Chief Justice Ternus’ current term of office expires December 31, 2010.”
(Source: Iowa Judicial Branch)
April 3, 2009, Justice Ternus voted to change the law from defining marriage as being between one man and one woman to include other unions.
Judges stand for retention election near the end of their term in office. In a retention election, judges do not have opponents. Instead, voters decide whether or not to retain a judge in office. If a judge receives a simple majority of “yes” votes, the judge may serve another full term. Do not overlook this on your November ballot.
November 2, 2010 when you place your vote for Godly people to rule this land, be sure to fill out your ballot all the way to the end. Vote “NO” for retaining Justice Marsha Ternus
“Justice Baker, Cedar Rapids, was appointed to the Supreme Court in 2008.
Justice Baker attended undergraduate and law school at the University of Iowa, receiving his bachelor’s degree in 1975 and law degree in 1979 with high honors, Order of the Coif. Following graduation from law school, Justice Baker worked in the private practice of law for 25 years. In 2005 he was appointed as a district court judge for the Sixth Judicial District. Justice Baker was appointed to the Court of Appeals in 2006 where he served until his appointment to the supreme court.
Justice Baker is married and has two children. His current term expires December 31, 2010.”
Source: http://www.judicial.state.ia.us/Supreme_Court/Justices/David_L_Baker/
Judges stand for retention election near the end of their term in office. In a retention election, judges do not have opponents. Instead, voters decide whether or not to retain a judge in office. If a judge receives a simple majority of “yes” votes, the judge may serve another full term. Do not overlook this on your November ballot.
April 3, 2009, Justice Baker voted to change the law from defining marriage as being between one man and one woman to include other unions.
November 2, 2010 when you place your vote for Godly people to rule this land, be sure to fill out your ballot all the way to the end. Vote “NO” for retaining Justice David Baker.
“Justice Streit, Johnston, was appointed to the Supreme Court in 2001. Born in Sheldon, Iowa, he received his bachelor’s degree from the University of Iowa in 1972. In 1975, he graduated from the University of San Diego School of Law. He then practiced law in Chariton until 1983. He also served as assistant Lucas County attorney and Lucas County attorney before being appointed as a district court judge in 1983. Justice Streit was appointed to the Court of Appeals in 1996.
His current term expires December 31, 2010.”
Source: http://www.judicial.state.ia.us/Supreme_Court/Justices/Michael_J_Streit/
Judges stand for retention election near the end of their term in office. In a retention election, judges do not have opponents. Instead, voters decide whether or not to retain a judge in office. If a judge receives a simple majority of “yes” votes, the judge may serve another full term. Do not overlook this on your November ballot.
April 3, 2009, Justice Streit voted to change the law from defining marriage as being between one man and one woman to include other unions.
November 2, 2010 when you place your vote for Godly people to rule this land, be sure to fill out your ballot all the way to the end. Vote “NO” for retaining Justice Michael Streit.
I was quite troubled by an article (shown below) that I received via email. I emailed Senator Grassley’s office about this to find out what could be done to thwart this White House effort for amnesty. Following the article I am including the response I received from Senator Grassley’s staff. I believe the only course we have is to make a strong effort to let the President know that something this important cannot be done by executive order but must be debated and approved or defeated in the U.S. Congress. We are a democratic republic; we have not approved dictator control or a monarchy. Please join me in contacting the White House about the President’s “No Vote Plan” using this website: http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/
Sincerely,
Dwayne Alons
***************************************************************
NEW OBAMA OFFICIALS’ MEMOS SHOW AMNESTY PLAN FOR MILLIONS WITHOUT ANY VOTE IN CONGRESS
The U.S. Senators who have been demanding answers from the Administration about a rumored administrative amnesty have now revealed shocking memos from top Obama officials.
They show Obama Administration officials offering a detailed plan that would offer actual or de facto amnesty to millions of illegal aliens without Congress ever taking a vote.
In this way, the Administration would be able to reap the thanks of all the cheap-labor, outlaw industries relying on illegal labor, as well as the entire pro-illegal voter base.
But no Member of Congress would have a vote for amnesty on his/her record while facing elections.
A day after a federal judge ruled that the people of Arizona can’t enforce immigration laws against illegal aliens, this memo shows a grand plan for the Obama Administration to ensure that most illegal aliens get work permits, keep their jobs and prevent unemployed Americans from getting the jobs instead.
