m Running – “I’m running because as a doctor I couldn’t sit on the sidelines as the Affordable Care Act jeopardizes the healthcare of Iowans. We were promised that premiums would go down and quality and access would go up, but we’re seeing the opposite as the law is being implemented.

“Washington is a dysfunctional mess and it’s time to send someone there who has real world experience bringing people together to solve problems – like implementing better patient-centered healthcare reforms and restoring accountability in government.

“As the Director of the Iowa Department of Public Health, I’ve seen firsthand what can be done when you put partisanship aside and work for the greater good. I want to bring that problem-solving, common-sense Iowa attitude to Congress. Washington needs more of this Iowa approach.”

District 3

Tom Latham (R) Retiring in 2014
Robert Cramer (R) Challenger

http://www.cramerforcongress.com/

HOT BUTTON ISSUES

HEALTHCARE The decisions about your personal health care should be made between you and your doctor, not the federal government or some unelected bureaucrat. While I recognize that the health care system needs to be reformed, a government-run system is not the answer. I oppose Obamacare and support its full repeal-and this will be one of my top priorities in Congress. I will not move, I will not sway, and I will not give in on the fight to repeal Obamacare.

ECONOMY AND TAXES The waste in Washington is unacceptable. The federal government is spending money at an alarming rate-almost a trillion dollars more than we bring in, eroding the foundation for future generations. If we continue down this path we are going to leave our kids and grandkids an economic disaster.

Congress must pay down our debt and balance the budget. We need a balanced budget not only to ensure a viable future, but because when the budget is balanced you have a stronger economy, more opportunity, and higher paying jobs.

Tax: History has proven that we cannot tax and spend our way to prosperity. We must stop and dial back needless government regulation and taxation to allow small businesses to grow. The issues our country faces are deep and complex, and require a complex solution. I’ve spent my entire adult life fighting against big, intrusive, confiscatory government, and I want to continue that fight as your Congressman.

Matt Schultz (R) Challenger

http://www.votemattschultz.com/
Monte Shaw (R) Challenger

http://iowansforshaw.com/

HOT BUTTON ISSUES

ENERGY Fossil fuels will continue to play a vital role in our economy and national security for years to come and they should be responsibly developed. The federal government should neither unnecessarily impede fossil fuel development nor offer sweetheart deals to energy companies. However, we cannot achieve energy independence unless the extreme favoritism the government grants to fossil fuels is ended. All fuels deserve a truly level playing field on which to compete.

A responsible, broad based energy policy should include increased domestic oil and gas exploration and production; improved distribution with completion of the Keystone pipeline, and continued development of alternative energy, such as biofuels, wind, solar, geothermal, and nuclear.

Ethanol has been the single most successful new energy source in the last 100 years. Even a generation ago the idea that fuel made from corn could supply a significant portion of our transportation fuel needs seemed like an unreachable pipedream. Yet today, Americans use more ethanol from corn than gasoline produced from Saudi Arabian crude oil. In fact, since I began advocating for ethanol, its production and use has grown from less than 2 billion gallons per year to over 13 billion gallons.

HEALTHCARE Then House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said of Obamacare: “We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it.” It was passed in a harshly partisan fashion and Iowans are now finding out what was in it – and it’s bad. Recent non-partisan projections have shown that the healthcare policy will cost American citizens over two million jobs and add one trillion dollars to the already bloated federal debt. Obamacare has resulted in lost full-time jobs, lost work hours, increased taxes, employers dropping their sponsorship of health plans, simple and affordable plans for younger workers disappearing, while others are forced to buy mandated coverage they can’t use. Meanwhile, you’re left with less choice of physician and fewer health plans to choose from. We know that President Obama misled voters when he promised that if you like your plan you could keep your plan.

Despite paying this horrible price, the stated goal of eliminating uninsured Americans will not be achieved. The Congressional Budget Office projects that by 2022 there will still be 30-million nonelderly uninsured Americans.

I will fight to repeal Obamacare and replace it with real reform, directed at actually controlling costs. We should enhance competition by allowing the purchase of insurance over state lines. Tort reform is a must and price transparency and consumer empowerment is the key – not turning over decisions to unelected bureaucrats in Washington.
David Young (R) Challenger

Ex-Chief of Staff to US Sen. Grassley http://www.youngforiowa.com/
Brad Zaun (R) Challenger

http://www.bradzaun.com/
Staci Appel (D) Challenger

http://appelforiowa.com/

HOT BUTTON ISSUES

ENERGY

Climate Change Reversing the damage created by climate change will take generations, and elected officials have a moral responsibility to do everything within their power to not only reduce carbon emissions, but to leave for our children, a world safer from extreme weather conditions than we found it. That’s why Staci will fight for an “all of the above”, bipartisan approach to combating climate change that includes revenue neutral, market-based solutions to reduce carbon pollution.

