During my term on the Committee,  I have worked hard with other conservatives on issues that range from exposing the UN Agenda 21, to an effort to defeat the National Popular Vote Compact that is funded by Jonathan Soros and other extreme liberals.  Those efforts have paid huge dividends and we have slowed them down, but have yet to defeat them.  Even though there is so much more work to be done, I have made
the decision to leave the Republican National Committee (RNC) to pursue another important cause—The John Paul II Stem Cell Research Institute.

Some would say to me, can you do both.  Normally I would say yes, but in this case, I’m working to found an Institute that is launching a national campaign called Give Cures and the time required won’t allow me to do both.  Focusing on my priorities, the choice is clear—the Institute.  It is more then a job for me.  The Institute is the pro-life alternative to all other research groups that are killing embryos for research or advocating government funding to do so.  It is a serious problem.  The progressive culture has bought into the idea that it is moral to kill for cures.

Thank God, that is not true for everyone.  Yesterday I took a call from a woman in Illinois who had been asked by her friend to give to a research organization that is working on a cure for M.S.  However, the research organization she has been asked to give to kills embryos in their research, and so she cannot support it–yet she wants to help her friend.  She is not alone.  Even the patients themselves who need a cure are concerned with the possibility they may one day be faced with a moral question … “Will I use a therapy that was derived from the death of embryos or babies killed at abortion clinics?”  They are looking for an ethical alternative.

Both the patients and the woman from Illinois said they had never heard of the John Paul II Stem Cell Research Institute but that they would rather give to ethical research.  Problem solved.  This reaction is the same I have seen repeatedly.  The more aware I become of this problem, the more I’m convinced of the urgency to help the Institute’s Give Cures campaign.

It is true.  The John Paul II Stem Cell Research Institute’s brand is ethical research.  But it goes beyond a commitment to ethical research; it is working to build a newborn cord blood bank so that in the future every cancer patient who needs a stem call match can get one.  That is our vision!  It is humanitarian at its finest. The Institute’s Give Cures campaign is duly named so people can give what they personally have for cures.  This allows for a good conscience knowing the Institute’s goals are to preserve life while searching for cures to save lives.  Some people call it “win-win.”  We also like to say at the Institute…”it just got better.”  You can learn more at www.GiveCures.org.

It is a new season for me as I step down from the RNC and step up to Give Cures. I will miss all the wonderful people who have helped to protect our Republic in small but effective ways.  It really doesn’t require much to speak the truth, which is an advantage to our side. We just need more people willing to learn what that truth is (located in the Word of God) and to stand up for it when duty calls. My thanks to all the delegates who voted for me and to all the people around the state who work hard to help make it possible for good people to run for public office.  May God bless all of you.

Every month many Americans have to review their income and figure out how to pay the bills. Most of us know that you can’t spend more than you have, but this concept has yet to be understood by many Members of the United States Congress. National Taxpayers Union (NTU) has released the 2011 Congressional Ratings. NTU President Duane Parde said, “For every single Taxpayers’ Friend who bravely sought to conquer Washington’s mound of fiscal woes, four Big Spenders worked to make the pile of problems even more difficult to climb.” Iowa is no different.

The purpose of the NTU score given to each Member of Congress is to “measure the strength of support for reducing spending and regulation and opposing higher taxes.” A Member can receive a score from 0 to 100. We as taxpayers want to see as high a score as possible, for this implies the Member is working hard to reduce the burden on the taxpayers.

How does NTU arrive at the score for each Member of Congress? For 2011, they analyzed every roll call vote and “selected all votes that could significantly affect the amounts of federal taxes, spending, debt, or regulatory impact.” NTU looked at a total of 337 House and 234 Senate roll call votes.

So how does Iowa fare? As we look at the Senate, Senator Grassley and Senator Harkin have a HUGE difference in their scores. Grassley’s average score for the last five years is 75 percent, whereas Harkin’s average over the same period is 5.4 percent. It is easy to see that Grassley and Harkin are working against each other in the Senate and Senator Grassley is friendlier to the taxpayers of Iowa.