######################################################################################
Rep. Alons – thanks for your email. I handle immigration for the Senator. I was the one that found and made public the memo. We are doing our best to get the word out that this Administration has plans. They are trying to come up with creative ways to keep illegals here, and without Congressional action. The memo is scary, and the best thing you can do is to speak out against it and let the White House know that it’s unacceptable. Let me know if you have any other questions.
Staff Member
Sen. Charles E. Grassley
This is the website to contact the White House: http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/
Website of Sen. Grassley with his comments, links to the internal memo and more information. http://grassley.senate.gov/about/No-Back-Door-Amnesty-for-Illegal-Immigrants.cfm
|
||
Does Congress really have the Constitutional Power to vote a nationalized health care system in? How about the upcoming Cap and Trade legislation they are so fervently wanting to pass? Does our Constitution really allow this? They talk a lot about the “Commerce Clause” and the “General Welfare.” Is National Health Care and more, what the Founding Fathers expected our elected officials to “do for us?” Come to the next Tea Party Meeting, Aug. 5th at Sheldon’s Iowa state Bank 7:00 pm and learn about what Mr. Madison and other Founding Fathers had to say about these clauses as well as the rest of the Enumerated Powers that are actually in the Constitution. Nancy Pelosi’s response to the reporter when asked “Where in the Constitution do you find the power to pass this legislation (Health Care), she said “Are you serious? Are you serious?!” Yes, Nancy, we are serious and we will continue to ask that legislation follow the parameters of our Constitution.
The heroic, bittersweet story of Rev. James Caldwell
by Adam Colwell
America’s revolutionary history is filled with ministers of the Gospel who also served as great patriots willing to sacrifice all for the cause of independence.
Known as the “Fighting Parson” of the Revolutionary War, Rev. James Caldwell was one such man. Born in Cub Creek in Charlotte County, VA, the seventh son of Scots-Irish settlers, Caldwell became pastor of the Presbyterian church in then-Elizabethtown, New Jersey in 1762. Among his congregation’s members was Abraham Clark, one of the signers of the Declaration of Independence, and more than 40 commissioned officers of the Continental Army. In 1776 Caldwell was named chaplain of a regiment that mainly consisted of members of his church, and later served as a commissary for New Jersey militia troops.
In June 1780, British and Hessian forces invaded from Staten Island, taking Elizabethtown and Connecticut Farms after facing stiff but undermanned resistance from militia and regular troops. During the fray at Connecticut Farms, Rev. Caldwell’s wife, Hannah, was shot and killed. Home with their baby and a three-year-old toddler, Hannah was shot through a window or wall as she sat with her children on a bed. Whether the shooting was as a result of the battle – or an intentional act – remains a mystery. Whatever the true circumstances, her death became a rallying cry, and Rev. Caldwell took part a few days later in the Battle of Springfield, NJ.
It was there Rev. Caldwell went down in Revolutionary lore. The Americans had run out of wadding for their guns…akin to having no ammunition for their weapons. Rev. Caldwell ran inside a nearby church and grabbed stacks of Isaac Watt’s Psalms and Hymns – a classic doctrinal hymnal of the Christian faith. He then gave the pages of the hymnals to the soldiers to use as wadding for their muskets, exhorting them with, “Now, boys, give ‘em Watts! Give ‘em Watts!” The combination of regulars and militia men turned back the British attack, but not before the English soldiers had burned all but five structures in the town, including Caldwell’s church and home.
Hailed as a hero, Rev. Caldwell did not get to enjoy his notoriety very long. In November 1781 he was shot by a sentry, and accounts of the incident, like that of his wife, differ whether it was accidental or deliberate. The sentry, James Morgan, was hanged for his murder in January 1782 amid rumors that he had been bribed to kill the chaplain. There were nine orphaned children of Hannah and Rev. James Caldwell, all of whom were raised by friends of the family. Rev. Caldwell now lies next to his wife in the yard of the church he served for nearly thirty years. The town of Caldwell, New Jersey is named in his honor, and a monument to him stands in present-day Elizabeth, New Jersey.
Adam Colwell is a freelance writer and Chief Editor of The Presidential Prayer Team website. Active in Christian para-church ministry for over 25 years, he and his wife Ginger have two daughters and live in Tucson, AZ
http://www.presidentialprayerteam.com/index.php
On, July 12, the Department of Administrative Services (DAS) released a report that showed Iowa has 18,444 executive branch employees, which DAS claims is down 2,071 jobs from a year ago and the lowest level since 1994. However, Legislative Services Agency (LSA) numbers show a dramatically different picture.
According to the LSA’s web site, total state FTEs (full-time equivalent positions) increased from 38,434 in FY 1994 to 52,273 in FY 2009. That’s an increase of 13,839. While some of these positions are located within the Regents, it’s hard to believe that they were the cause of the entire increase.
