Read the entire story here.

Issue #1

So, even though abortion is legal, I think most people still expect that our government won’t actually promote abortion or fund it in any way.

If that’s what you thought, you’d be wrong.

Turns out that a drug-court counselor in Pennsylvania convinced court officials to fund an abortion for a woman facing drug charges.

So much for promoting a culture of life.

Continue reading...

To read today's post please click here.

Battleground Iowa is pleased to announce that we will also be joining the blogging crew at TheIowaRepublican.com. These changes will start on Wednesday when the new site launches. After that, this site won’t go dark, but we will only be posting links to our main content, which will be found at TheIowaRepublican.com.

I can’t tell you how thrilled I am about this new tool for activists. TheIowaRepublican.com will have original news stories, insider editorials, some of Iowa’s best-known conservative bloggers, as well as a wonderful new message-board forum where our grassroots can share their ideas for strengthening our movement.

I encourage you all to read and support this new site as much as possible. With the liberal stranglehold we have right now in both state and federal government, now is the time for an opposition movement to unite to win back the hearts and minds of all of our friends and neighbors.

No longer do we have to talk about how liberalism would hypothetically destroy the fabric of our society. We now have a real-life example of this exact scenario unfolding before us everyday.

Actually, the fabric of our society has been unraveling for a long time, but some have been oblivious to that fact thanks, in part, to the sugar-coating the liberal progression of our society has gotten in the main-stream media. Thankfully, we will now have a local media outlet who will simply tell it like it is... no more sugar-coating, just the truth.

We look forward to seeing you soon at TheIowaRepublican.com!

As you may know if you read this blog regularly, we often give some of the folks over at the Des Moines Register a hard time when we think they are showing a left-leaning bias. But we also like to give credit where credit is due.

There was an excellent piece written recently by Register columnist John Carlson. He first describe the scene at the statehouse a few weeks ago when pro-life activists gathered in the capitol for the Prayer for Life Rally.

He recounted how some protestors caused a scene, shouting and “shrieking” so much that many of those gathered for the rally itself could not hear the remarks of conservative-favorite, U.S. Rep. Steve King.

Carlson pointed out the irony that these protestors got exactly what they wanted. Their faces and interviews showed up on the local news that night, but not a word of King’s speech was re-broadcast. So, Carlson re-printed King’s statements in his column for the world to see.

"I speak frequently with students from middle school through high school. I tell them that someday they're going to be asked, and will have to answer, an important question: Are you for or against abortion of the innocent unborn? They will need to be grounded philosophically to be able to answer. It comes down to knowing the right answer to two questions:

"Number One: Do you believe in the sanctity of human life?

"Look at the person next to you. Do you believe in their sanctity of life? If you're 36 years old or younger, look at the people standing next to you. There between you is the ghost of a missing one-third of your generation because of abortion.

"If you ask that question across America, almost 100 percent support the idea that life is sacred.

"Number Two: At what instant does life begin?

"It begins at the instant of conception, or we need to say now at fertilization.

"If you can answer those two questions right then, you stand on solid moral ground. One day we're going to protect the sanctity of human life and we're going to protect it at the instant of conception ...

"Right now there is a piece of legislation called the Freedom of Choice Act, or FOCA. It has been drafted for some time now and it's pushed by Planned Parenthood. It's the piece of legislation that President Obama promised to sign into law first thing when he was campaigning for the presidency.

"If passed, FOCA would federally free up every regulation on abortion in every state in our nation. It would violate the 10th Amendment; would violate several other amendments, and some of our other constitutional guarantees.

"If it was challenged, it would go through the courts, and we haven't done very well for life in the courts. So let your congressmen know what you think of FOCA and ask them to oppose it with every fiber of their legislative being.

"People say you cannot legislate morality, but it happens all the time. Iowa's Code and the Federal Code are replete with expressions of morality.

"The morality that is there does reflect the moral values of those who make the decisions. Laws against murder and rape for instance. It sets standards. It says 'we're not going past this line.' Human life is sacred in all its forms and we need to protect it from conception to natural death."

