Iowa Liberty

There is a big push being made in the Iowa Legistlature that is threatening the liberty of workers to pay union dues or not.  The “Fair Share” bill would require any worker to effectively join the union at their workplace.   Currently, workers have the freedom to join the union and pay union dues if they feel like the union is working in their interests.  This bill would make it a requirement for workers to pay their “fair share” of the union expenses in negotiating and defending the employee’s contract.   These are services for which the employee has neither asked for or may want.  It’s a classic argument from Progressives: we want something, but we think everyone should pay for it.   They claim its not fair that unions are mandated by law to represent all workers, and not just the dues-paying members.

So, let’s change that law!  For those individuals that want to associate together in a group for bargaining power with their employers to get a common goal, great!  Do it!  But, leave the rest of us to negiotiate the terms of our own jobs, if we so choose.  This would increase freedom for all parties involved.   Unions don’t want this, of course, because this would seriously deflate their power as their power is artificially given to them by law.

Iowa’s Righ-to-Work status is in grave danger by the Democrats in the Iowa Legislature.  Contact your legislators to let them know that you value worker’s right to work without being forced to support a union that may or may not be working in their best interests.  Let the individual decide what’s best for them.

“In that case, the Obama administration has argued that warrantless tracking is permitted because Americans enjoy no “reasonable expectation of privacy” in their–or at least their cell phones’–whereabouts.”

In the last few days, it’s become even more clear that the Tea Party movement has been taken over by the same “small government” Republican establishment that created two wars, massive deficits, and the mind-boggling bailouts and stimulus packages.

It started on Sunday, when I read that the Tea Party movement has drafted not one, but three so-called small government conservatives to run against Ron Paul in his Congressional district in Texas. Keep in mind, the current popularity of liberty wouldn’t exist if it weren’t for Ron Paul in 2008, who of course was attacked even back then by the people who are now trying to posture themselves as being against big government.

Tonight I went to a College Republican meeting, and one of the candidates running in the Republican Primary for the 2nd District of Iowa was there speaking. After the meeting, we started discussing the long-term fiscal difficulties of the United States government, specifically because of structural deficits and the insolvency of Social Security. The candidate and I came to the agreement that the government will not be able to handle these burdens, but then I asked if we were to end our wars if that would decrease deficits, to which the candidate responded that this would be detrimental to our safety and the security of the region. The candidate then tried to suggest that since I wasn’t alive during the invasion of the Vietnamese boat people and the massacre of three million Vietnamese after the Vietnam War, I wasn’t aware of what kind of consequences would happen due to us leaving a warzone. I was quick to point out that over two million Vietnamese had already been killed by Americans before the end of the war, and that we were currently living in another interesting immigration crisis due to bad government policy, this time the War on Drugs and the mass exodus of Latin Americans to the USA due to failed policies that breed crime. The candidate then continued on saying they aren’t anti-immigrant, and so on, then talked with another Republican about the positives of energy subsidies.

I hope this candidate doesn’t represent the same type of change that other mainstream Tea Party candidates represent, such as trying to resurrect literacy tests as barriers to voting. Another speaker tonight was a surrogate stumping for a gubernatorial candidate who preached that Republicans should regain the majority so they can enact the policies “we” want and know that the rest of Iowa wants. This current crop of anti-incumbent candidates are wolves in sheep’s clothing, because they are trying to convince you they are anti-tax, small government conservatives. Even the supposed people’s victory in Massachusetts was nothing more than another big government liar playing the fiddle before marching the people into the sea (Keep in mind, Romneycare in Mass. was nothing less than a state version of what national Obamacare is supposed to be).

Actually, to call these people wolves in sheep’s clothing is to give them far too much credit. These people are nothing more than neo-cons in tea bags. Either way, I hope neither disguise is enough to fool you.

Coverage from Daily Paul:

Did Campaign For Liberty Give $350,000 to a Neocon?
John Tate Statement on $350,000 C4L Ken Buck Media Buy Raises More Questions
Michael Maresco Responds to John Tate

From the Press Citizen:

“Kudos to the Iowa City Council on Tuesday night for agreeing to review our water fluoridation policy in a future work session.

Quantcast

The anti-water fluoridation movement did a good job informing the council of the dangers of adding fluoride to the public water supply.

According to The Fluoride Action Network (www.fluoridealert.org):

• The fluoride added to our water supplies comes from toxic waste and does not come from a sterile lab.

• Silicofluorides added are 85 times more toxic that naturally occurring calcium fluoride.

• Fluoride is a topical agent and should not be consumed since it is highly poisonous.

• Even at 1 parts per million. fluoride has been shown to cause brain defects and bone cancer in lab rats.

• Ninety-eight percent of Western Europe will not use fluoride. Japan won’t. China won’t. About 60 percent of the U.S. still fluoridates their water.

Iowa City spends more than $14,000 a year to medicate a population of almost 64,000 people with fluoride without consent. This practice has been in place since the 1950s.

Since the council has such a huge responsibility of medicating our city by defacto policy. I hope they will consult an ethicist and a toxicologist and not just a dentist in their work sessions.

Times are changing. We can’t rely on junk science of the 1950s in order to just keep things status quo. I am very optimistic the council will do it’s homework and finally stop this out dated and unsafe practice.

Mark Amberg
Iowa City”

I thought this was a fantastic video: