……………… protects property rights. My Senator, Pat Ward of West Des Moines, gave the Iowa political reader a very clear expression of a major difference between Republicans and Democrats in today’s DM Register.
A fundamental premise of the GOP is a belief that private property rights are essential to a free people. Protection of those rights doesn’t require approval of each person’s use of their property, but it does require respect for an individuals right to use their property. Sen. Ward’s application of this premise to a policy choice, the “smoking ban”, is precisely the difference that we need to teach the voters-‘cause they aren’t getting the information from any reportage they are likely to hear, see or read.
No one makes anyone enter a public accomodation that permits smoking. Authorizing municipalities to prohibit smoking in purely private property is another huge step toward the totalitarian socialist state that Democrats pursue. Thanks for making it clear, Pat.
A fundamental premise of the GOP is a belief that private property rights are essential to a free people. Protection of those rights doesn’t require approval of each person’s use of their property, but it does require respect for an individuals right to use their property. Sen. Ward’s application of this premise to a policy choice, the “smoking ban”, is precisely the difference that we need to teach the voters-‘cause they aren’t getting the information from any reportage they are likely to hear, see or read.
No one makes anyone enter a public accomodation that permits smoking. Authorizing municipalities to prohibit smoking in purely private property is another huge step toward the totalitarian socialist state that Democrats pursue. Thanks for making it clear, Pat.
3 comments:
This was written by Christopher Rants on his website.
Last week the Labor Committee took up the bill designed to gut Iowa’s right-to-work law. In our effort to protect the freedoms of workers in this state, Republicans offered numerous amendments, one in particular that would have gotten rid of the problem unions have with so called "freeloaders".
We’ve been hearing this whole time how the major problem is that unions have to provide services to non-union members and that’s just not fair. However, their proposal forces people who do not want to be in a union to pay dues to something they believe is fundamentally wrong.
This amendment would have allowed for unions to represent ONLY THEIR members. Those members that choose to voluntarily join their union—all others they would not be required to represent. If this whole debate is truly about unions having to represent people that do not belong to their unions and if this whole debate is truly NOT about bringing in an additional $15 million to union coffers they would have accepted this amendment, with open arms.
The amendment failed on a party-line vote. It became crystal clear that Democrats and unions are ready to roll in the money, regardless if they have to roll over the rights and freedoms of Iowa workers to get there. Democrats shouted from the dome of the capitol that fair share is about adding $15 million to union war chests….the cat didn’t make it out of the tree alive.
Clearly the debate is NOT about being fair. It's about forcibly taking money out of hard working middle class family's pockets.
What would John Edwards do? Into which America does union thuggery of middle class workers fall?
---
If this whole debate is truly about unions having to represent people that do not belong to their unions and if this whole debate is truly NOT about bringing in an additional $15 million to union coffers they would have accepted this amendment, with open arms.
The amendment failed on a party-line vote.
US President Tim Kalemkarian, US Senate Tim Kalemkarian, US House Tim Kalemkarian: best major candidate.
Post a Comment