America: Gone With the Wind?

I am a fan of Classic Movies. TCM is my favorite cable channel. Occasionally I run across some one younger than I that likes them to. But they are few and far between. It really is a shame too. Because I have learned allot from those old movies over the years.

Well the movie in the case I am talking about happened to be Gone With the Wind. In discussing the movie with this person. I mentioned the opening. Which I feel is way more instructive, and a lesson in history, than the famous Clark Gable quote the movie is made famous by.

I believe many times, those who have watched the movie, watch that opening and rarely think of what it truly means. Here is the opening statement that appears on the screen:

There was a land of Cavaliers and Cotton Fields called the Old South. Here in this pretty world, Gallantry took its last bow. Here was the last ever to be seen of Knights and their Ladies Fair, of Master and of Slave. Look for it only in books, for it is no more than a dream remembered, a Civilization gone with the wind..

Wow. I can't help but think at this moment in time. Is America Gone With the Wind?

Can it be said that the America many of us grew up in has made it's last bow? Does the Gallantry that existed from World War II. A generation that saved the world. Still mean anything in this country today?

We are facing a breakdown of the family unit in this country. That is leading to unrest, crime, and a cultural change. That no longer encourages young men, to be the Gallant Gentlemen they should be as father's, and husbands.

But the most haunting part of this from Gone With the Wind. Is the last part.

Look for it only in books, for it is no more than a dream remembered, a Civilization gone with the wind

America has not been economically secure for a number of years, and it is coming home to roost. The S@P downgrading our credit rating is really the best thing that has happened to us in a long time. Some one is finally saying. Stop the madness. Stop weakening our stance in the World Economically.

Stabilizing America's economy must be done now. No matter how pain full it will be. Too much is at stake. Take a look at America's enemies today. Should we become subservient to them. Will they allow the dream that was America, to be remembered in books, like the opening of Gone with the Wind, says we should look for about the Old South?

No where else in history has an enemy conquered it's foe, and allowed it to have a recorded history like the North did for the South. To keep the memory of a culture alive. It has to be passed from generation to generation form word of mouth or recoded history. Please name for me an enemy of America who will allow it to still be a memory in the history of man.

Russia, China, North Korea? Can we trust them to say. Yes we own you. But if you still want to have some form of the culture you used to have. That is OK. I mean we don't censor our own people.

Fundamentalist Islamic Governments. Will they allow the dream that America was to exist in recorded history, when they have control over our sovereignty? Everyone knows how multicultural those countries are.

So I think we can pretty much come to the conclusion that the memory of the civilization, that once was America, will not be allowed to be looked for in books, or other forms of recording history.

What about a dream remembered? A dream remembered would be the ability of generation after generation of Americans, to tell the story of what America once was. Before it fell economically to the Communists, and Islamic Fundamentalists.

Here lies the other tragedy facing this country. An education system that no longer teaches the heritage of America, and the self reliance that making things with ones own hands brings to a nation.

It is all right here:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2007-09-17-history-test_N.htm

How can we expect an entire generation of College Graduates who are failing history. To communicate the principles, of a nation that may not exist anymore? When they cannot begin to learn, and retain the knowledge of that history? How does that get communicated from generation to generation by mouth, if the recorded history of that culture has been disposed of?

Yes we are in trouble. But it is not too late. There is a plan out there that will solve our fiscal crisis, and get us on the track to start paying this debt (the very threat to the freedom of future generations)off starting in 2018.

Go to Strong America Now.

Learn about a proven method, that will cut wasteful government spending, and preserve freedom for Future Generations, that we have enjoyed in our lifetimes, and has been paid for with the Sweat and Blood of our Forefathers.

Lets get this done!! Before America truly becomes a civilization. GONE WITH THE WIND!!

The War Hits Home

There is a war going on that many are aware of, but view choose to fight. I am talking about the culture war and the assault on the traditional American Family. Just a glance at prime time TV tells us that those controlling the media, and their corporate sponsors, no long value this cornerstone of freedom in America. The traditional one man, one woman family, and the stability it brings to our culture.

We think this is only a media thing. That the issues, and attempts at undermining the family is something that is only being fought in big cities, like New York,Chicago, and Los Angelas. But it is happening here in rural Iowa. Right under our noses.

The indicator that it is here in Jackson County is this attempt to bring a Diversity Club to Maquoketa Community High School. This was brought up at the School Board meeting two weeks ago by a member of the faculty, claiming that a large section of the student body requested this. The School Board took it into consideration, and after several comments from a local Pastor, decided to not act on it either way.