And then, Carlson put the icing on the cake. He actually pointed out the great liberal hypocrisy: liberals are really only for freedom of speech if the speech is something they agree with.

Carlson never said whether or not he agreed with King. But he had the courage to be fair, reasonable, and rational, which is more than a lot of journalists can say these days.

Kudos to Carlson for a job well done.

But, I couldn’t help but be mesmerized by the sustained smarminess of Joe Biden. I know, I know, nobody messes with Joe. But that’s only because he’s so annoying that no one chooses to hang around him long enough to mess with him.

You know, Obama was constantly touting his history of good “judgment” as the reason you should vote for him over John McCain. Now, I know Obama is on the younger side for a president, and I know his college years were a little, shall we say, hazy, so the late 1980’s might not be super fresh memory for him.

But, how on earth could this guy think that picking Joe Biden for his VP was an example of good judgment?  Biden’s been rotten for decades. Why this guy still has any credibility, let alone public office, is beyond me.

I love Youtube...

I found a fascinating article yesterday about Hillary in her new role as Secretary of State. She is facing criticism from some who find her bluntness alarming.

On a recent trip to Asia, Hillary acknowledged publically that, while she would mention the human rights issue with Chinese officials, she was not too optimistic on that front because “we pretty much know what they're going to say."

This development is interesting to me on many levels. First, you have the issue of whether or not her “bluntness” is magnified by the fact that she is a woman. Let’s face it - bluntness is still not a quality that is appreciated generally in women. Often times, when a woman says what she’s really thinking (i.e. being honest despite the potential to hurt someone’s “feelings”... or ego), she is labeled as... well, it rhymes with witchy.

Then you have the issue of whether or not such bluntness is really effectual in these circumstances. What’s the point of it? Sure, it’s good to be honest, but are you giving up leverage on that issue by essentially admitting defeat?

John Bolton, the former U.N. ambassador known for his own bluntness, had an interesting take on the situation:

"The issue with whatever she says, candid or not, is whether it has an objective in mind, or whether she is just running at the mouth. This is the difference between an executive branch official and a senator, academic, think-tanker, reporter, whatever. Executive branch officials, by definition, are not just bloviating, but executing policies."

This leads me to my next question. How does the apparent dismissal of this issue by Hillary mesh with President Obama’s feelings on the issue? Remember him? He’s kinda Hillary’s boss. My guess is that he would not want to be perceived as giving up ground when it comes to human rights.

So where is the mainstream media who covered Palin? Here’s a perfect opportunity for them to write about another woman in politics “going rogue.” And yet, that’s an angle of this story that I’ve not seen really explored, at least not at the level it should be. Is this really the Obama administration’s position?

Another analyst interviewed asked the question:

“Is Hillary Clinton going to not mention women's rights to the Saudis because they already know what we think?"

That’s an interesting point – bringing the women’s rights issue into the fold (not something that would have happened if our secretary of state were a man right now). But actually, I think women’s rights are already implicated in this story; however, once again, that’s an angle no one is talking about.

When we talk about “human rights” and China, we all think about Tibet. But doesn’t the “human rights issue” also include the one-child policy that has led to the slaughter of millions of baby girls in a culture in which sons are valued so much more than daughters?

I think it does.

And I also think this means that Hillary is not going to address this issue either, which leads me to ask, why? Perhaps, once again, she doesn’t see the Chinese government budging on this issue and doesn’t think it’s worth her time. Perhaps, despite being “pro-choice,” she doesn’t care about women who would like to choose to have babies rather than kill them. Or, perhaps, (and I think this is the most likely scenario) Hillary is pretty much asexual when it comes to her job, and so pragmatism is her number one priority.

I don’t think we’ll ever know the answer to most of these questions. After all, it’s almost impossible to read a woman’s mind... or so I’ve been told.

First thing’s first... Pat Murphy... what a moron.