The House is a little bit of a different story. For 2011, we see scores ranging from 76 percent to 20 percent, but as we look at the data from the past five years we see that the low scores have improved. For in 2009, we had scores ranging from 92 percent to 2 percent. Representative Steve King is friendlier to the taxpayers of Iowa in the House. Representative Tom Latham is next in line. At the bottom of the pile is Representative Dave Loebsack.

This year we are going from five House seats to four House seats due to redistricting from the U.S. Census data. All five of our current elected House Members are running in an election this year, and it is time to get involved. If you are worried about the impact of the taxes you pay and how your tax dollars are being spent, then answer the call to get your candidate elected!

Jennifer Crull is an IT Specialist with Public Interest Institute in Mount Pleasant, IA.  This article is from rom Public Interest Institute’s IOWA TRANSPARENCY NEWSLETTER is available at www.IowaTransparency.org.  Republished with permission.

State Senator Brad Zaun (R-Urbandale) is the Senate Republican Whip and a former Congressional Candidate.  He endorsed Sweeney last week.  He wrote:

Iowans across the state will be heading to the voting booths in less than 3 weeks. We as a state face some very challenging times, and leadership is needed in Des Moines now more than ever. This is why I am writing you today, I have personally seen that leadership by Annette Sweeney.

I began working with Annette in 2009, when she was a freshman Representative and I was in State Senate. At the time Republicans were in the minority, and the Democrats controlled both chambers with sizeable majorities and the Governor’s office. Yet during that time I witnessed Annette Sweeney’s ability to work both parties in each chamber and the governor’s office to pass some very important legislation that helped Iowa veterans apply and receive home loans. That legislation passed the Iowa House 100-0 and the Senate 50-0.

Annette’s leadership and passion for this state is on display everyday when she is in Des Moines, at work in the district or leading a trade mission to South Korea and China. Annette saw an opportunity for Iowans and she took it. That trade mission led to the opening of those markets to Iowa’s farmers and manufactures.

When House Republicans took the majority after the 2010 elections, we saw Annette become Chair of the House Agriculture Committee were she worked to promote rural Iowa and its family farms. She led the way to defend our farmers from some unscrupulous groups and actors. Annette’s bill the Ag Protection Act not only passed both chambers with large bi-partisan support and signed into law; it has been duplicated and passed by 8 other states.

However the most important achievements of Annette Sweeney happened this year. During the budget debates, Annette submitted an amendment that would end state funding for abortions and defend the unborn. This amendment became known as the Sweeney Amendment. Many in the past have tried to take on this challenge and they failed. Yet Annette was the only one in recent memory to have her Pro-Life amendment pass the Iowa House with bi-partisan support and force the Democrats who control the Senate be on record on this extremely important issue.

This is why I am endorsing Representative Annette Sweeney in this primary race. She has demonstrated over her career the leadership, passion and effectiveness that Iowans so desperately need. Annette just isn’t going to Des Moines to pass the time, Annette Sweeney is going to Des Moines to make a difference. Annette wants to make Iowa great again, and with your support we will. I urge you to vote for Annette Sweeney on June 5th for House District 50.

State Senator Sandy Greiner (R-Keota) endorsed Sweeney in an email today.  She wrote:

On Tuesday, June 5th, the people of House District 50 have a clear choice when they vote to re-elect Conservative Republican Annette Sweeney to the Iowa Statehouse.

I am a former member of the Iowa House and current member of the Iowa Senate.  I am also a 5th generation family farmer, wife, mother, grandmother and conservative.  I had the honor of meeting Annette Sweeney in 2008. As you can imagine with similar backgrounds we became great friends, and over the past 4 years Annette has proven herself to be a tireless advocate for Iowa agriculture.

I have worked in public policy and politics for the last 30 years, the last 20 years from the inside.  I have seen legislators with an assortment of styles come and go.  And I can tell you that Annette Sweeney is an uncommon legislator – she stands out because she instinctively knows how to represent her district without making a dozen phone calls around her district to see how she should vote.   Annette is a natural leader.  Her leadership was recognized when she was appointed to Chair the House Agriculture Committee.  

As Chair, Annette has used her position to strengthen family farms in Iowa. Just this year, Annette led the fight to protect family farms to make sure people applying for jobs are real people and not PETA activists. Annette’s bill was called the Ag Protection Act, which passed the House and Senate with bipartisan support and Governor Branstad signed into law.