Why did this happen? It's easy. The School Board after being reminded they are treading into the area of morality, and the separation of church and state. Decided the best approach, would be to stay out of a discussion of sexual orientation, that are best discussed between a student, and their parents. Yes this is about orientation. In an attempt to promote sympathy for a life style, that many Jackson County households do not find as one they live, or want their children to live. It is obvious this attack on traditional American Families has hit home here.

As a 1978 graduate of MCHS we studied Multi Culturalism. But it was to learn about the melting pot that is America, and the many cultures that came here, and assimilated to the American way of life. The common ground that all of these cultures shared that formed this way of life, was the values founded in traditional two parent families headed by a man and a woman. You can study cultures all over the world, and that form of family unit, is the cornerstone of every society. To the misguided students of diversity at MCHS, and their activist authority figures. I am sorry, but that is proven fact. I was taught that in the very school, you are trying to infiltrate.

I also need to object at this time to a headline in the Sentinel Press, of the accounting of the board meeting where this was first brought up for possible motion. "Diversity Club Temporarily Silenced." This is a headline I would expect to see in the Village Voice. Not in a small town paper, that I have always considered more Fair and Balanced, than big media that claims that it is. Is the Sentinel Press attempting to help the diversity clubs cause? That is how I read the headline.

Then I read in this weekends paper, that two speakers tied up the time, at this weeks board meeting, trying to convince the board, to bring this issue up again? The word bullying was bandied about in the article several times. Let's take a look at bullying.

Bullying is defined as such. Bullying is a form of abuse. It involves repeated acts over time attempting to create or enforce one person's (or group's) power over another person (or group) , thus an "imbalance of power". The "imbalance of power" may be social power and/or physical power. The victim of bullying is sometimes referred to as a target. Bullying types of behavior are often rooted in a would-be bully's inability to empathize with those whom he or she would target.

I find it interesting that the very group that are speaking out against bullying,don't seem to realize they are doing it themselves.Their inability to empathize with traditional families, and their values, because they have been slighted by some one purporting to be a believer in Family Values, and repeatedly bringing this up to the board, when they have decided to not act on it at all, is bullying. There has been no indication by any of the board members, that they even want to consider this. Since the board President, has said a school board member would need to bring it up for a vote to be considered. There have been no motions.

Why has there been no motion? It's easy. The school board knows the lawyers from the gay and lesbian alliance are waiting for them to turn it down, so they can sue the district. The board members also do not want to vote in favor of it, because they happen to think it is an attack on the family, and it is an issue that should be left to families.

I am also concerned that two public employees, are advocating for this club. I must make this clear. I am sorry for anything that may have happened to you in the past. But those who have bullied you were wrong. But no club, or law suit settlement will ever compensate for the violation of your rights as a citizen, under the Constitution, and a human being under the laws of God. Which the violation of those laws is evident in history. But special clubs or laws to make up for it, gives you special status that the Constitution, or God's Law do not grant you. You say you are for equality when you seek special treatment. Those who committed that violation of your rights will have to account later to the ultimate judge. I merely ask both of you, who work on a daily basis with the youth of this community to consider that your avocation of this lifestyle publicly.Would have resulted in termination of your employment in the past. Is that not progress enough for you? ( I also question why it is so important for you to tells us about your private lives. You do realize when you do that. It opens you up to people seeing you in less of the professional you are supposed to be. Since it is unprofessional for heterosexual public employees to advocate against you. )

A message to all public employees. Your social, or political stances are a thing that our children should have no knowledge of. I assure you we did not know these things about the professionals who educated us.

Finally. I understand that since the first meeting. Several letters to the editor have been printed in the Sentinel Press, that were uncomplimentary towards the Pastor, who stood up for the Laws of God. Another example of how those in favor of this club, are the REAL bullies in this.

I also understand that the Pastor in question has bible study at the Maquoketa Library every Tuesday night, and was told that the rules for using the room were going to be changed. Which is very coincidental.Since one of the speakers at the last board meeting is involved with the library.

Yes the Culture War has hit home. We are now on the front lines of it. The choice is yours Jackson County. Traditional Family Values that have served a country well for over two hundred years? Or the continued degeneration of a once proud town that people used to pass through, get to the top of the hill on South Main, and decide to stay because the view of our Main Street was one of the finest they had ever seen.

Impeachment Isn't That Bad

This was inspired by Steve Deace's blog today. Here is his blog and my take on impeachment after.