The second big political story of the weekend (at least for me) was the new developments in the Chandra Levy case. It seems officials are now going to arrest an illegal immigrant (who is already in prison for attacking other women in the park where Levy’s body was found) for the young intern’s murder.

Of course, this means that former Congressman Gary Condit, the married legislator who had been having an affair with Levy is now suspicion-free. In case you’d forgotten, at the time she went missing, many suspected that Condit had something to do with Levy’s disappearance.

I read that story over the weekend, and then I came across an opinion piece on the subject that really lit my fuse. It read:

 

Gary Condit Deserves an Apology

My question is, what the hell for?

This guy cheated on his wife. He was a powerful congressman who slept with a low level intern who was needed his help for career advancement. It’s kind of like a professor sleeping with a student... the power disparity makes in inherently wrong.

He was never charged with a crime and never even really classified as a suspect. So, he had to answer some questions from the police. Big freaking deal. When a woman goes missing, the first person the police look at is the “significant other.” If you are a guy and you choose to screw more than one woman, you double your chances that something might happen to one of your paramours and you will have to account for your whereabouts. That’s just how the cookie crumbles.

Further, this guy was less than honest with the police. He refused to answer when police specifically asked him if he and Levy were in a relationship. He wouldn’t admit to the affair (which made him look guilty) even after Levy’s family members came out and said that they knew all about it. Hmmm... a powerful politician who seems desperate to cover up an affair. Nah, that’s not suspicious at all.

The country would have had a lot more respect for the guy if he had just admitted to the affair and done what he could to help the police. In the post-Clinton era, that would have been slightly scandalous, but not the end of the world.

This guy brought this all on himself. If anyone owes anyone an apology, it’s Condit, who can apologize to his wife, his kids, his constituents and the rest of us for the embarrassment he caused us all.

I can’t help but think about that when I think about the Democrat-controlled Iowa legislature this year.

The Dems have had a firm grasp on the reigns of power for quite a while now here in Iowa, and it’s almost as if they think they are invincible... that their power can never be taken away. And because of that, I think they might be getting a little careless.

Take, for example, the gas tax. I don’t know anyone (outside of the legislature), Democrat or Republican, who is an average, non-political “Joe” who thinks the gas tax is a good idea. A lot of people I know are hurting financially, and the idea of paying more for gas right now really angers them. Yes, I’m seeing actual anger.

Then you’ve got the prevailing wage legislation. Sure, it sounds great... let’s pay the little guys more. Makes you feel warm and fuzzy all over... until you get your next property tax bill and/or increased assessment, which has gone up drastically so that your local governments can fund their now-much-more-expensive infrastructure projects.

And speaking of infrastructure, I’m still waiting to hear if we are going pay for infrastructure with an increase in the gas tax, or with Chester’s $700 million bonding proposal. Which is it guys? Or are you going to shove both down our throats? Or is this yet another pissing match between Chester “Bondo” Culver and the legislative “tax-‘em-like-there’s-no-tomorrow” statehouse Dems (a/k/a Gronstal and Co)?

Despite the fact that we now have millions to spend on infrastructure from the federal porkulus bill, I’m still putting my money on the Dems raising the gas tax AND forcing us to go $700 million in to debt (not that I gamble, of course).

Here’s the thing. People are not happy with government right now, and they are actually paying attention. If the Dems keep this up, they are going to take a hit from a lot of people who are sick and tired of giving too much of their hard-earned paychecks to the government, only to see it wasted.

Remember that this is still almost the biggest proposed budget in Iowa history, yet the Dems still want to raise taxes and whine about how they just don’t have the money to fix the crumbling roads? This is still almost the biggest proposed budget in Iowa history, but, chances are high that when you stop in to your local county courthouse to pay your next bogus speeding ticket (which the officer issued on orders that he needed to do his part to generate more revenue), the door to the court clerk’s office will be locked because we just don’t have enough money to keep the courts open.

This is not gonna go over well with the masses. But, the Dems are too far gone on their power trip to notice.