Also, according to Iowa Workforce Development, state government employment in May, 2010 was 65,300. IWD counts actual employees rather than FTEs when calculating its total.
So, why the huge disparity between the numbers? DAS claims that its state job numbers represent executive-branch employment, the departments that come directly under the authority of the governor, such as the departments of human services, corrections and natural resources. The executive branch numbers exclude university jobs and jobs in the judicial and legislative branches.
LSA has yet to confirm the numbers produced by DAS. It is possible that it used assumptions that make the numbers look better than they really are. Also, the department admitted that the entire drop was due to over 2000 state employees opting to take the early retirement incentives. Of that amount, DOM, with Governor Culver’s agreement, has already announced they will allow agencies to rehire at least 1000 replacement employees.
The general fund appropriations for FY 1994 were $3.471 billion. The general fund appropriations (including one-time money) for FY 2010 were $6.015 billion. That is a difference of over $2.5 billion.
Even if the numbers produced by DAS are correct, that next question becomes, if there are the same amount of employees as FY 1994, why is the state budget over $2.5 billion more?
One possibility is that due to collective bargaining, salary and benefit costs have risen at a rapid rate. Another factor could be an increase in contractors who are not considered state employees. The Department of Human Services for instance contracts with hundreds of workers who are not considered state employees despite doing state government work.
Whatever the result, it will be very hard for DAS and the Governor to convince Iowans that state government has not become too big or does not have too many employees.
(Iowa State Representative Dwayne Alons newsletter -July 24, 2010)
I’m sure you will remember back in March, when the health care legislation was being so hotly debated. At the time, Congressman Bart Stupak, a Democrat from Michigan, said that he would not vote for any legislation that included federal funding for abortions. He said that he would ONLY vote for President Obama’s health care legislation as long as the President would issue an Executive Order clarifying that no federal funds would be used for abortions.
The President signed an Executive Order purporting to do just that.
It is unfortunate that Cong. Stupak and his small band of followers didn’t listen to the pro-life warning sirens in March – when they warned of obvious pathways created by Obamacare that lead straight to federal funds being used to pay for abortions. Still, Cong. Stupak and several other blue dog Democrats trusted President Obama and voted for his health care bill.
Fast forward to the present: Pro-Life organizations just reported that more than $160 million in federal funding was being allocated to state high-risk insurance pools in Pennsylvania and New Mexico that included abortion services.
After this news surfaced, the Department of Health and Human Services was quick to post a statement rejecting this claim. Then they issued a second statement promising to communicate to state agencies that federal funds for patients with “pre-existing conditions will not” be used for abortion services.
While that is certainly good news, it does nothing to alleviate the concerns of pro-life Americans. After all, HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius has still never refuted her comments in a letter to Democratic and Republican congressional leaders on the implementation of the President’s healthcare law when she wrote, “States may choose whether and how they participate in the program, which is funded by the federal government.”
I believe this confusion between the states, the federal government and HHS, only proves the President’s Executive Order on this issue is meaningless and can’t be relied on to protect the lives of the unborn.
Whether the policy consequence was intended or not, this latest revelation is sadly just another example of a President whose track record with the truth has left many Americans scratching their heads.
I want to remind you:
- It was this President who said if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor – but even the New York Times reported that in fact, under Obamacare, that’s not necessarily might not be the case.
- It was this President who said, “We must pass the stimulus to keep unemployment from reaching double digits,” However, a year after its passage, the unemployment rate had already skyrocketed to double digits, and continues to hover around 10%.
- It was this President who said, he “will not sign any non-emergency bill without giving the American public an opportunity to review and comment on the White House website for five days,” but that hasn’t been true – many bills have been signed within hours or days of passage.
- It was this President who said, “we’ll have the negotiations (about healthcare) televised on C-SPAN, so that people can see who is making arguments on behalf of their constituents, and who are making arguments on behalf of the drug companies or the insurance companies,” instead, the meetings were held behind closed doors.
- It was this President who said he was, “committed to returning earmarks to less than $7.8 billion a year, the level they were at before 1994.” However, for the fiscal year 2010, total earmarks are costing taxpayers $15.9 billion.
As I’ve said many times before, elections have consequences – but at least we can do something about it come November. Support Huck PAC as we continue working tirelessly to elect conservative candidates and send them to our State Capitals and to Washington D.C. – let’s hold our elected officials accountable for their promises.
(Governor Mike Huckabee Newsletter 7/21/2010)