WEEKLY FAQ
Each week we take a question we’ve been asked a lot and answer it on the blog.

Question: Do you have any specific suggestions for people you’d like to see fill one of the three vacancies on the State Supreme Court?

According to The Des Moines Register, 61 people applied for those three vacancies and the state nominating commission will meet January 24th to begin the interview process for the applicants. The list of names include some very accomplished legal eagles, but if you ask me the sort of ideal candidate we could be looking for never applied.

I’m thinking of someone specifically.

Someone with a background in interpreting the law by walking the tightrope between their own beliefs and what the law actually states, without losing their balance.

Someone who clearly has demonstrated in his career up to this point that he understands he’s not allowed to make up new rules as he sees fit, but instead must apply the rules as they’re clearly stated in his rulings.

Someone with the confidence to make his rulings regardless of public scrutiny for every potential mistake, but at the same time still humble enough to realize he’s not the ultimate or final authority on what is or isn’t legal so he tempers his passions and preferences accordingly.

And finally, someone who has the respect of his peers – even those who at times have disagreed with his rulings – because his integrity and dedication to his craft is above reproach.

If you’re thinking such a dream candidate doesn’t exist, think again. This person not only exist but he’s right here in our own backyard, and he’s proven himself on a national stage in front of billions of people while meeting each of the criteria I just listed.

Who is this dream State Supreme Court candidate you ask? He’s none other than West Des Moines native and Major League Baseball umpire extraordinaire Tim McClelland.

Going on four decades of service, McClelland has consistently been ranked by Major League Baseball players as the best at what he does. And what he does best is behave as a mostly even tempered and judicious dispenser of baseball justice.

McClelland has his own opinions, and over the years wasn’t shy about expressing them on my sports talk radio programs back in the day. But once he says “play ball” and the game begins he sets that aside and simply calls it like he sees it. Sure, his strike zone may vary from other umpires and he doesn’t get every judgment call correct. However, when it comes to the calls that are fundamental to the rules of baseball he plays it by the book and dispassionately applies them, no matter how much pressure he may feel from the multitude in the stands waiting to let him have it when he doesn’t rule their way.

In many respects, the way McClelland umpires a Major League Baseball game where every player is making substantially more money than he does is a model for what our founders intended the judiciary branch to be. He interprets to the best of his ability, but always within the written framework of the rules set before him by those empowered to make the rules.

He might not like that the Yankees and Red Sox have the money to sign every desirable free agent, but he doesn’t umpire their games versus the monetarily-challenged Kansas City Royals differently because he views it as his role to make things “fair.” Instead, he understands his role is to make things fair by impartially applying the rules made by the rule makers as best as he can.

How that translates to McClelland as a potential State Supreme Court justice is simple. In our constitutional republic “all political power is inherit in the people.” The first manifestation of the people’s power is found in those they elect to represent their interests, which we call the legislature. The legislature represents the lawmakers, while the courts represent the adjudicators. In other words, they apply the law as it is written by the lawmakers, and always with the humble awareness they are ultimately accountable to the Supreme Lawgiver.

No one I know of has more experience successfully navigating these difficult waters than McClelland, and he’s managed to do it under constant despite lacking the insulation of a lifetime appointment. I can’t promise you that as a State Supreme Court justice he’ll make every judgment call correctly, but I can promise you that when it comes to controversies challenging the fundamental aspects of the law itself he will do what he has always done as an umpire—apply the law as it was written by those with the enumerated power to do so.

That way, if the public doesn’t like the law as it is written they can change it by voting in new lawmakers that will do the will of the people. Just like if the fans don’t like the rules of baseball they don’t blame the umpires, since the umpires don’t make the rules or amend the rulebook in the middle of the game, but they put the blame on the owners who do make the rules. And then the owners who want the fans to keep spending their money on Game Day listen to their concerns and decide accordingly, just as lawmakers who want the people’s votes on Election Day have a tendency to do what the people ask of them if the people are persistent enough.

This system puts the power both in politics and professional sports where it always belongs—with those picking up the tab.

Some might be leery of putting someone with no legal background on the State Supreme Court, but when you compare McClelland’s record of impartially applying the law compared to the current crop of State Supreme Court justices, he appears to be more qualified than they are.