When Annette isn’t busy representing her constituents, you can find her singing in the church choir, announcing at a cattle show, delivering cookies to farmers at the elevator or out doing chores.  Annette is an outstanding person who never stops working. And that work ethic is the reason she is quite simply an outstanding legislator. 

Annette exemplifies the qualities Iowans expect in their elected officials. Frankly, we could use more people like Annette in the legislature.

I am proud to call her my friend, and I ask you to Vote to re-elect Annette Sweeney to the Iowa Statehouse on June 5th.

It should be noted that State Representative Grassley has a key supporter in his grandfather, U.S. Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA).

Pleasant Hill, Iowa.

The following new candidates have secured the endorsement of The FAMiLY LEADER because of their proven ability to lead and stand firm for constitutional, conservative pro-family principles.

• Joan Acela:  House District 25
• Dennis Guth:  Senate District 4
• Jane Jech:  Senate District 36
• Jeff Mullen:  Senate District 22

The following incumbent candidates have shown bold conservative leadership and have represented their districts well.  They have championed pro-family legislation in the Iowa House these past two years, including strong support of all pro-life legislation.  The FAMiLY LEADER believes they are clearly more qualified than their opponents and deserve this primary election endorsement and their party’s nomination.

• Rep. Cecil Dolecheck:  House District 24
• Rep. Joel Fry:  House District 27
• Rep. Kevin Koester:  House District 38
• Rep. Jarad Klein:  House District 78
• Rep. Tom Shaw:  House District 10

The qualifications for an endorsement from The FAMiLY LEADER include the belief that society and government work best when citizens accept a high level of personal responsibility and that the only way our nation can reclaim a God-honoring culture is to defend strong families.  Other key qualifications include the protection of life from conception to natural death and the belief that marriage is a permanent, lifelong commitment between one man and one woman.  The FAMiLY LEADER also only supports candidates who believe it is the duty of parents to oversee the education of their children and that an ethical, free enterprise system is consistent with the biblical notion of stewardship.  Endorsed candidates will be expected to support and defend both the Iowa and U.S. Constitutions.

Chuck Hurley, Vice-President of The FAMiLY LEADER, said, “The FAMiLY LEADER is happy to endorse these nine candidates whose worldview is consistent with the Judeo-Christian principles that will defend and honor issues relating to the family.  We are confident these individuals will honor God with their attitude, behavior, and value system.  We will be praying diligently between now and June 5^th for these bold, compassionate conservative candidates.”

U.S. Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) was the keynote speaker at Friday night’s Iowa Faith & Freedom Coalition’s Annual Spring Kickoff.  Here is video of his speech courtesy of The Iowa Republican:

Here is part one:

The Iowa House Republicans were unable to convince Democrats in the Senate to support the Sweeney Amendment. This amendment would have ended taxpayer funded abortions in Iowa and prioritized family planning funds to ensure comprehensive health care providers were funded to the fullest extent possible.

Iowa Right to Life is profoundly grateful for the brave leadership of State Representative Annette Sweeney (R-Alden).  Without her courage and tenacity, we would not have made the strides we did this session.  Without her commitment to life, we would not be this close to end taxpayer funding of abortion.  Thank you Representative Sweeney!

While the Sweeney Amendment was in Conference Committee, the Senate had State Senators Jack Hatch (D-Des Moines), Joe Bolkcom (D-Iowa City) and Amanda Ragan (D-Mason City), the most rabid pro-abortion legislators in that chamber negotiating for them. They would fall on their sword before giving an inch to life. Pro-lifers solely only had one, our committed pro-life champion, State Representative Matt Windschitl (R-Missouri Valley).

The House refused to fund the section of the HHS budget dealing with family planning and taxpayer funded abortion above the amount in the two-year budget appropriated last year.

This allowed them to come to an agreement on the rest of the budget and adjourn for the year, which they did Wednesday.

The net result is that the appropriations for family planning, certain areas of Medicaid, etc., they could not agree on will run out of money during the next legislative session. The House Republicans have therefore tee’d up the issue and forced a supplemental appropriation vote early on in the next session to deal with abortion funding. If the Iowa Senate is controlled by a majority of pro-life Senators after this November’s election, we’ll be able to finish this debate once and for all regarding prioritizing of funds and the end of taxpayer funded abortions.

