| Governor Branstad, Doesn’t the DHS Chief Work for You? Posted: 17 Jul 2012 05:10 PM PDT  Iowa Governor Terry Branstad said he's confident that his Department of Human Services chief, Chuck Palmer, will "do the right thing" in deciding how to handle a petition from 41 Republican House members for an emergency rulemaking to halt government-funded abortions. From The Cedar Rapids Gazette:
"I haven't had a chance to talk to him in detail," Branstad said Monday, referring to Iowa DHS director Chuck Palmer, "but I have a lot of confidence in him. He's a problem-solver. He has empathy for the people who receive human services and he has good fiscal management skills." The GOP House members petitioned the Iowa Department of Human Services to rescind rules on terminating pregnancies in cases of rape, incest and fetal deformation. In fiscal 2012, which ended June 30, there were 22 Medicaid-funded abortions in Iowa — 15 for severe fetal anomalies, two for rape and five to save the life of the mother, according to the DHS. There's more at risk than the funding for those abortions, however. Palmer said there is legal precedent in federal decisions regarding similar situations in other states that have sought to end government-funded abortions, suggesting Iowa could risk $1.8 billion in Medicaid money by pursuing that course of action.
Maybe I need to reread my Iowa Constitution, but Governor Branstad, doesn't Chuck Palmer work for you? Could you possibly put some skin in the game here? It was the legislative intent in 2011 that abortions based on fetal anomalies wouldn't be paid for. In a statement via Tim Albrecht you accepted responsibility for taxpayer money being used in this way. Iowa Medicaid Enterprises utilizes a contractor for medical services. The medical director and the review team are medical professionals working as contractors for an outside vendor scrutinizing reimbursement. The responsibility of all Medicaid contractors and the Iowa Medicaid Enterprises rests with the Department of Human Services, and ultimately, the Office of the Governor.
So give some direction to your DHS chief.  |
| Bruce Braley Admits Taking Lobbyist Money Violating Campaign Promise Posted: 17 Jul 2012 03:39 PM PDT  INDEPENDENCE, IA — New disclosures revealed Tuesday by the Cedar Rapids Gazette show that Congressman Bruce Braley (D-IA) has accepted contributions from federal lobbyists in violation of his pre-election promise.
In what can only be described as a perplexing response to these new disclosures, the Braley campaign conceded that Braley had pledged prior to his election "to support an end to lobbyist contributions" but never promised "not to accept" those contributions. "Saying that you promised to end lobbyist contributions but didn’t promise not to accept those contributions doesn’t pass the sniff test," said Cody Brown, advisor to Ben Lange’s congressional campaign. "Congressmen Braley should come clean. Iowans deserve answers." Braley’s confusing and contorted response to these new disclosures have raised new and deeper questions surrounding the veracity of Braley’s response and the influence that special interests play in Braley’s Washington office. Prior to his election, Braley pledged to "end lobbyists’ cozy relationship with our representatives" by banning federal lobbyists from contributing to members of Congress.[1] But according to today’s report in the Gazette, Braley has accepted "$70,000 from registered lobbyists" since arriving in Washington and, according to the House Lobbying Disclosure website, Braley has accepted over $1 million from other organizations and special interest groups affiliated with the lobbying industry.[2] Lange called on Braley to return all contributions from lobbyists in a statement made Tuesday afternoon.
"Iowans are sick and tired of slick talk and broken promises from Washington politicians and it is time we hold these politicians accountable," said Lange. "Bruce Braley should immediately return all contributions that were received in violation of his promise to Iowans." [1] "Braley wants stricter rules for lobbyists," WCF Courier, January 16, 2006. [2] House Lobbying Disclosure Website, last accessed July 17, 2012.  |
| Rick Santorum: Obama Sounds Like a Two-Bit Dictator Posted: 17 Jul 2012 10:00 AM PDT 
Rick Santorum was interviewed by ABC News' Jonathan Karl, where Santorum went after Obama's abuse of power via the executive order. When you look at this President going out and saying, "I’m gonna change the law on welfare. I’m gonna change the work requirement." Something we fought for, President Clinton signed, this was a huge transformation on the welfare rolls, dramatic reductions, increase in employment, reductions in poverty, probably the single greatest accomplishment social-welfare-wise of the last 20 years, and President Obama gets up and says, "Nope, I’m gonna change the law by speaking." This sounds like a two-bit dictator, not a president of the United States. You do not change the law by speaking. This is a president who has put way too much authority in the President's office…. … (Mitt Romney) also has to talk about this imperial presidency. My grandfather left El Duce in Italy, who could get up and change the law by giving a speech. We do not need another person who thinks they can simply get up, give a speech, change the law and then dare Congress…. (Karl responds "you're comparing the President of the United States to Mussolini.") … What he is doing is out there. He is abusing power like I’ve never seen a president do.