My response to what this means to impeachment:

Awesome stuff Steve. In the case of the same sex marriage ruling.We could have used a hockey goalie for judges. They should have just kicked it back to the Legislature to be reconsidered if they found it unconstitutional. If Mc Clelland had performed his umpire duties the same way the judges did in the same sex marriage ruling.There would be accusations of bias, and possible bribery by outside influence. Gamblers? There would be an investigation, and possible loss of his position as an umpire if found guilty. I guess that would be impeaching him wouldn't it? Now after going through the impeachment PROCESS he may be found innocent, and retain his position, except for the fans who still believe he is crooked, and come to the games and throw things at him, to the point the owners start to say. Hey Mc Clelland you are a distraction. Then he is out of the game. Even then in our great country Mc Clelland could still be an umpire. But it would be in the minor leagues. His major league career would be over.

We have four judges who need to be sent to the minors with the other three, that the fans have determined have blown a big call. The only way to send them there is the impeachment process. To wait til their retention vote comes up would be a travesty to justice

An Open Letter to the Head of One Iowa

Listening to Steve Deace today. He mentioned that the head of One Iowa tweeted the following: Senator Sorenson please stand for the judges and show some respect. This is as close as I can come not seeing the tweet myself.

She was of course referring to the entrance of the remaining four Iowa Supreme Court Justices, as they entered the State House of Representatives, for Governor Culver's fare well State of Iowa Speech.

Well One Iowa girl, you show your ignorance of the separation of powers with such a statement. First off the custom of standing up as members of the other two branches of government parade into the chamber, is meant to be a show of welcome to the guests from the other two branches, by the Legislative Branch, since they are HOSTING the members from the other two branches, for the Constitutionally mandated State of the State Speech by the Governor. Other witnesses of the parade who are not members of the three branches of Government, are at the time of this processional, NOT obligated to stand up and applaud ANYONE who is parading into the chamber, if they so choose. The reasons for this, is that those members of the three branches of Government are the SERVANTS of those witnessing the event. I attended last years speech. I did not stand up for the judges as they came in just like Kent did today. People saw me and I was NOT removed from the chamber. Because at that time, the Supreme Court had already committed a serious malfeasance of office, and did not deserve my approval of them. To remove me for not showing approval of those in service to me, would be a violation of my Constitutional Rights.

Now how is Kent within his rights as a member of the Legislature, to not welcome them as equals? First we need to learn the meaning of honorable, and how it pertains to holding office.

Honorable:worthy of being honored; entitled to honor and respect; "an honorable man"; "led an honorable life"; "honorable service to his country"

Although the word respect is used in this definition, it doesn't apply in this case of a ceremonial event. The members of the three branches of Government hold equal and separate powers in our system. For them to show respect in a regard that applauds one as being the better of the other isn't applicable in this setting. They are ALL there fulfilling their Constitutional duties by attending this speech. Any applause during the processional before is only a welcome plain and simple. When the Governor comes in and everyone applauds they are welcoming him to the chamber. They cannot pay him respect in the regard that he is their better. He is not.

Since all members of the three branches carry the title of Honorable, this is where we get into the meaning of respect. Now since Kent holds the same title as the Judges he is not under any obligation to stand up, welcome and recognize them as Constitutional equals attending the same event. He has already determined that they are not or else he would not be in favor of impeaching them. Impeachment is a method for members of the three branches to police themselves. Once the charges are placed. The judges PEERS will determine if they are eligible to carry the title of Honorable Judge of the Iowa Supreme Court. It is the honorable part of all office holders title that gives them the status of peers. Whether they are in the same branch of Government or not.

Now in the performance of their duties the members of the three branches, are obligated to respect the members of the other three branches, and the power they hold. This is called checks and balances. Also outside of this event. Should Kent meet up with any of these judges, he is obligated to treat them with respect. Not because of their office title, but because God's Law demands we treat our fellow human beings with respect. For Kent not to do that would bring dishonor to himself, and the integrity of the office he holds. But in this setting, in the OFFICIAL performance of their duties. All of the members of the three branches are at their own discernment to decide whether they recognize a member of the other branch who holds the same title and welcome them as guests.

I can't believe you don't understand this One Iowa Girl. Where did you go to school? If you have a college degree you should know this. If they didn't teach that to you in college you need to demand a refund. They failed to train you to be a citizen of the United States. I mean they didn't even teach you that the Iowa Supreme Court judges are not elected officials, but are appointed. Because Deace reports that the end of your tweet was: show some respect for your elected officials.

Once again you fail to understand our system. The Judges are not Kent's betters. They are his equal if he so chooses to recognize them as such. I myself respect my elected officials as human beings, but they are not my betters. I have chosen to entrust in them the power given to me by God, and granted them the authority to govern this land, because I have found them to be HONORABLE.