It’s important to note that Medicaid is fully funded and anyone needing Medicaid or Medicare services or even family planning services will receive them in the interim.

We are extremely disappointed the House and Senate were not able to come to an agreement on this important issue this year, but are hopeful that the stage has been set for a major victory for the unborn next session.

This election, when it comes to this issue in particular, matters most! Get out the vote!

Goranson & Pawlewski are both lobbyists for Iowa Right to Life.

Darwin today decided to go in person to see if he could meet with Janie Keubler, a Human Resources Associate with the Iowa Department of Public Defense, since he has exchanged several emails and phone calls with her.

In the video below after they instructed him to turn his camera away, he spoke with the receptionist at Camp Dodge and the Provost Marshal.

Apparently Darwin is now being bounced to a Colonel Stabler.  I’ve been unable to ascertain his exact position.  It would seem likely that he oversees the human resources department for the Iowa Department of Public Defense.  Darwin then followed up with another phone call to Ms. Kuebler, but instead spoke with Georganna Beavers who is an Human Resources Tech Assistant with the Iowa Department of Public Defense.  She is the first person that Darwin had contact with in this process.  She said, as you can hear in the video below, that Kuebler was unable to release the document until certain “issues” had been resolved which she refused to describe.

Darwin continues to get the run around. The Iowa Department of Public Department continues to stonewall and by doing so they are breaking the law.  Darwin currently has a complaint filed with the Iowa Civil Rights Commission, and now plans to file a complaint with the Inspector General’s Office and the Iowa Ombudsman’s Office.  He will also continue to try to meet with Colonel Stabler.

So I think we all can qualify as “other,” go ahead and give them a piece of your mind.

Here’s the link.  I find this instructive.  Do we really think the collective attitude over there will change when they are given even more and more control?

Originally posted at Truth in American Education

Update: The day after this post was written the survey was suddenly closed.  I guess they really didn’t want to hear from us.

1.  Being a citizen of the State of Iowa

2.  Service during any war, campaign, or expedition for which a campaign badge or service medal has been authorized.  These include service in:

a.  Lebanon

b.  Grenada

c.  Panama

d.  Somalia

3.  Service during periods established in Iowa Code 35c.1.  These include:

a.  WW 11 service during the period December 7, 1941 through December 31, 1946

b.  Korean service during the period of June 25, 1950 through January 31, 1955

c.  Vietnam service during the period August 5, 1964 through May 7, 1975

d.  Persian Gulf Conflict service during a period starting August 2, 1990 with an ending date yet to be established.

4.  In order to determine if a veteran qualifies for veteran’s points, their official separation papers, such as military form DD 214, must be reviewed.  Information to be reviewed includes periods of active service and what medals, such as Armed Forces Expeditionary Medals, have been issued.

5.  Veterans who have been awarded a Purple Heart Medal during their period of service are eligible for ten point veteran’s preference based on disability.

6.  Veterans who submit documentation from the Veteran’s Administration that they have a service-connected disability are also eligible for ten points.  Verification from the Veteran’s Administration must be resubmitted every 24 months.

7.  Veterans who have been given either five or ten points will be identified on the list of names provided to your department.  These points must be added to the primary scoring system used to rank applicants before an interview.

Darwin being a disabled veteran with diagnosed with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder should have been eligible for 10 veterans points.  He was originally told by email after initially reviewing his application that he was qualified.  On March 12th Curl received the following email from Georganna Beavers who is an Human Resources Tech Assistant with the Iowa Department of Public Defense.  She wrote:

The selection committee for the position of (10593BR) Installation Security Officer located at Camp Dodge, has completed the initial evaluation of all the applications received.

There were a number of highly qualified applicants that made the screening difficult. This letter is to inform you that we will not be giving your application consideration for this position.

Your application will be kept active with the Department of Administrative Services-Human Resources Enterprise for two years from the date originally submitted. You may add additional job titles as they are announced.

Thank you for your interest in employment with the State of Iowa and the Department of Public Defense.