He also discussed Romney's VP pick, and said having a prolife running mate is a "non-negotiable." You can watch the full interview here. Update: Heritage has an informative article on Obama's move to bypass the welfare reform law.  |
| How to Kill a Church According to The New York Times Posted: 17 Jul 2012 07:00 AM PDT  Ross Douthat, a columnist for The New York Times, asked on Sunday "Can Liberal Christianity Be Saved?" In it he looks at the Episcopal Church as they adapted the changes that John Shelby Spong, the Bishop of Newark, advocated in the 90s.
Douthat writes: As a result, today the Episcopal Church looks roughly how Roman Catholicism would look if Pope Benedict XVI suddenly adopted every reform ever urged on the Vatican by liberal pundits and theologians. It still has priests and bishops, altars and stained-glass windows. But it is flexible to the point of indifference on dogma, friendly to sexual liberation in almost every form, willing to blend Christianity with other faiths, and eager to downplay theology entirely in favor of secular political causes. Yet instead of attracting a younger, more open-minded demographic with these changes, the Episcopal Church's dying has proceeded apace. Last week, while the church's House of Bishops was approving a rite to bless same-sex unions, Episcopalian church attendance figures for 2000-10 circulated in the religion blogosphere. They showed something between a decline and a collapse: In the last decade, average Sunday attendance dropped 23 percent, and not a single Episcopal diocese in the country saw churchgoing increase. He notes further… The most successful Christian bodies have often been politically conservative but theologically shallow, preaching a gospel of health and wealth rather than the full New Testament message. But if conservative Christianity has often been compromised, liberal Christianity has simply collapsed. Practically every denomination — Methodist, Lutheran, Presbyterian — that has tried to adapt itself to contemporary liberal values has seen an Episcopal-style plunge in church attendance. Within the Catholic Church, too, the most progressive-minded religious orders have often failed to generate the vocations necessary to sustain themselves. HIs criticism of "successful Christian bodies" isn't without merit. There is definitely a theological shallowness present among evangelicals, and I've written extensively about the prosperity gospel (which is not the gospel) and the likes of Joel Osteen, but I wouldn't apply that label carte blanche. There is fidelity to the Gospel and Christian orthodoxy, and groups like The Gospel Coalition work to help bring depth, not just breadth to local churches. Douthat points out that the key difference between liberal Christianity today and Christianity that promoted social reform and did much good in our nation is, frankly, heresy. He writes: As the liberal Protestant scholar Gary Dorrien has pointed out, the Christianity that animated causes such as the Social Gospel and the civil rights movement was much more dogmatic than present-day liberal faith. Its leaders had a "deep grounding in Bible study, family devotions, personal prayer and worship." They argued for progressive reform in the context of "a personal transcendent God … the divinity of Christ, the need of personal redemption and the importance of Christian missions." Today, by contrast, the leaders of the Episcopal Church and similar bodies often don't seem to be offering anything you can't already get from a purely secular liberalism. Which suggests that per haps they should pause, amid their frantic renovations, and consider not just what they would change about historic Christianity, but what they would defend and offer uncompromisingly to the world. There is nothing wrong with advocating social reform. Christians were among the first abolitionists, they were present during the civil rights movement. Before FDR it was Christians who provided most of the social welfare in our nation. None of this I would point out is the Gospel, but it is a byproduct of the Gospel and the Great Commandment. As I love God with all of my heart, soul, mind and strength. As I recognize His love for those around me, and I obey His command to love my neighbor as myself why would I not want to minister to physical needs? That is a valid criticism of conservative Christianity. Jesus often met physical needs before addressing spiritual concerns. We should extend mercy to a world that desperately needs Jesus. But if you deny the world needs Jesus and our faith that dictates such mercy then you're dead according to The New York Times.  |
In case you are looking into making cash from your websites via popunder ads - you can run with one of the biggest companies: AdFly.
RăspundețiȘtergere