Please don't feel bad. A prominent Republican mouth piece in the last two weeks thought that the Attorney General's office was in the Executive Branch. You are not alone in being a victim of a bad education system.

While we are on the subject of respect. I urge you to respect the rule of God's Law which states that the activity, and the proposal of marriage between individuals of the same sex is forbidden, and contrary to that law. Your blasphemous campaign to circumvent God's law is promoting the break down of a system that has worked effectively for over 200 years. Please take a refresher course on citizenship.

Does it Matter?

INTERNET SHOCK: COUPLE LETS YOU VOTE ON WHETHER THEY GET AN ABORTION

After my first knee jerk reaction from the attention grabbing headline. I started looking farther into the story behind the headline.

A married couple in Minnesota, who have had three miscarriages, and are pregnant for the fourth time despite bad outcomes in the past. Wants our opinion on whether to keep the child or not?

The first thing that crosses your mind is this is a hoax. The second crosses your mind that these people are lost and are a typical unmarried couple who don't want the inconvenience of a child in their life.

Well when you read the whole story,it is obvious this married couple trying for the fourth time to have a child, are going to keep their baby. They are also making a statement.

Does it matter? These people have taken this opportunity to use their real life situation to pose a question. Are we serious about defending the unborn? Are they grabbing for their 15 minutes of fame? I don't know, but as a person who believes in the sanctity of life, it doesn't matter. I appreciate the opportunity to step to the plate for my values.

As of this posting the site is showing 80% for give birth, and 19% for getting an abortion. There have also been about 3,000 votes since I have been on the site.

The Pro Life conscience of America is coming forward, and carrying the day. So now the question arises again. Does it matter? Pete and Alisha Arnold the couple who are asking this question, are calling for the Pro Life Community, to put their money where their mouth is. They are right.

It is time for us to move forward by whatever means Constitutionally necessary, and put a ban on abortion once and for all. That includes no exemption for rape and incest. I am at this time going to leave in life of the mother, because I am unsure about that. Yes an abortion doctor will come up with some kind of medical excuse. But I can't say I can come between a woman honestly deciding between her life, and her babies. I also can't say I know any women who would chose their life over their child's if they truly love the child. All other excuses for abortion are out the window in my book, as a self centered denial of God's will.

So let us win this war, let's have the Pro Life Community accomplish what it says it exists for. Until we do that, it really doesn't matter the Pro Life movement exists.

Please take a moment to vote at this website.

http://www.birthornot.com/

Because it really does matter that we stand up, and make a statement for the unborn, who cannot speak for themselves, no matter what the reason. We are asked to make this statement now. Let's make it.

The World View of Service!

Veteran's Day is a day of conflict for people of two World Views. Just like there is cultural conflict between people that celebrate Christmas, and those that don't. Veteran's Day is one of those holidays where people who value Military Service, and those who do not have a conflict.

My limited understanding of the mission of the United States Military is contained in the Declaration of Independence:

When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.

I believe it is our job to liberate oppressed people from Governments who do not respect the unalienable rights of their citizens. Notice at the start of this declaration it says all men. It doesn't say Americans, or any other nationality. It says all men because the Rule of Natural and the unalienable rights it protects are universal. To refuse to accept that is either a misunderstanding of the highest law of any nation. Or a complete rejection of God, and the laws handed down to us from him.

The melting pot that is America has been filled for years by legal immigrants fleeing tyranny. If you check into history most tyrants usually do not value the rule of Natural Law.

The United States Military has had a fine tradition of defending those who have had their unalienable rights taken away from them. We have given our blood and treasure to defending God's law. God commands a sovereign nation formed under his laws to do so.

This would not have happened with out generations of men and women from ALL ethnic backgrounds putting their lives on the line to defend their fellow man.

I find it amazing that people who profess to believe in Natural Law don't seem to understand this. They say they are interested in Liberty, but condemn the very instrument that establishes freedom for us and the rest of mankind.

Time after time nations that have lived by the laws of man, have committed atrocities against their own citizens. It seems every time people who criticize our foreign policy, seem to take the side of the totalitarian regime they claim the United States is.

When we pay particular attention to this part of the Declaration of Independence it becomes clear what we have to do to insure unalienable universal rights for all mankind.

governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.

Please tell me how an oppressed people with no military capability can accomplish such a task with out our help? Critics say: Well we need to declare all of our wars. I agree. But please tell me how you declare war on a non uniformed enemy, whose homeland doesn't claim them?