Georganna
HRTA

Darwin responded that day with an Open Records request to Beavers:

Thank you for the reply, however, I will need more information. I’m a well qualified Veteran with a 10 point advantage. I’m requesting all of the committees notes regarding my application, under the States Open Meetings and Open Records laws. I’m also officially requesting all the committee meeting minutes the reference the position.

Thank you for your cooperation,

Darwin C.

He never received a response Ms. Beavers.  He mailed a open records request to Caleb Hunter who is the Deputy Director at the Iowa Department of Administrative Services on March 27, 2012.  See below:

On April 2nd, Deputy Director Hunter responded by sending  Darwin the records that the Department of Administrative Services had which just consisted of his original resume and application.  Hunter said that the Department of Public Defense was the legal custodian of the information that he sought and only they could provide it.

Darwin then received the following reply on April 10, 2012 from Janie Keubler who is a Human Resource Associate with the Iowa Department of Public Defense.  She wrote:

I can’t send you  the hiring packets I will tell you that the Supervisor did the scoring and you had 64 points. The interview cut off was 84. But the vacancy did not get filled because the employee did not retire…

Darwin responded the same day saying, “I have already requested the hiring packet… Stop delaying send it to me as my Open Records request stated. I have requested it several times.” 

He followed up with Keubler on April 25, 2012 with an email:

You have past the required deadline to send me the information I requested. You are now in violation of the the Open Records law. I will be filing a motion for Judicial Review in which a judge will issue you an Open Records Violation. I don’t understand why the State is so resistant to their own laws.

Thank You,

Darwin C.

Darwin then sent an email his State Senator Kent Sorenson (R-Indianola) and his State Representative Glen Massie (R-Des Moines) the same day to see if they could advocate on his behalf:

I recently applied for a position with the State of Iowa. I was not called for an interview even though I was well qualified. I have requested the scoring sheet from my application packet. The emails below are them refusing to release the information. I have requested it several times from multiple people, even writing a letter to the deputy director of the Administrative department. Anything you can do to help would be appreciated.

Thank you,

Darwin C.

State Representative Massie intervened by sending an email to Janie Keubler on April 25th:

Hello Janie,

   I was hoping that you might be able to help me. I have a constituent who has been looking for work, he applied for a position that a “retiree” was leaving, only to be told that the retiree hadn’t actually retired, so the position is not available. If those are indeed the facts, then he will have to continue to look for work. However, he has requested information under our “open records law” and his request are being denied or ignored?

  Is there a problem with providing him with the information he requested, that I might be of assistance with here at the State House? Please let me know if there is and I will do what I can to assist you from here.

Thank you in advance for your prompt attention to this matter,

Respectfully,

Rep. Glen Massie

H.D.74 Warren County

Keubler responded the next day:

This is true, the position did not get filled because the person that was going to retire change his mind and is not retiring . I have let Mr. Curl know this. Let me know if I need to get more information from DAS. Sorry I wasn’t here yesterday to get back to you.

State Representative Massie responded the same day:

Janie,

   Thanks for getting back to me so quickly. Since the position was never vacated, my constituent will continue to look for work. That being said, would it be possible to provide Darwin with the information he requested under “ open records”?  I am aware that might be inconvenient, however I do believe he has the right to the information he requested. In fact, we recently passed legislation to put in place a government oversight board, to assist taxpayers with request, such as Mr. Curl’s, due to the difficulty taxpayers run into when their request are denied or ignored. I always remind myself, that “WE” (as in you & I) who work in “Government”, always work for the “taxpayer”.  Please don’t take that as,  preaching to you, —it’s just how I think, possibly because I am still a blue collar worker every Friday and most Saturday’s, along with being a legislator, Monday thru Thursday.

   Let me know if there is something more that I can provide you with to satisfy the request of my constituent.  I again thank you for your prompt attention in our correspondence.

Respectfully

Rep. Glen Massie

H.D.74 Warren County

As a result of this correspondence Darwin looked up Ms. Kuebler’s phone number (it was never provided in any email correspondence) to discuss his open records request.  He followed up with Keubler via email on May 1st after the phone call.

Janie,

Thank you for speaking with me over the phone today. I appreciate your stated commitment to emailing me the records I’m seeking.  You can send them to this email account, in the mean time I will be anxiously anticipating them.

Thanks,

Darwin C.