Alternative Energy Iowa is a leader for the nation and the world in the production and use of wind turbines as well as bio fuels like ethanol. Our colleges and universities are the home of some excellent research institutions that continue to develop new technologies and methods to use crops and plant waste to create fuel. But Washington is making it harder by reducing the amount of teaching staff in public schools and universities as well as reducing research grants. Staci Appel believes in making investments that harness our wind, solar and other resources to continue supporting the local alternative energy economy that can’t be outsourced.

District 4
Steve King (R) Incumbent

http://www.steveking.com/ http://www.ontheissues.org/house/Steve_King.htm **

http://steveking.house.gov/

•Rated -4 by AAI, indicating a anti-Arab anti-Palestine voting record. (May 2012)

HOT BUTTON ISSUES

HEALTHCARE ObamaCare was signed into law on March 23, 2010, after a long and drawn out process which saw Congressional rules bended and the will of the American people ignored. Since its passage, public opposition to ObamaCare has continued to grow, and the more that people learn about what was in it, the more they demand repeal.

As a fiscal matter, ObamaCare is a disaster. With all budget gimmicks taken into account, ObamaCare will cost taxpayers $2.6 trillion in its first ten full years of enactment, and it will add over $700 billion to our nation’s debt. For these reasons alone, the bill should be repealed. But even if the fiscal math of ObamaCare added up, the policies it imposes should be repealed because they are detrimental to our nation’s health care system. ObamaCare and its mandates have already resulted in skyrocketing health care premiums throughout the country and millions of Americans not being able to keep their health insurance.

Once we repeal ObamaCare, we can get to work on making the kinds of commonsense reforms that will lower health care costs, increase access, and improve the quality of our nation’s health care system. We should allow small businesses to form pools with other small businesses to spread out the risk and lower the costs of health care. We should allow individuals to purchase their insurance across state lines, bringing more competition to the industry while reducing costs and increasing quality. We should provide for meaningful reform of our medical liability system, which would address one of the major reasons for the rise in health care costs in recent years: frivolous lawsuits and the practice of defense medicine that results from them.

ENERGY Supports building the KeystoneXL Pipeline without limiting amendments

IMMIGRATION In addition to border security and workplace enforcement, our nation must eliminate needless incentives that encourage illegal immigration and cost taxpayers significant amounts of money each year. I do not believe it is in the best interest of our nation to continue tolerating the practice of illegal aliens giving birth to children in the U.S. in order to obtain citizenship for the child, then moving back to their country of origin with the hopes of achieving uninhibited access to our country for as many family members as possible. This is why I have introduced H.R. 140, the Birthright Citizenship Act of 2011, to limit birthright citizenship to a child born in the United States to at least one parent who is a U.S. citizen or national, a legal permanent resident living in the United States, or an individual who is serving on active duty status in the U.S. Armed Forces.

As the Vice-Chairman of the House Subcommittee on Immigration, I will continue to support an immigration policy designed to enhance the economic, social and cultural well-being of the United States. Immigrants have made, and will continue to make, a valuable contribution to our nation. Through assimilation, immigrants will benefit from our shared American culture of individual freedom, personal responsibility, and patriotism. A major component of assimilation is being proficient in English. For centuries, the English language has been the uniting force in this great nation. Studies continue to show that those who know English get better jobs, earn higher wages and are less dependent on the government. For these reasons, I have authored the English Language Unity Act to make English the official language of the United States government.
Jim Mowrer (D) Challenger

Iraq War Veteran and Ex-Defense Dept. Official

http://mowrerforiowa.com/
Read more: Family Security Matters http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/detail/iowa-2014-candidates-for-congress-where-they-stand#ixzz2zhwr8fnD
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution

The cacophony of irrational anti-Semitism from all quarters of the world is breathtaking. It is increasing so rapidly that pundits from all walks of life are indicating that what is happening in the world today shows “eerie parallels to 1913, the year [the] 20th century began to unravel.”

In fact, “continental peace had prevailed. Globalization and new technology – the telephone, the steamship, the train – had knitted the world together” by 1913. But “within a year, the world was embroiled in a most horrific war.” According to the December 21, 2013 issue of the Economist:

The driving force behind the catastrophe that befell the world a century ago was Germany, which was looking for an excuse for a war that would allow it to dominate Europe. Yet complacency was also to blame.

In Fascism in Britain: A History, 1918-1935, author Richard Thurlow explains that the “use of political anti-Semitism” within the British Union of Fascists (BUF) during 1932-1939 “represented the mature form of the fascist phenomenon in British society[.]” Formed by Sir Oswald Mosley, the BUF was a “response to the failure of the British parliamentary system of government to adopt radical reform to cure unemployment, and to prevent the continued economic and political decline of Britain” (92). Radical voices within the movement maintained that in order to revive the BUF, “political anti-Semitism” was necessary. Thus, the “use of open anti-Semitism [was seen as a means] to stimulate popular response” (104).

While at the official leadership, anti-Semitism was forbidden, “double standards were used and attacks on the ‘alien menace’ in the fascist press used many anti-Semitic stereotypes long before it was accepted as an official weapon.” Thus, Jews who “attacked fascism were likened to a cancer in the body politic” (104).

Yet how many Americans connect the dots today? There are still far too many Americans who simply refuse to understand the inherent dangers of socialism, succinctly explained here by Daniel Hannan. They do not know and are unwilling to acknowledge the “abhorrent shape of fascism.” Dariusz Gawin wonders “how come prosperous, liberal and civilised nations that for over 40 years were living in peace, [decided] in August of 1914 [to] set out with wild enthusiasm on mass and meaningless slaughter, which in retrospect served only to enable Lenin, Mussolini, Stalin and Hitler to rise to power[.]”

Ultimately, “the lie of Communism did not stem from the mere contempt for … Enlightenment ideals but resulted from a striking … contradiction between theory and practice, between a bright vision of the future and brutal methods of its realisation.” On the other hand, “National Socialism, … could despise all those whom it considered to be the ‘submen’. It was not tormented by an inner conflict between practice and ideological theory. As it placed itself beyond good and evil, it could be radically, brazenly, and frankly evil.”

Obama and his followers are too clever by far to be so blatantly obvious in their ultimate intentions. Consequently, their euphemistic language constantly morphs. Obama never actually makes any outrageous comments about Jews and Christians; no Hitler is he. He will simply ignore their plight around the world and support those factions – e.g., Muslim Brotherhood who commit atrocities against these respective groups. Obama hides behind his “useful idiots” who do the bidding for him, and that way he remains aloof and untouched.

The very fact that Israeli Prime Minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, brought the left leaning foe of the Jewish residents of Judea and Samaria, none other than Tzippi Livni, into his coalition as Justice Minister and now chief negotiator in the “peace” talks with the Arabs who call themselves Palestinians, is in itself a tacit admission that he and some members of his government entertain the thought of giving away yet more parts of the ancestral and biblical Jewish homeland.

Even more astounding is that Ms. Livni, of all people, is now responsible for negotiating “peace” with the cunning and corrupt PLO’s Saeb Erakat. Indeed, the negotiations have always had one purpose and one purpose alone – to tear away yet more of the Jewish heartland in return for a delusional peace.

That is treachery most base; treachery to the living Torah (the first five books of the Bible); treachery to Jewish history; treachery to Zion; and last but not least treachery to the eternal Holy Covenant made between God and the Jewish people. Liberals, leftists and secular folks may not like being told this, but it is a truth that cannot shrivel away.

When did it become an accepted truism that a so-called peace between Israel and the predominately Muslim Arabs, those who call themselves Palestinians, requires that Israel give to them it’s very biblical birthright for a mess of potage? Have the Oslo Accords, the Wye Agreement, the Roadmap, ad nauseum, all now superseded the eternal possession of the Jewish people to their God given homeland? It would seem so, and that is a monstrous tragedy so enormous as to spit in the face of the Almighty and make the very angels in heaven weep.

As one Christian supporter of Israel named Rick from Houston wrote in a comment column regarding Livni: “Who IS this person who dares try to divide the land that the Almighty bequeathed to Abraham and his descendants through Isaac and Jacob? She wants to give your land to the descendants of Ishmael. She is inviting the wrath of the Lord to come upon the entire nation.”