Thankfully we have had people in the past who understand this mission God commands us to undertake. I thank the veterans who have participated in the past, and are currently serving on this mission. Especially those who have lost loved ones in the performance of this mission. Every one of you are Great Americans.

Hopefully some people in this country will catch on to the purpose of your mission, and appreciate it. But that will never happen until they accept God's Law, and realize we have been in the past, and currently are, in a war with an enemy who doesn't share a World View that has The Rule of God's Natural Law, as the law that binds all men.

Stagnant State!! Stagnant Results!!

I headed home from the Judge Retention Rally Tuesday Night. My World View had just won. The Rule of Natural Law had been defended. But something didn't feel right.

Today I figured out what it was. The country was looking to return to the fundamentals, through new faces that believe in Common Sense. But the status quo in Iowa is still very much in place.

Let me make this clear the status in Iowa, isn't as quo as it is in Illinois,but it is still status quo just the same. One bizarre development is while the three judges were being fired. The judge who initiated the ruling that caused the removal of the three supreme court judges. Got retained by over 60% of the vote.

It was the eighties all over again in Iowa. Team Ray/Branstad is back. How did this happen? All over the country, and even down ballot in Iowa new faces were getting elected.

Iowa voted to retain an Attorney General that should have been gone along time ago. Everyone needs to lay off Brenna Findley, she ran a good campaign for an office that really most people don't even know exists. The only thing she was guilty of was not having any prosecution experience, and Miller exploited that in the last weeks of the campaign. That weighed heavy with people who do know the office exists, and probably made the difference.

Another bizarre turn. Mike Fitzgerald got retained. Didn't he lose the IPERS money? Matt Schultz won, and he can thank the Tea Party. The Tea Party knew more than any group that his office was in charge of the integrity of the ballot. An issue they are very concerned with.

Iowa's 1st,2nd,and 3rd Congressional Districts remained in Liberal hands. Further proving that Democrats believe in the Rule of Natural Law, that states Marriage is between a man and a woman, and courts, or legislatures for that matter have no right to make a law contrary to that. The judges could not have been thrown out, without voters from these three congressional districts stating that.

As I said before it was the eighties all over again in Iowa. Why? Because this state is stagnant. We are going to lose a Congressional District, because most of the population still living in rural Iowa, are people who voted for Branstad way back when. Their kids have left for other states, or the jobs that kept those communities together left, taking the people with them. Leaving behind laid off workers with no way to replace the lost income. No one lives in rural Iowa anymore who don't have a ton of cash in the bank, or collects a ton of support from the Government.

Iowa is a stagnant state , and because of it, we got stagnant election results Tuesday Night.

What can we do to shake Iowa out of this? I really don't know. The Branstad administration will try to continue the same policies that have led to this stagnation. They will try to bribe out side companies to come into the state, through the states tax base, to create jobs. You will need to hold your newly elected Statehouse person to account. You will need to ask them. What are you doing to keep big Government off your districts back? Bringing more money in from outside of your district, by taking it from someone else's district isn't going to work anymore.

It is obvious the shake up of this stagnation must start with the Republican Party of Iowa. Most of the stagnation I talk about, has been caused by Democrats and their Big Government ideas, and Republicans who see a chance to cash in on it.

Believe it or not the Republican Party is on its way to shaking things up. Matt Strawn, and his staff, and Kraig Paulsen, and Paul Mc Kinley have taken steps this cycle, that should promote policies more responsive to the electorate. They have made the party more customer friendly, and I commend them. The reason this is not so immediately evident, is that many of the County Committees across the state, still think politics is about pot lucks, and dinners instead of getting votes. Matt has started shaking up the stagnation of the Party, and it should start showing up in the years to come.

The reason the Republican Party must lead on this is in the third party vote results. Jonathan Narcisse missed third party status by 500 votes. He is a socially conservative Libertarian. The Libertarian Party of Iowa stuck with their nominee. Eric Cooper got 14,000 votes, and Jonathan got 20,000. If these two were combined Iowa would have an alternative party. As a person who leans very Libertarian, this tells me the Libertarian Party, really doesn't have a Socially Conservative view of the Rule of Natural Law.

The shake up of the stagnation in this state will occur, when the Social Conservatives of the Republican Party, get the Moderates, who really have Socially Conservative World Views to finally speak up and say it. Reagan Democrats have proven they will stand up for Family Values, when the Republican Party gives them a Reagan type candidate. Continuing to Re Reagan RPI needs to be a priority.

Only then will things start to smell better in this state.