He followed up again on May 2nd by email.  He still has not received the information he requested.

Darwin has made numerous requests for his entire hiring packet, in particular, the scoring that he was told that was done.  The Iowa Department of Public Defense is clearly in violation of the law.  Why are they stonewalling?  It is interesting to note that Darwin has since applied with the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) and was granted an interview for their Industry Operations Investigator position.  He still doesn’t know the results of their interview.  The point though is that ATF saw that he was qualified enough to grant an interview, but he wasn’t qualified enough for an interview to guard Camp Dodge?  Why?  Darwin has seven years of experience in the military and seven years of experience as a private security manager.  He also has a four-year college degree.  Is it because of his disability?  If so that is illegal.  Darwin has also filed a civil rights complaint and he hopes that they investigate.

Perhaps there are valid reasons why he wasn’t interviewed, but Darwin doesn’t know because they still have not followed through on his request made back on March 12th.  The Iowa Department of Public Defense must release the score sheet as they are currently in violation of the law.

In case you missed it, Christie Vilsack came out against government efficiency on her government efficiency tour, which continues across Iowa’s 4^th Congressional District today. Vilsack read prepared remarks stating she was opposed to a proposed USDA rule that would save taxpayer dollars and make poultry inspections more efficient.

The “poultry slaughter rule” was proposed by the USDA to modernize the poultry slaughter inspection system. The rule would allow USDA inspectors more flexibility to patrol the processing plant to ensure the plant is meeting food performance standards.

The Des Moines Register reported Christie Vilsack was put into a contrary position by coming out against her husband, USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack, who is attempting to save money and increase the speed of the inspection process by privatizing poultry inspectors.

I don’t blame Iowans in the 4^th District for being confused by Christie Vilsack’s opposition to government efficiency while she is promoting her government efficiency plan.  This is yet another example of Christie Vilsack trying to duck issues and have it both ways. Iowans in the 4^th District deserve to know whether Vilsack is for saving taxpayer dollars, as her tour claims, or if this is another issue she’d rather Iowans not know her true position.

Christie Vilsack says she understands the burdens of our national debt, but her opposition to saving the taxpayers’ hard-earned money tells me she wants to continue down the President’s path of raising our debt ceiling and spending money we don’t have.

Christie Vilsack wasn’t done there. Multiple media outlets reported she continued to duck questions on issues and give vague answers on policy that matters to the 4^th District.

The Ames Tribune:

When asked about the assertion, Vilsack said, as she has before, that she would not say how she would have voted on an issue, such as health care reform or the stimulus package, had she been in Congress at the time.

“I don’t think it makes sense to go back and replay something,” Vilsack said. “I’m happy to talk about my frame of mind, or what I’m thinking, but I don’t think I can literally tell you how I would have voted on something. … I can’t help it that I don’t have a record and Steve King does.”

When asked if she favored the proposed Buffet Rule, which would eliminate tax incentives typically available to wealthy Americans, Vilsack said, “Everybody needs to pay their fair share. We need to make sure the middle class doesn’t bear the burden.”

When asked if that was a yes or no, she laughed and said, “That’s my answer.”

WHO-TV 13 (Des Moines)

When asked about the President’s stimulus package that added to the national debt Christie Vilsack said, “Well I, you know, I don’t think it makes sense to go back and replace something, I wasn’t in Congress then…”

When WHO’s Dave Price asked Vilsack about raising taxes, Vilsack responded, “Well I think that everyone needs to pay their fair share.”

Price followed up by asking if that was a “yes” or a “no.” Vilsack fired back, “That’s my answer.”

Ames Patch

Vilsack has been criticized by Republicans lately including Steve King, R-Kiron, who she will face in November, for dodging answers to questions like how she would have voted on Barack Obama’s health care plan. When reporters asked her about those criticisms, Vilsack said she only felt comfortable explaining her frame of mind, but not how she would have voted, because it’s not possible to know since she wasn’t in Congress at the time.

“I’m happy to talk about generally how I think on an issue,” Vilsack said.

Radio Iowa

At a press conference later in the day, Christie Vilsack said she agreed with the sentiment, but she also said she didn’t know enough to commit to a position.

Jimmy Centers is the Communications Director for the Steve King for Congress Campaign